< January 17	January 19 >

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 "?!" 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genocide deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Pure POV, and intended for those who deny the Armenian Genocide. Note that in addition to being proposed here, it must be removed from living people articles immediately, per WP:BLP. —Ashley Y 23:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. There can be a Holocaust deniers category but not genocide deniers? Why is that? Because the Armenian genocide is merely an Armenian allegation? That is still POV on your part, Ashley. But how is a Genocide deniers category (I don't see Armenian mentioned anywhere) pure POV? There are plenty of other genocide deniers who could be added to that list, many of whom are not even associated with the Armenian genocide. Are you perhaps a protege or admirer of Bernard Lewis and upset that his name was justly included in this category? Hakob 02:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's POV to call someone a "genocide denier" when the details of what they said vs. the available facts are always particular. In the case of a living person, it will almost always be contrary to WP:BLP. And I know nothing about and have no interest in whether the Armenian whatever was genocide or not. I'm not a particular fan of Lewis either. —Ashley Y 05:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, meaningless POV category. It fails to specify what genocide someone is "denying," and will inevitably equivocate legitimate historical positions on certain purported genocides with untenable and extremist minority positions on well documented ones. "Holocaust denier," by contrast, is the common term to refer to the deniers of a particular genocide, so the existence of that category by no means provides support for this. Postdlf 05:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Armenian Genocide deniers. I would like to see anyone call for the deletion of that.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you mean "people who deny the Armenian genocide", but that name reads like "Armenian people who deny a genocide". Tricky, no? >Radiant< 16:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't categorize people for every historical opinion they may have; you'd have to establish that deniers of the Armenian Genocide are of a discrete, identifiable character and significance similar to Holocaust deniers, such that it may be integral to and help define an individual's notability. Postdlf 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there exist such deniers whose notability exist mostly because of the denial, Justin McCarthy is one example, Lowry is another, he only became 'notable' after the paper Jay Lifton wrote on him on the Holocaust and Genocide studies Journal and what led to his 'eviction' from the Ottoman chair of history. Kamuran Gurun is another example. Halacoglu was totally unknown before he became 'notable' exclusivaly for the denial. There is also Eric Feigl, who only became notable for the denial. I don't think those who became notable nealy exclusivally because of denial are in shortage. Fad (ix) 02:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I change my vote to a Rename. The category should be renamed Armenian Genocide deniers. Hakob 12:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Baristarim 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Postdlf. Wimstead 21:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --A.Garnet 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I personally oppose to any form of list of people denying genocide, including the Holocaust denial, since it seems to be a target list, but since Wikipedians find it OK in one case, than renaming would be a better option. On the other hand, only obvious deniers who are clearly deniers should be included. Those include Lowry, Lewy, McCarthy, Gurun, etc., but not scholars such as Zurcher. Scholars like Zurcher are not deniers. What I propose for now, is deleting the page for the time being, working on the Armenian genocide denial page, with a section from the official position on what is considered as Armenian genocide denial, so that such a cathegory is clarified as to what is Armenian genocide denial to then creat the page. Fad (ix) 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a category that just sits there begging to be abused and misused. Pinoakcourt 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above, although on this exact basis, we ought to delete the Holocaust deniers category as well. I'm not brave enough to nominate that though! :-/ – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or change. If it means: Deniers of he genocide of Armenians it should be called exactly that. As is, it would logically mean, Deniers of the concept of genocide; there are such scholars, but they don't require a category. I think Faqdix has it right. DGG 03:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Grandmaster 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like someone wants to launch hunting season. And here pray - is just people who fight for freedom of thoughts, for the right to have different opinion.--66.46.197.50 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Holocaust is a well defined legal claim based on a Nuremberg trials, historical research on Nazi period from 1933 - 1945, and tons of available documentation from World War II era. Most importantly it's based on numerous verifiable statements of Hitler and Nazi leadership about the goal of eradicating the Jewish people. While massacres and atrocities in Eastern Anatolia during WW I cannot be denied, "Armenian Genocide", which usually is the one advertised under the general term genocide, seems to be a political speculation used for purely political goals in many countries. The only quote used as a proof is usually the one allegedly made by Adolf Hitler, yet has no legal substance. The term Armenian Genocide intentionally ignores Turkish and Muslim Kurdish victims of massacres during WW I. So this "witch hunt" indirectly restricting the free speech over the events of 1915-1923 in Eastern Anatolia to only the scope of one ethno-political group is not quite legitimate by any means. Atabek 16:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ditto above. --AdilBaguirov 16:33, 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 "?!" 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Literature festivals to Category:Literary festivals

• Rename, "Literary festival" is probably the more common term, and the article is at literary festival. I'm not strongly bothered either say, but the article and the category should use the same term, and one of the category names should be a redirect. Twittenham 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --lquilter 23:18, 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 "?!" 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wasn't the protagonist category deleted as being too vague to define. Buffy is a protagonist - is Willow? Every character of Lost? All three sisters on Charmed? Both brothers on Supernatural? Every hero on Heroes? Category adds little value, a character's relevance to plot should be handled in the article itself as it is highly dependent on context. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and per prior precedents on other protagonist by media categories, the parent, protagonists, and the related fictional antagonists. To the extent that any given character within a specific work of fiction can be clearly identified as a protagonist, this won't always remain stable for characters used in serial works or other multiple works (such as Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker, Willow from Buffy, or supervillains like Deadpool or Venom who were the protagonists of their own comic book title), and it's useless and uninformative to lump all of these together. "Oooh, Andy Sipowicz was a television protagonist. I wonder what other characters functioned as protagonists in the history of television." Postdlf 23:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to characters sliding between functioning as a protagonist or antagonist, other characters may be supporting in some works, but the lead protagonist in others; weren't there Star Trek novels just about Sulu? See also The Zeppo. "Protagonist" is just too context dependent to function as a category. Postdlf 16:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the many previous deletions of "hero" and "villain" and "antagonist" and "protagonist" categories. Otto4711 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very similar to other villain/hero categories that have been routinely deleted as being too subjective. Dugwiki 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:54, 24 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 moved to CfD speedy rename section. David Kernow (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patent Medicines renamed to Category:Patent medicines

• Rename for wikipedia alphabetization conventions. --lquilter 21:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The original category creator has been notified of this debate. --lquilter 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  and said "Your change is correct!" on my talk page --lquilter 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 22:15, 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 keep/withdrawn. the wub "?!" 16:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian_Forces into Category:Military_of_Canada

• Merge, "Canadian Forces" is a redundant category comprising topics that belong in "Military of Canada". Flakeloaf 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn per MCG's comment. I retract the nomination. Flakeloaf 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have Category:Royal Canadian Navy, Category:Royal Canadian Air Force, so it is appropriate to have Canadian Forces as a category, otherwise the others should also be eliminated. The force structure of Canada was revised into a unitary force called the Canadian Forces. 70.51.8.140 07:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment except that the Navy and Air Force are part of the military. The Canadian Forces are the "Military of Canada" Flakeloaf 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how do we then categorise topics relating to the RCN, RCAF, etc? Subcategorisation is no bad thing thing—Category:Military of the United Kingdom does something similar for the Army, RN, and RAF. --Xdamr^talk 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying about the CF being a distinct entity from any of the services that preceded it, and I agree with you that those services should have their own categories. One can talk about the RCAF without involving the rest of the military; however, the opposite is not true. "The CF" means all three elements and their collective histories together, and it is at that point that the distinction between "articles that pertain to The CF" and "articles about Canada's military" seems to blur. Flakeloaf 18:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per anon user. GreenJoe 07:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 70.51.8.140. Since the 1968 unification, the 'Canadian Forces' represent a separate and distinct element of the 'Military of Canada'. 'Canadian Forces', in the case of this category, is used in a formal sense—representing the present-day, unified Canadian military. This is not a case of colloquial usage, a usage synonymous with 'Military of Canada'. Xdamr^talk 16:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then this is a category for post-unification topics alone? Does the historical context needed to thoroughly describe these topics not exceed the limitations of cat:CF? Flakeloaf 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So "Canadian Forces" is not to "Military of Canada" as "United States Armed Forces" is to "Military of the United States"? Postdlf 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not exactly. Xdamr correctly points out that "Canadian Forces" refers to our military as it is today, whereas "Military of Canada" encompasses all topics relating to any of Canada's armed forces over the country's entire history (including pre-Westminster engagements, which would overlap with cat:Military of the UK). My contention is that cat:CF may be too limited a subset of cat:MoC to merit its own category. Flakeloaf 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "Canadian Forces" are the single unified service in Canada, so saying "Canadian Forces" would be more like saying "US Army" if there were no seperate Navy, Airforce or Marines in the US. MCG 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's right, it is not—the 'Canadian Forces' are a unified amalgam of the old Canadian army, RCN, and RCAF. There is no longer such a thing as the Royal Canadian Navy, instead we have the maritime element of the Canadian Forces, and so on. 'Canadian Forces' is the single and sole fighting institution in Canada.

This isn't a precedent that has been copied by any of the major world militaries, so it probably looks a little strange. Of course, whether it was a good thing for Canada to do is another question...

Xdamr^talk 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having marched in a few purple trade parades I've often asked myself the same question :). Flakeloaf 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically this category only excludes historical or defunct military units and topics, but is otherwise synonymous with "military of Canada"? Postdlf 17:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as these topics do not relate to the modern institution of the Canadian Forces, then yes, they are excluded. --Xdamr^talk 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as there is Category:Military history of Canada to separate out anything that is not current, I'm not seeing the benefit of a category just for what the military is presently named, as it would contain anything in the military category that is not in the military history subcategory, correct? Because of this, I think it should be merged. Postdlf 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Military_of_Canada should contain both the historical and the current. Therefore, it can include both Category:Military history of Canada and Category:Canadian Forces. MCG 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per 70.51.8.140 and Xdamr. --Kmsiever 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The "Canadian Forces" is a specific organization. It has only existed for the past 40 years, but it is still a distinct organization from its predecesors: the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Airforce. In fact, it is effectively an equavalent organization to its predecessors (all are considered services). In addition to being a distinct organization, Category:Canadian Forces provides a location to show the elements of the modern Canadian military organization:
• Category:Canadian Forces
  • Category:Canadian Forces bases
  • Category:Canadian Forces Enviromental Commands
    • Category:Canadian Forces Air Command
    • Category:Canadian Forces Land Force Command
    • Category:Canadian Forces Maritime Command
  • Category:Canadian Forces Operational Commands
    • Category:Canadian Special Operations Force Command
    • Category:Canadian Expiditionary Force Command
    • Category:Canada Command
    • Category:Canadian Operational Support Command

Rather than proposing this merger, I think it would be far more productive to visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force (where Canadian military categories are being discussed) and propose content guidelines to help define where things belong. MCG 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Very compelling! Thanks for explaining this. On its face the category appeared redundant but with what you've just said it now makes perfect sense. Flakeloaf 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussion. Cloachland 22:21, 25 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 to Category:Glens of Scotland. the wub "?!" 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Straths and glens to Category:Valleys of Scotland

• Rename: for consistency with other "valleys of" categories; because the category is hard to find for people who aren't aware of Scotland's specific terminology; and because not every valley in Scotland is called a strath or a glen. Blisco 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: with reservations, amd certainly not "Valleys of Scotland". Glens of Scotland would be preferable. "Valley" is not a term that is used in Scotland with the exception of a few instances in the Borders eg Ettrick Valley. This is only because of the historic consanguinuity of people of the the Borderland and its effect on language there. "Dale" as in Liddesdale and in the far North, as in Berriedale are loanwords from Old Norse. The vast majority of so called valleys in Scotland are referred to as "Glen", irrespective of whether that is their official name. Compare Lochs of Scotland, there are only three bodies of water called lake, the Lake of Menteith, Pressmennan Lake, and the Lake of the Hirsel all in the Lowlands, and these are usually just referred to locally as "the Loch". Although the traditional meaning of Glen means Steepsided, as opposed to a wide shallow Strath, it is common parlance to refer to all such geographical features as "The Glen", both Lowland where there are few Strath-names, and in the Highlands. Brendandh 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: regardless of what specific valleys are called, "valley" is a universal geographical term that any geographer describing such a glen or strath would use. Strath Spey may not be a Valley but it's still a valley. All over the British Isles, not just in Scotland, the names of valleys, lakes, streams etc. typically incorporate a local word for the feature in question (Dale, Tarn, Burn, Brook and so on) - but in terms of geographical categorisation they're still valleys, lakes and streams. --Blisco 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. As per Blisco the names of indidivual whatevers aren't really the issue. Twittenham 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, with caveat. Not all straths and glens are in Scotland. If places like Strath-Taieri are included in this category, they should be removed before renaming takes place. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would happen as a matter of course – part of the process of renaming a category is editing all the categorised articles and changing the name. --Blisco 13:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Ah, apparently it's all done by bots, so non-Scottish members would have to be removed manually. --Blisco 10:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (Altered, see below) - both words - "strath" and "glen" are common nouns in Scottish Standard English, being strongly preferred over the "valley" (which sounds, quite frankly, absurd in a Scottish context). It is Wikipedia policy to use national varieties of English: we use SSE in Scotland-related articles, and should also be doing so in categories. --Mais oui! 08:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Glens of Scotland per Brendandh. --Mais oui! 10:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename with Grutness's caveat. Mais oui!'s argument would be reasonable if it wasn't for the fact that it's hard enough to find the right category, and non-standard naming just makes it that much harder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Alternative rename per Brendanh: *Glens of Scotland*. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Glens of Scotland per Brendandh. Who, I wonder, would be confused by this? Re Blisco's comment, I might just as easily say "they're still glens, lochs and burns." I note with amusement that Blisco is in the cat: 'Fells of the Lake District'. Shouldn't that be 'Bens', or 'Hills of the Lake District' or something in common usage? Better still let's categorise all UK watercourses as creeks - or is it inappropriate to make these decisions purely based on the volume of Wikipedians who might habitually use the words as opposed to the almost universal usage in the location under consideration? Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Mais oui!, but if renamed, my support would go to Glens of Scotland as per Brendandh et al. Using "valleys of Scotland" is a bit like saying "America's favourite colours" (sic) — perhaps correct linguistically, but against common sense, and liable to cause future problems and repeated reversions. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment: as "valleys" is unlikely to gain consensus, I'd be happy with Glens of Scotland, providing we're agreed that "glen" can be used a generic term for any Scottish valley. This is not about imposing an alien variety of English, it's about categorising geographical features by geographical rather than toponymic criteria. (By the same token I'd favour merging Lakes of Scotland into Lochs of Scotland.) The word "glen" is at least moderately well known outside/outwith Scotland, more so than "strath", I think. (This is more significant than you might think: imagine a non-Scot looking for articles on Scottish valleys, who makes their way to Geography of Scotland. They look under "V" and find nothing... so where do they look next? If they haven't given up by this point, they'll most probably look under "G".) Whatever the category is called, the "of Scotland" bit is necessary so as to exclude the likes of Strath-Taieri, which belongs somewhere like Geography of New Zealand and not in a sub-category of Valleys of the United Kingdom. --Blisco 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Further comment:Fair enough. Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Valleys of Scotland for international intelligibility. Sumahoy 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Glens of Scotland per Brendandh and the National-Varieties-of-English arguement.--WilliamThweatt 04:55, 2 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 "?!" 16:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, hopelessly subjective and vague, and inextricably OR. The category includes a list of supposed traits these characters share, but it just equivocates all characters that show any degree of vanity, arrogance, ambition, or simply childish self-absorption; nowhere else on earth would you find Macbeth lumped in with Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes and the holographic Doctor from Star Trek: Voyager.
Lest someone argue that a precise definition could be arrived at, it will still always be completely unstable and meaningless without context, as an intra-textual comparison to other characters in the same work to judge who is narcissistic will yield different results than an inter-textual comparison between characters of different works (everyone in Beverly Hills: 90210 is probably narcissistic by the standards of Little House on the Prairie, even if not intended as such within that show).
This is regrettably the third nomination for this category, the previous two having ended "no consensus" despite the complete failure of the largely unelaborated and often irrelevant "keep" comments to address any of the criticisms raised. This should instead follow the deletion precedents on similar character-by-personality trait categories, such as promiscuous fictional characters or hyperactive fictional characters. Postdlf 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~ BigrTex 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --lquilter 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Narcissus himself is absent, which seems to indicate such categories are nothing more than lumps of American television characters according to stock traits ("the dim one" "the loose one" "the retentive one" etc.).-choster 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- so add Narcissus to the category, lazy-ass.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.124.166 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 19 January 2007

• Delete. per nom. TonyTheTiger 22:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per POV problems. Just for pro forma purpose, note the two previous CFDs for this category, here and here. Otto4711
• Keep - STOP DELETING EVERY FICTIONAL CHARACTER CATEGORY!!! Anyway, if you didn't manage to get rid of it the first two times, what makes you think that it will go away this time? - Ndrly 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is the third nomination of this category. Each nomination has been made by a different person. This demonstrates that the category has problems. If this category is kept, it needs changes. Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category requires making subjective judgments about the characters, which clearly runs into POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 10:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete riddled with WP:OR and will always be POV. The Rambling Man 13:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was disgusted that this received no consensus. Shouldn't the invalid "I like this category" votes for keep simply have not been counted on account of them failing to make a point which counters any votes to delete? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of the criteria listed mentions "Takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends". So every politician, bussinesperson and quite a number of soldiers are valid for inclusion? User:Dimadick
• Delete, waaaaay too subjective. Recury 17:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, definitely NOT NPOV. --Releeshan 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reading the other discussions, I'm a little surprised the result was "no consensus". Either way, though, the question of whether or not a character is a narcissist is subjective. Where do you draw the line between being a narcissist, being egotistical, or simply being overconfident of your abilities? What about fictional characters who say they are "the best" and are right? Seems like deciding whether or not someone is a narcissist is too open to debate. (The same argument would apply to a list article of narcissists too, so I'd be against listifying). Dugwiki 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Didn't we already delete this phenomenally subjective category at least twice already? Doczilla 07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Seeing as the term "Narcissist" refers to an actual mental disorder, perhaps it would be prudent to re-name the category "Fictional egomaniacs."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.35 (talk • contribs)

• That's just as POV, if not worse. The sociopath, narcissist and psychopath categories only survived this long because they sound vaguely professional but are in fact no less POV than "fictional overeaters" or "hyperactive fictional characters".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, two more categories that shouldn't have been deleted. Pretty soon they'll be saying "Fictional characters with the power to shapeshift" is too subjective to define. Who renamed that anyway? "Fictional characters with the power to shapeshift" is much harder to say than just "Fictional shapeshifters." But I digress. The point is, Fictional egomaniacs is much easier to define than Fictional narcissists because it just means someone who loves or has an inflated opinion of themselves. For instance people like Hyacinth Bucket or Cutler Beckett. Anon (let no-one say my comment was unsigned). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.18 (talk • contribs)

• Please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ "Anon" is not an acceptable signature because it doesn't identify under what account a post was made. It would also be best if you registered an account to get a stable identity rather than a shifting IP address.
• So how do you identify when a fictional character has an "inflated" self-opinion? Postdlf 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they don't care for anyone but themselves. And they think they're so good, but seriously, they suck. Anything else I could list? - Ndrly 06:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With characters like Count Olaf and Jadis it's obvious because they never stop going on about how brilliant they are. It's almost as obvious in the case of Yzma or say the Fairy Godmother from Shrek 2 because they have images of themselves everywhere. It's more subtle in the case of such characters as Cutler Beckett or Ganon but it's apparent in their mannerisms, ambitions and the way they treat everyone else like inferiors or slaves. ~~Anon~~

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 speedy rename. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:C.D. Chivas USA to Category:Chivas USA

• Rename. The team is no longer referred to as "C.D. Chivas USA". It's either "Club Deportivo Chivas USA" or most commonly, just "Chivas USA". The article has been moved accordingly. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom -- USA Major League Soccer team and related articles. // FrankB 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 22:16, 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 rename. the wub "?!" 16:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Barbadian telecommunications companies to Category:Telecommunications companies of Barbados

Propose renaming Category:Communications companies of Barbados to

Category:Telecommunications companies of Barbados

• Rename both - see Category:telecommunications companies by country. Both categories have the same content. LukeHoC 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom, though this case seems a bit of overcategorization suggesting 'by country' might be better off 'by region'. Sigh. Never mind, I can imagine that FLAME WAR if that were seriously proposed. // FrankB 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Wimstead 21:50, 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 merge. the wub "?!" 16:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Schools in Oxfordshire, or Rename to Category:Schools in Banbury. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Schools in Oxfordshire. Banburyshire is an informal term. It is not a genuine county and has never been so. It does not have generally agreed boundaries. We should not allow categorisation by informal region as it will lead to duplication, inconsistency, and confusion, not to mention disputes between readers about which definition to use that will not do anything to develop a better wikipedia. Category:Schools in Banbury would simply be inaccurate. Chicheley 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in support of propriety. TonyTheTiger 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but - since Banburyshire often includes parts of Northants and Warks, first check that all the schools in there are in Oxon! Grutness...wha? 23:58, 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 rename to Category:Turner Classic Movies shows. It seems the majority of related categories use "shows" and also avoids "programs"/"programmes" arguments. the wub "?!" 16:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Turner Classic Movies shows, convention of Category:Television series by network. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Turner Classic Movies programs just because I don't like the word "shows" in category names because "programs" seems more encyclopedic. Otto4711 03:55, 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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 20:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Predominantly African American Christian denominations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The category is based on a vaguely-stated arbitrary inclusion limit, a form of overcategorization. Should this include churches where over 50% of the people are African American, 75% African American, or 90% African American? It is unclear, nor should such an inclusion limit be applied. Dr. Submillimeter 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List can be maintained on appropriate article. Xiner (talk, email) 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep. This is a very useful category. This is not an arbitrary grouping; the groups listed predominantly African American denominations much like the historically black colleges and universities, for which we have a category: Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the United States. Look through every denomination in the cat and you'll see that, whether s/he likes the fact of not, most of them hardly have any members who are not African American. Thus, the category is relevant and accurate. Please take your work elsewhere and improve Wikipedia rather than trying to deplete it, thanks. Badagnani 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to something like Category:Historically African American Christian denominations. We categorize other people and things which are "historically African American" (or "Black," as the case may be). See:Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the United States, for example. "Predominantly" IS too vague. But all the denominations included in this cat WOULD consider themselves HISTORICALLY African American, and proud of it! Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rename is clearly warranted. This suggested rename is better than the current category title. I am willing to change my vote, but I want to let the discussion continue before making a vote change. Dr. Submillimeter 16:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, why not do a bit of research? Are you averse to this? From my experience, these denominations actually are called "Predominantly African American (or Black) Christian Denominations"; the universities are called "Historically..." "Traditionally" might sometimes also be used. Since you're the nominator, why not do a quick Google search to see the relative frequency of all of these permutations, then we'll use the term that is most widely used rather than making up a term that you somehow think is "better." Badagnani 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a useful and important category, but we do need a better name for it. In the UK, these seem to be called simply "Black Churches" (or "Black-led Churches"), but that isn't terminiology I much like, nor does it fit with current American terminology. Unless someone can come up with a better idea, I suggest dropping the word "predominantly" and calling these "African American Christian denominations", with an explanation in the category text. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
• Keep Although I think Black church or "the black church", in some cases, is more often used even in the US. Still "black church" might mean different things in other countries or imply something not intended and unhelpful. As is seems fine.--T. Anthony 05:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arbitrary inclusino limit. You cannot objectively define what "predominantly" means. >Radiant< 08:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this would seem more of an argument for renaming, not deletion. In fact, these denominations have few if any non-African Americans. The category is neither arbitrary nor subjective. Thus, the argument raised shows ignorance of the subject. I would ask that editors please not vote unless you have first carefully considered the issue and read through the relevant articles. The editor above clearly has done neither. Badagnani 08:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the name looks clumsy to me but is clearly in common use (try googling on Predominantly African American). roundhouse 10:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• change to Historically Black Churches, in exact analogy with Historically Black college and universitiesDGG 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:35, 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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 20:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clergy of predominantly African American Christian denominations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The category is based on a vaguely-stated arbitrary inclusion limit, a form of overcategorization. Should this include churches where over 50% of the people are African American, 75% African American, or 90% African American? It is unclear, nor should such an inclusion limit be applied. Dr. Submillimeter 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to something like Category:Clergy of historically African American Christian denominations. We categorize other people and things which are "historically African American" (or "Black," as the case may be). See:Category:Historically black universities and colleges in the United States, for example. "Predominantly" IS too vague. But all the denominations included in this cat WOULD consider themselves HISTORICALLY African American, and proud of it! The clergy would, too!! Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This suggested rename is better than the current category title. I am willing to change my vote, but I want to let the discussion continue before making a vote change.Dr. Submillimeter 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as above. Badagnani 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Whatever decision is made about this category should also be applied to its parent Category:Predominantly African American Christian denominations.
  I think that "predominantly" is too vague, and while historically is better, I think it's not quite there. I thought about "majority", but that still seems a bit arbitrary ... so how about omitting any adjective, and just calling it Category:Clergy of African American Christian denominations, with a lengthier explanation in the category? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
• Keep for now as a conceptually useful and important category, but I hope to be able to support a renaming if a better title emerges. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created it, but the particular name is not very important to me. Whatever you agree, as long as it doesn't thoroughly compromise the idea, is fine by me.--T. Anthony 10:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. >Radiant< 09:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. roundhouse 10:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete overcategorization. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:36, 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 merge. the wub "?!" 16:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean phrases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We already have Category:Korean words and phrases. Wikipeditor 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete not sure if it was ever populated, but it is now empty. Thus delete is the appropriate action now. TonyTheTiger 22:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Basically redundant. bibliomaniac15 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Otto4711 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect Pinoakcourt 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. This seems to belong to the department of redundancy department.... NDCompuGeek 06:40, 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. the wub "?!" 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponymous laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete (preferred) or at least Rename and split: Please split into Category:Eponymous natural laws, Category:Eponymous statutes, and Category:Eponymous rules of thumb. Mixing together the Newton's laws of motion, Meghan's law-type statutes, and Godwin's Law is an abomination made possible only by a historical accident of the English language, and is not helpful to any of the enclosing category trees. lquilter 15:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although I just added this category to an article (Wien approximation), I now think that grouping these laws based on the origins of their names is inappropriate. Even if the laws are dvidied into three sections (natural laws, statues, and rules of thumb), the grouping still does not gather together articles that have anything in common other than their names. For example, does Hess's law have anything in common with Hubble's law or Hesse's Rule aside from the origin of the name? The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial characteristic. Xiner (talk, email) 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Categories shouldn't be based on such superficial, coincidental relationships. Postdlf 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - even better to delete. I've modified the nomination to reflect my change of opinion. Why didn't I think to delete? --lquilter 16:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly listify This seems to be too trivial an aspect of a subject to be worth categorizing, especially when cross-indexing across so many fields of interest. However, an article that talks about the history of eponymous naming and why things are named after people might be interesting. So if you had a referenced article talking about why people are so fascinated with naming things after people, I could see a list article being written that is associated with it to provide notable examples. Just some hypothetical thinking. Dugwiki 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too trivial an aspect to bother with. --Xdamr^talk 23:28, 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 "?!" 16:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only one member, and it's a strub. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity. Xiner (talk, email) 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - eponymous categories should be only for exceptionally fruitful topics/orgs/people. --lquilter 16:41, 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 rename. the wub "?!" 16:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming : I think Category:Tahirid dynasty is better because the other dynasty categorie are like that as in Category:Afsharid dynasty , Category:Achaemenid dynasty , Category:Sassanid dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soroush83 (talk • contribs)

• Rename per (anonymous) nom. Pinoakcourt 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:31, 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 keep. the wub "?!" 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Settlements by region to Category:Populated places by region

Also, all of the Category:Settlements in ... to Category:Populated places in ....

• Rename, According to Wiktionary, 'settlement' means "A colony newly established; a place or region newly settled."[1] 'Settlement' also carries some political baggage because of its use in Israeli settlement. 'Populated places' is a more descriptive and neutral term for, uh..., populated places. Donald Albury 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure how to include all of the 'Settlements in ...' categories, but almost of all of them need to be covered by whatever decision is made here. There are a few categories in the tree that probably should not be renamed, such as Category:Israeli settlements, but almost all of the existing categories with 'settlement' in the name are misusing the word. -- Donald Albury 12:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The meaning of 'settlement' is not confined to a colony or place newly settled. If Wiktionary suggests this then it is incorrect. According to my paper dictionary here, 'settlement' encompasses any collection of dwellings which form a community.

I've no view on the Israeli connection, it certainly doesn't seem a compelling reason to rename in my view—other editors might think differently. However 'populated places' seems vaguely clumsy and seems to subtly shift the emphasis in a way which I can't quite put my finger on, but which seems to me to be wrong.

Xdamr^talk 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Please cite this dictionary, as I have not been able to find one that gives such a definition. -- Donald Albury 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Xdamr. Pinoakcourt 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why? -- Donald Albury 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's possible to arrive at a definition for settlement, but I hold less hope for populated places. Xiner (talk, email) 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The dictionary definitions of 'settlement' do not support this category's name. -- Donald Albury 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The Wiktionary definition is incomplete and manages to omit the most frequent meaning of "settlement", which is the one that has been used in the various Category names that include it. HeartofaDog 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please cite where 'settlement' is defined as used in this category. -- Donald Albury 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Settlements is the proper term for collective human habitations: cities, towns, villages, as it is used throughout WP. See Settlement, Category:Settlements, Category:Settlements by region, Category:Settlements in the United States and their subcategories. Thanks Hmains 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, please cite where 'settlement' is so defined. -- Donald Albury 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Wiktionary entry needs to be amended if that is all it says. Wimstead 21:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The dictionaries I have found all limit 'settlement' as used for human communities to mean a colony or a community no bigger than a small village. Unless you can cite a reliable source that says otherwise, the defintion given on the category page is OR. -- Donald Albury 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, my paper dictionary (the only one of mine that I'm able to check at the moment) has a definition of 'settlement' which encompasses this usage. The relevant part of the definition is as follows:

Settlement (n)

...

8. A collection of dwellings forming a community, esp. on a frontier.

...

(Taken from the Collins English Dictionary (HarperCollins, 2000)).

Xdamr^talk 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I'm kind of agnostic about renaming the category, as I don't think "settlement" is the single catch-all phrase for the entire tree of articles that it covers now. But at the same time, "populated place" isn't all that much better. I might note that the United Nations Human Settlements Programme [2] seems to use the term settlement subsume all sizes of human habitats within its scope. However, right now the hierarchy is somewhat confused by mixing together actual settlements with administrative/political subdivisions. It's not a huge problem, but for example, some townships would quite easily fit under the rubric of either settlement or populated place, but there are also quite a lot of other townships for which that is simply a bizarre distortion. older ≠ wiser 03:12, 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 "?!" 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries by denomination to Category:Christian missionaries by denomination

• Rename - This is a category clearly intended for people of various Christian denominations. The category name should be changed to reflect that. Dr. Submillimeter 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - it is given as a subcat of Category:Christian missionaries roundhouse 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Kittybrewster 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename whereas these are all Christian denominations. However, there are missionaries of other religions which should have a cat system, too. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyWhere appropriate, the other religions do already have sub-categories of Category:Missionaries: see for example Category:Hindu missionaries and Category:Muslim missionaries. However, those religions do not (so far as I am aware use the term "denomination" to refer to their different flavours: e.g. the Shia and Sunni strands of Islam are not usually called denominations). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, for clarity. (See also discussion at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, for clarity. Sumahoy 01:38, 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 'Upmerge to 2 parent cats per nom

Category:American Free Methodist bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessary subcat of Category:Free Methodist bishops, which has only 14 members (this subdivision contains only 4 articles). BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Free Methodist bishops and Category:American Methodist bishops. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The division is not warranted at this time. Dr. Submillimeter 12:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. roundhouse 12:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Kittybrewster 12:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I might agree it is unneccesary at this time as a subcat of Category:Free Methodist bishops, it IS helpful as a subcat of Category:American Methodist bishops, which is growing (over 100 articles now). BHG added this as a subcat of Category:Free Methodist bishops. I created it only as a subcat of Category:American Methodist bishops. It seems rather disengenuous to add it as a subcat of a cat, and then nominate it for deletion, at the same time "blaming" the creator of the cat (though he did not subcat it). Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply PW, there is nothing disingenuous at all. The category is an intersection of two categories, and if it exists it should therefore be sub-categorised under both of them. It may be that the outcome of this CFD is to delete the category, but if it stays it should be properly categorised. If you really think that it should not be a sub-category of Category:Free Methodist bishops, then I really think it may be time to revisit the notion of a ban on category creation for you.
    As to size, 100 articles is still thoroughly manageable; but if there is a case for a sub-category of Category:American Methodist bishops, then the Methodist Episcopal Bishops would be a much stronger candidate. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply BHG I did not say I thought it should not be a subcat of Category:Free Methodist bishops. I simply agreed that "at this time" it was not needed there, that cat being still so small. However, I DO believe it is helpful "at this time" as a subcat of Category:American Methodist bishops. You believe this cat still "manageable." I believe it is helpful to subcat them now. And I encourage you (if you are so inclined) to create Category:American Methodist Episcopal bishops, which could actually include both North and South (since it is primarily a subcat of nationality, not denomination) I will be happy to add to it as I am able -- but you wouldn't want me creating it, would you? Pastorwayne 16:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply PW, I fear that you really don't understand this categorisation system at all :(
      You created a category which intersected two categories, and thereby divided the small Category:Free Methodist bishops (though maybe you intended to avoid that by yet more overcategorisaton, through placing articles in both [:Category:Free Methodist bishops]] and Category:American Methodist bishops; you have applied that sort of overcategorisation to most of the aticles you have edited).
      The discussion on Category:American Methodist Episcopal bishops doesn't belong here, but in summary I think that it would be premature and that the combination you suggest would be inappropriate for several reasons. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For What Its Worth More articles are being added to this cat. There are plenty more, justifying the cat's usefulness. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The total population of Category:Free Methodist bishops+Category:American Free Methodist bishops is still only 24. That's still far too small too merit splitting it by nationality. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But there are lots and LOTS of cats with FEWER articles. A cat's helpfulness is judged not just by the number, obviously. Pastorwayne 11:58, 26 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 "?!" 16:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries to Hawaii to Category:Christian missionaries in Hawaii

• Rename - This is for one Christian missionary who worked in Hawaii before Hawaii was annexed by the United States. Therefore, this category should remain. However, the category should be renamed using "in" in place of "to" to conform with other missionary category names. The addition of Christian is optional but strongly suggested (since this was apparently intended for Christian missionaries). In the discussion, please consider the change of "to" to "in" and the addition of "Christian" as two separate issues. Dr. Submillimeter 12:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Pastorwayne 13:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for clarity. (See also discussion at Category talk:Missionaries#Restructuring_and_cleanup). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:59, 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 rename. the wub "?!" 16:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries to California to Category:Christian missionaries in the United States

• Rename - The category currently contains two Christian missionaries who worked within California when California was technically a part of the United States. Subdividing missionary work by state is overcategorization. This category should be renamed to reflect the country in which the individuals were active. (An alternative merge to Category:Christian missionaries would be acceptable.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom as overcategorization. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:46, 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 rename. the wub "?!" 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States National Guard soldiers to Category:Enlisted personnel of the United States Army National Guard

• Rename, To follow WP:MILHIST naming convention (X of Y) and because all articles in this category are about Army NG people (there are no Air Guard people in this category), so a rename would be in order. NDCompuGeek 10:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:47, 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 nominated category i.e. Category:Roman Catholics musicians. Please read the nomination and comments when !voting. the wub "?!" 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it's empty and redundant with Category:Roman Catholic musicians. The creator of it's only 15 years old so I'm guessing it's just an accident.--T. Anthony 10:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A category on musicians who perform religious music is appropriate, but this category appears to categorize musicians regardless of the music that they perform. It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as irrelevant intersection. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a categorically meaningful relationship. Though there are some who make Roman Catholic-themed music, or whose religion has influenced their music in some way, this is clearly not tailored to that, but instead will include any musician who happens to be a self-identified Roman Catholic to whatever degree without regard to whether there is an identified relationship or impact between that faith and that profession. Listify if you want to sort out those for whom this is significant, so you can explain why it is so. Postdlf 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, empty and misnamed. Mairi 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! You might be the first person to realize that what I nominated was Category:Roman Catholics musicians for being empty and redundant. I did not nominate Category:Roman Catholic musicians and I fear now it'll be nominated by some overzealous person terrified by "overcategorization."--T. Anthony 21:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated Category:Roman Catholics musicians for deletion. Thank you for pointing out the oversight. Dr. Submillimeter 00:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 07:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote, but again this isn't really about that. I just nominated this as redundant and misspelled. It's more like a procedural thing. Maybe I should've put this on speedy delete, but the only speedy deal we seem to have for categories is "rename."--T. Anthony 08:05, 20 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 to Category:Referendums. Vegaswikian 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Referendum to Category:Referenda

• Relisting. Relisting nomination from 1 January. The vote was two for Referenda, with maybe one additional, and two for Referendums. Worth trying to see if we can get consensus for one of these two since there was a clear consensus to rename. As a side note, my spell checker only likes Referendums. Vegaswikian 08:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support Referenda. - Kittybrewster 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Referenda. TonyTheTiger 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Referenda. It is the correct linguistic and grammatical form, and it is used regularly by the BBC and many major newspapers. Baristarim 11:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Rename to Category:Referendums, which is the more correct plural. Timrollpickering 09:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I'm naturally inclined towards 'referenda', however taking a look at Referendum I see that the OED deprecates this for what appear to be soundish reasons. Therefore I (somewhat reluctantly) support 'referendums'. :Xdamr^talk 14:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rename to Referendums, which is more common and thus what should be used here. Xiner (talk, email) 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Referendums per OED. Recury 17:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Rename to Referendums, per OED, although like Xdamr I was surprised to discover that I've been engaging in a hyperforeignism all these years. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Rename, with surprise and a certain reluctance, as described by Xdamr and Josiah Rowe. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can someone from the Referenda camp offer a rationale for their vote? It's not preferred in standard English. Xiner (talk, email) 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it stems from an assumption that it follows the 'Stadium'/'Stadia' plural form - that was certainly my initial response until I learned that I was probably wrong. --Xdamr^talk 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dictionary.com gives both "referendums" and "referenda" as plurals. Not convinced that "referenda" is incorrect rather than a preference. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked up one or two paper dictionaries and have found both 'referenda' and 'referendums' listed. Undoubtedly the OED is correct, but I suppose the 'erroneous' spelling has achieved some sort of validity through generations of mistaken usage.

Xdamr^talk 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to say that regardless of which pluralization gets more votes, I would ask the closing admin to rename the category to one of them so that at least the category isn't singular anymore and we don't have to have another discussion on this anytime soon. I'd prefer "referedums" but "referenda" is better than the status quo. Recury 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconded – either rather than no change, please!  David Kernow (talk) 18:32, 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. This is pretty borderline but considering that a no consensus result wouldn't please anyone, I've gone with the majority opinion. the wub "?!" 16:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Sikh singers
• Category:Muslim singers
• Category:Hindu singers

Delete all as intersection by irrelevent religion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like these are being badly misused, but singing can be like poetry to music as they say. There are Sikh singers who sung Sikh Kirtan or did Shabad, and the Muslims have Nasheed. Unfortunately these have been neglected as only the people interested in Bollywood have been using these categories.--T. Anthony 04:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further consideration I've decided the following.

    Merge Category:Muslim singers to Category:Muslim musicians.

    Merge Category:Hindu singers to Category:Hindu musicians.

    Merge Category:Sikh singers to Category:Sikh musicians. (I just created Category:Sikh musicians--T. Anthony 03:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Merge/Merge/Rename per T. Anthony's nom. NDCompuGeek 11:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know enough Sikh, Muslim and Hindu religions to comment on whether they should be merged. However, I will say that there are very likely good candidates for singers whose religious beliefs directly influences their singing profession. Pretty much anybody who is a gospel singer, for example, or a Christian rock band, would appropriately qualify as a "Christian musician" since their beliefs directly impact their music. Therefore articles about the Muslim equivalent of gospel singers or religious bands would also qualify to be categorized as "Muslim singers". What would not qualify would be a singer who happens to be religious but whose music isn't really affected by that. Michael Jackson and his siblings were raised as Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, but his music has nothing to do with that belief, so he shouldn't be classified as a "Christian singer". Dugwiki 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My initial position was that there probably is Sikh or Muslim or Hindu equivalents of Christian music so these should just stay. However we don't have Category:Christian singers, instead we have Category:Christian musicians. So I'm thinking that as Category:Hindu musicians and Category:Muslim musicians aren't overcrowded they can take in the names from here. Why Category:Sikh singers was the only thing for Sikh music is probably because Sikhs are a much smaller religion so it didn't go by standard.--T. Anthony 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom; the categories are generically named without any qualifiers, and so fail to limit themselves to only those for whom this is actually a meaningful relationship, which requires annotation and/or citation to explain. Simply lumping together every singer or musician from all of recorded history who happens to have self-identified as a Muslim, etc., without regard to the style or themes of their music, is random trivia. Postdlf 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the above problem, though, can be corrected by updating the category's description and deleting inappropriate articles, or possibly renaming the category if desired. It wouldn't require deleting the category entirely. Dugwiki 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What if the "inappropriate articles" are put back? These are not categories which can be kept in a useful state, if indeed they have any use to start with, which is extremely doubtful. Honbicot 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there are related genres categories can be created for those genres, but these are not music genre categories and most vocal music has little religious content. Cloachland 22:21, 25 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 Duja► 16:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Settlements in Florida, convention of Category:Settlements in the United States by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 03:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom to follow WP naming conventions of surrounding categories. Hmains 03:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge -- I can't be sure what was in this category in the past, but presently there are only two articles, Reedy Creek Improvement District and Indian Trails Improvement District. Neither of them even remotely resemble a "settlement". That is a completely inappropriate categorization. I agree that the name is misleading. I think perhaps something like Category:Special purpose districts in Florida, which would line up with Special-purpose district (though I disagree with the hyphenation there). older ≠ wiser 01:34, 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 "?!" 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:McLeod's Daughters characters, convention of Category:Television characters by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom — this seems uncontroversial to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:04, 20 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 already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a category -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:55, 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 SPEEDY DELETED, misplaced article and spam to boot. Postdlf 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a category ... -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:45, 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 deleted and salted. >Radiant< 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Salt, see also Category:Fictional characters by hair color, and discussion of December 20th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt, because the catagory's useless and the creator of it is a big fucking idiot. oh wait.......--Piemanmoo 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, completely worthless and sub-trivial category. Unless you think something beyond absurdity is accomplished by lumping Elmer Fudd together with Lex Luthor. Postdlf 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 03:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. However, I find the use of terms like "salt" and "burn" used in discussion like this offensive, both to contributors and creators. Let's be civil and not rub it in. bibliomaniac15 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt - This is recreated content that was deleted recently by an overwhelming majority. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. What is salt? - Kittybrewster 13:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Salt" is short for "salt the earth". In other words, the category will be blocked from ever being recreated again. See WP:SALT. Dr. Submillimeter 15:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Category:Protected deleted categories -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as above, recreated Dugwiki 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete recreation and salt trivia. This is exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia:Overcategorization tells us to avoid. Wryspy 17:14, 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.