< January 22	January 24 >

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 "?!" 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Air National Guard Units into Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air National Guard

• Merge, 'Military units and formations of the United States Air National Guard' follows the "X of Y" naming conventions of WP:MILHIST, and is already beginning to be populated also. 'Air National Guard Units' was created outside the category heirarchy (not a sub-cat of 'United States Air National Guard', and I didn't even know it existed until I was transferring articles into the 'Military units and formations of the United States Air National Guard' category and stumbled across it. NDCompuGeek 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the geek. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge 146.186.44.199 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- it's awkward. Is there any other way to phrase this? CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination. Also, I don't see anything particularly awkward about the name.Carom 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no rename for main nom, and rename others for consistency. the wub "?!" 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup to this this CfD; rationale there was:

David Kernow (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin
If result below is oppose, recommend the categories from the prevous CfD renamed as follows for sake of consistency:

• Category:French aviation accidents and incidents to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in France
• Category:German aviation accidents and incidents to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Germany
• Category:Indian aviation accidents and incidents to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in India
• Category:Japanese aviation accidents and incidents to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Japan
• Category:Nepalese aviation accidents and incidents to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Nepal
• Category:Norwegian aviation accidents and incidents to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Norway
• Category:Pakistani aviation accidents and incidents to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan
• Category:Peruvian aviation accidents and incidents to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Peru

David Kernow (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• Neutral; proposal is for sake of consistency. David Kernow (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all It is far more specific to categorise by the location of the incident, than by the number of countries that might be associated with the incident. Parallel Oppose to Category:Emirian aviation accidents and incidents – is Emirian really a valid word in English? Bluap 05:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't know the demonym either, so used that given in the List of adjectival forms of place names. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you classify an incident that does not happen in a country? Do we create a category for international waters? Vegaswikian 07:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  See the previous CfD's rationale added above. David (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all. Aviation accidents are straightforward factual events; they are not wishy-washy cultural phenomena. Our convention for category namings is that cultural phenomena are sorted by nationality and thus named "fooish" whatever; but most straightforward factual entities or events are categorised by country and thus named "of foo". Unless someone can persuade me that an air accident/incident is a cultural event, this CFD looks a fairly obvious no-no. In addition: where an accident/incident occurred is almost always verifiable by reliable external sources, as per WP:CITE. However, when it comes to deciding which countries were affected we stray deep into WP:POV, eg. if two Swedish holidaymakers were onboard, would a fatal accident in New Zealand also need to get categorised under the "Swedish" cat? --Mais oui! 09:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - Sorting air incidents by location instead of the nationalities of the victims is more sensible. Potentially, mutliple categories can be added to any given air incident to represent the nationalities of the people involved in the accident. This would simply cause confusion. Instead, sorting accidents by the location of the accidents and the airlines involved would be more clear-cut. Dr. Submillimeter 13:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename per Dr. Submillimeter, to avoid confusion. There are just too any ways in which nationality coud be applied to leave it vague as proposed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How many of these categories would be applied to the crash of an aircraft made in the USA, owned by an Irish leasing company, operated by a British charter company, flying from Spain to Greece, which crashed in Italy? (that's before we consider the passenger list, which would likely bring in another dozen nationalitoes). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per mais oui, BHGirl& others above Johnbod 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose recent debate has favored the format X in country Y, not Yish X for a number of reasons. French is ambiguous in these debates (note the disambig page): involving French people, in the land of France, or even involving French-speaking people? France is not. There are also problems with the US: what do we call that? And the term British: does it mean England, or all the UK? 146.186.44.199 20:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per previous discussions. If this was the right decision when discussed for specific categories why is it wrong for all of the other categories? Vegaswikian 09:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; accidents occur in a place, they do not have a nationality. --MCB 07:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per MCB Topar 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to the more comprehensive Fooish format. Piccadilly 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support as per Air New Zealand Flight 901, which looks rather odd not being in the appropriate New Zealand air disasters category. MadMaxDog 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Windsurfing locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The management of a category for "notable" windsurfing locations may be particularly difficult, as the identification of such locations may be based on subjective inclusion criteria. The classification of locations based on the leisure activities that can be performed in the locations is also problematic, since multiple leisure activities may be performed in any given location. For both of these reasons, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the Doctor. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very similar to the recently deleted Category:Kitesurfing_locations. Dugwiki 20:32, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Australian television characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - underutilized and poorly named, only contains three articles, one of which is miscategorized (it's a program, not a character) and another which looks like it should be merged back into its show article. Category seems unnecessary. Otto4711 15:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xiner. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my reasoning below. 146.186.44.199 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:53, 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. the wub "?!" 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional American television characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - waaaay overly broad in scope. Potentially tens of thousands of entries even discounting those who are otherwise categorized by individual shows. Would weakly support a rename and accompanying narrowing of focus so that it serves only as a parent cat to the individual Characters by Show categories. Otto4711 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't sound like "trivia", so I'm not sure what that comment means here. There is, though, the problem that the category is probably too difficult to maintain because of its size. Dugwiki 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This applies to Australians as well... wasn't this the means used to cut down Category:Fictional Americans? In my opinion, perhaps the solution would be to delete both as well as the entire "Fictional people of a certain nationality by medium" and keep to categories such as Category:Fictional people from California and Category:Fictional people from London.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zythe. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what i was thinking when I cast this vote, I think I was voting on another cat. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep what the heck is going on with all these deletes? It's not meant to be a lowest level category: it's a holder category. Or should we get rid of Category:American people too? 146.186.44.199 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm unclear as to what you mean by a "holder" category. I'm not familiar with the use of the term on Wikipedia. If you mean that it's designed to hold sub-categories of TV show characters, then we already have Category:Television characters by series for that purpose. If this were renamed to something like "Television characters by American series" and made a subcat then the category would be useful. But a category for every individual television show character from the United Sates ever is spectacularly unuseful. Otto4711 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:52, 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. the wub "?!" 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video game villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another of the POV "villains" categories, per precedent. Otto4711 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As with previous "villain" cfds Dugwiki 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous villain CfDs. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait! (i.e., Strong keep) - see my reasoning on previous deletes. It's ficitonal villain; as soon as someone can defend that article The Joker shouldn't contain the name "villain" because it's POV, then I'll agree to delete. 146.186.44.199 20:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, categorization of characters as villains is not POV or trivial. -- Noneofyourbusiness 03:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, per Noneofyourbusiness. Just because one person (e.g. Otto4711) doesn't like to label villains by what they are (i.e. villains) doesn't mean they aren't villains! -- Nintendo Maximus 01:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. We don't need these types of POV categories. RobJ1981 05:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Nationality / Ethnicity / Sport / Position intersection, or at least Rename to Category:Mexican American American football quarterbacks. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless someone has a good reason to keep. Xiner (talk, email) 16:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Excessively precise and irrelevant. Pinoakcourt 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pinoakcourt. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:53, 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 "?!" 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong delete per fictional characters by age and fictional schoolgirls rulings of delete. Almost very character has at sometime been a student.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This appears to be a subcategory stemming from Category:Fictional characters by occupation. So it is sorting fictional characters whose occupation would be "student". Also, while it's true many characters have at one point or another been a student, the category can be restricted to those characters who are notably known for being a student as their primary occupation. Thus you can eliminate characters who, in passing, have taken a class as part of a plot line, and include only those who are portrayed almost exclusively as a student as opposed to working at a job. Dugwiki 17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, I have appended this restriction to the category description. Dugwiki 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ... Following up on Dugwiki's comment, Category:Students is a subcat of real people by occupation, too, who are even more likely to have passed through studenthood. It's a present-state kind of category, I believe, as are all occupational categories. --lquilter 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me explain my point more thoroughly. With fictional characters, you don't list by "present-state" since it does not exist, you instead are forced to list every significant occupation they've been in their fictional history. For example, if Monica Geller quit being a chef, she was still a chef in some period of her fictional history and so the category stands. Therefore Buffy Summers is a student for 4 years of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and should be included with everybody else. Every character on Charmed went to a school of some sort at a certain age. What about college students with no real job - Sam Winchester, Billie Jenkins? Who judged notability? Because we know on Wikipedia someone will come along and add everybody that they can think of. The category is incredibly inclusive and grouping "students" fails to represent "students in fiction" (as say Category:Fictional chefs might describe a portrayal of chefs across fiction) since it's something integral to almost every character in fiction, with exceptions such as Spyro the Dragon (character) and maybe The Great Gazoo. Also, do students of something other than schools count? Is Batman a fictional student of Ra's al Ghul because of Batman Begins? Guess it doesn't matter, since he went to school once anyway.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Category:Fictional scholars as that's a more specific, characterising set of students-as-occupation.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Two responses: (1) In practice, though, are people being put into the "students" category just because their backhistory suggests they went to school? Or are (real) editors only adding characters to the cat when there are signficant representations of the character as a student? In other words, are people misusing it, or are they applying sensible and common-sense criteria to including it? and (2) Regarding the suggestion, I think that scholars suggests academics, and wouldn't necessarily suggest, say, children, undergrads, and so on. (There are a few stray real-person scholars categories but mostly it's academics, teachers, students, and so on.) --lquilter 21:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to exclude those because of the fictional schoolgirls, fictional babies and any other sort of "by age" category ruling! :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions, articles should only be categorized using information that is verifiable and notable within the article itself. I'm sure that if the characters on Charmed or Friends were real people, they would have gone to school. But the fact is that those characters are not notably mentioned as students within their article. So they should not be classified as such. Likewise, Batman's primary occupation is not nor has it ever been listed as "student" (far as I know). So using that criteria their is very little danger of a subjective dispute over whether or not a character belongs in this category. If the article notably calls them a "student" (or something very similar), then they fall under the category. If not, then they don't belong in the category. Straightforward and quite objective. Dugwiki 20:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing. This is a category to sort by occupation, not by age. It so happens that most students are young, but this category makes no specific declaration about a character's age. Since categorizing by occupation is accepted on Wiki, this is simply a natural part of that. Dugwiki 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If we delete this category, who will the Category:Fictional schoolteachers teach? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Best point yet. <grin> --lquilter 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Many fictional characters can primarily and unambiguously be described as students. The category should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep it's a useful (and well populated!) subcat of Category:Fictional characters by occupation 146.186.44.199 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Agree with Dugwiki. Most characters in various animes, TV shows, cartoons, mangas etc. have characters who are students for most of the episodes/chapters portrayed. Ominae 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nearly every single fictional child or teen character from a modern setting is a student. I see characters being added to this list simply because they go to school with no regard for if it defines who they are or the amount of screen time involved with school-related activity. Should Ichigo Kurosaki really be in this list? However, if the list can be maintained to keep people like Ichigo and Ishida out, then go ahead and keep it. –Gunslinger47 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic strips errata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, obviously badly named category (errata are error lists, what was intended was probably "miscellany" or some such), I have already emptied it (only 4 wildly varying entries), the category serves no further purpose. Fram 13:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comic strips is sufficient. Question: Are you supposed to empty a cat before nominating it for deletion? Xiner (talk, email) 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To answer your question Xiner, I think it is proper procedure to empty because it is up for deletion. If it does not get deleted, then you fill it back up. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, both of you, read the instructions at the top of the page: Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision. Grutness...wha? 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete badly named category. But no, it is NOT "proper procedure" to empty a category that it up for deletion! Doczilla 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what in the world could this category mean anyway? Comic book Miscellany? 146.186.44.199 20:28, 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 "?!" 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming

Category:Banjo manufacturers to Category:Banjo manufacturing companies

Category:Clarinet manufacturers to Category:Clarinet manufacturing companies

Category:Electronic organ builders to Category:Electronic organ manufacturing companies

Category:Guitar manufacturers to Category:Guitar manufacturing companies

Category:Cymbal manufacturers to Category:Cymbal manufacturing companies

Category:Percussion instrument manufacturers to Category:Percussion instrument manufacturing companies

Category:Piano manufacturers to Category:Piano manufacturing companies

Category:Synthesizer manufacturers to Category:Synthesizer manufacturing companies

• Rename, per my recent closure of the parent category's CFD. It seems to me that in order to be clearly unambiguous all these should be obviously restricted to companies. There is a distinction between individual instrument makers and manufacturing companies, and the categories as currently named could contain either. If the categories currently contain biographies of individuals, then these biographical articles could be moved into separate categories (I will be happy to do this myself), such as Category:Banjo makers and Category:Piano makers. Piano manufacturers is particularly bad at the moment in including both individuals and companies, even though the category is now correctly a subcategory of Category:Musical instrument manufacturing companies. I intend to nominate the structure Category:Organ builders separately as it is somewhat more complicated. RobertG ♬ talk 09:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for clarity and consistency. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. GreyCat 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename As above, the renames are useful to distinguish company-related categories from categories about people. Dugwiki 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & others Johnbod 02:42, 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 move discussion to WP:UCFD. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use MusicianDictionary.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category apparently exists solely to promote a non-notable wiki site. CiaranG 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: shouldn't this be moved to WP:UCFD? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you mention it, I'm not sure - it's not in the Category:Wikipedians hierarchy though. CiaranG 10:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to UCFD. I'd assume any category beginning "Wikipedians who..." would be a User category. --tjstrf talk 11:32, 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. the wub "?!" 11:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with the power to generate force fields (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete category for ambiguity and per precedents. We removed all kinds of energy manipulation categories for problems including lack of objective definition. No definition for "force field" is provided and is not likely to be provided. As the term originated in physics, it's the concept that a field of pure force (NOT ENERGY - Einstein said E=mc-squared, not F=mc-squared) could serve as an invisible barrier. Many of the categorized characters have never been said to generate force fields. Regardless of any definition, the sources have not used that term for some of these characters. They have been shown to generate a variety of repulsive powers. Telekinetic repulsion is not necessarily a force field. An electrical field is not a force field. This is a category that can only get worse because the term even when used in the sources does not have any standard definition. Doczilla 07:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also call to attention the previous deletions of "fictional characters with the power to manipulate energy".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is similar to other previously deleted characters-with-X-power categories. Dugwiki 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Zythe Johnbod 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - once again, I'm rather taken aback by all these calls for delete; I can't believe I'm seeing this. Do we really need an in depth E=mc2 equation to avoid ambiguity with the word force field? C'mon, it's fiction! Quibbing over the difference between a fictional energy field and fictional force field is, I'm sorry to say, the kind of stuff that would put most Trekkies to shame (keep in mind I am a trekky, so I can say that :) ). 146.186.44.199 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zythe. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:55, 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. the wub "?!" 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commonwealth regiments and corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, per the same reasoning used in the deletion of Category:British Commonwealth Forces. The Commonwealth does not have any common military organization or structure, and the militaries of the constituent countries are entirely separate; this is as silly as creating a "Regiments of the UN" category and filling it with the regiments of every country that was ever a member of that body. Kirill Lokshin 05:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment While this category is fairly meaningless and probably isn't worth keeping, it should be noted that there are traditional links and formal alliances between the regiments of many Commonwealth countries so it's not completely missguided like the British Commonwealth Forces category was. --Nick Dowling 07:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - what would be more informative would be an article, or something in each of the articles, describing how those militaries were influenced by their Commonwealth history. Or not, as the case maybe. It is a shared history they have, so something can be written about it, and having little "Commonwealth" sections in each article is possible. You could then groups all those sections through a category (by categorising redirects to the sections), or pull all the sections together to form an article. But having the current regiments and corps grouped together under this title is nonsensical. Carcharoth 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per comment above. Carcharoth 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment - just had a look through the category, and some were founded quite a while ago. Some interesting bits of colonial history there. Would be nice to list them with their dates of founding. In fact, going back beyond the Commonwealth, is there not an overview of the various military units within the British Empire? Carcharoth
• Delete per nomination, and the discussion at WPMilHist, which failed to produce any kind of reason for categorizing units in this way. Carom 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - while I really don't care whether this is deleted or not, I raise strong objection to it being described as "silly" and "nonsensical". I created this category before regiments were categorised by country, therefore giving them a category. Deleting this will relegate those nations with small armies to a degraded status compared to those with big armies. Hammersfan, 19.40 GMT, 28/01/07
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:55, 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. the wub "?!" 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Central-Asian people → Category:Central Asian people —([[Talk:Category:Central-Asian people#Requested move|Discuss]])— the hyphen is unnecessary as a modifier. —Chris 20:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom. Johnbod 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename CSD c3. 146.186.44.199 20:17, 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 all. the wub "?!" 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Niarchos to Category:Niarchos family

Propose renaming Category:Onassis to Category:Onassis family

Propose renaming Category:Cantemireşti to Category:Cantemireşti family

• Rename all, for clarity as per many precedents. Sumahoy 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename all per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for the sake of clarity. Pascal.Tesson 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:52, 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 merge, though as Pascal points out these could be reasonable categories in future. the wub "?!" 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:New York rappers, see also Category:Brooklyn Rappers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Complicated !vote: I say merge the two brooklyn categories but rename them both to Category:Brooklyn rappers per capitalization conventions. While the categories appear to be small enough to merge with the parent category, this is largely due to the fact that Category:American rappers is one big mess that no one has ever bothered to clean up. In the long run, we should expect that these actegories will evolve into something large enough to warrant subcategories of New York rappers. Pascal.Tesson 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per pascal's suggestion. --tjstrf talk 07:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename per Pascal. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:56, 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. the wub "?!" 11:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Keith Ellison, or Delete. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Some of the articles can probably be merged and Rep. Ellison has not yet achieved the level of notability to warrant an eponymous category. The various articles on the Quran controversy can be cross-referenced within the article and also referenced in his biographical article. Otto4711 04:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These articles should be linked through the text of article for Keith Ellison (politician), not through a category. Dr. Submillimeter 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No need for a category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this would do better as a template. 146.186.44.199 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep name as their are multiple Keith Ellisons with their own wiki-pages, specifying that this is the Representative makes sense. Since this disscussion is on renaming I don't know how people are voting delete. From what I've seen there are no notability guideliness for categories only for pages. And all these pages about a notable person have been deemed notable by multiple editors. I made this category because robots where tagging Ellison sub-pages as uncategorized.--Wowaconia 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't lay eyes on it at the moment, but there is a guideline for eponymous categories which suggests that only those people who are extremely notable should have them. The guideline cites the example of Category:Abraham Lincoln. Rep. Ellison is more than notable for an article or even a series of articles, but has not thus far acheived the extreme level of notability required to have his own category. Otto4711 20:25, 31 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 "?!" 11:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this kind of thing requires references, not suitable as a category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not sure where I stand here (probably leaning towards deletion) but let me still make a few comments. First, there are many categories of people which are inherently negative. They should be tightly checked but we do keep them around and make sure that they're not unjustly including people. Category:Murderers seems like a pretty potent example. So I think the rationale for deletion is pretty weak. Actually, verifying through reliable sources that some NFL player was arrested is likely to be waaaay easier than most referencing tasks. However I still have doubts about the usefulness of this category. It seems like pretty trivial information, especially if these individuals are not known primarily for the crime or suspected crime that they committed. Keeping this category gives an unfair weight to this aspect of their lives and, to a certain extent is contrary to WP:NPOV. Pascal.Tesson 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Being arrested doesn't necessarily mean anything at all about having committed a crime--it's not even "charged" -- & is therefore trivial. Plus it's a Living Person biography issue and could rise to the level of defamation. Plus we don't want such categories for other fields--can you imagine "arrested activists"? Plus it's a non-identifying feature of people's lives. Plus it's not useful, because the arrestees might have nothing in common -- arrested for jaywalking? Arrested for smoking pot in Cameroon? Arrested for spousal abuse? Arrested by mistake? Arrested for civil disobedience? Please. If anything, a referenced list would be the way to go (but would probably still have to justify its existence). --lquilter 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category with too much room for slander accusations. A category cannot be properly annotated. Doczilla 07:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete for a whole bundle of reasons. First, it's trivial (an arrested peson may be neither charged nor convicted); secondly it covers too broad a spectrum (there is a big difference between arrest for jaywalking and arrest for murder); third, it's a random intersection (unless they are arrested for a football-related offence, which seems unlikely). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If Wiki already included Category:Arrested people, then I might consider it ok. But I believe we don't have that category because of the concerns above, such as an arrest not proving guilt or even necessarily always meaning a person is indicted or convicted of a crime. It risks going into the realm of stigmatizing individuals who were wrongly arrested. So I'm ok with categorizing convicted felons, since they had a day in court, but not quite as happy with the idea of categorizing people simply arrested and not even necessarily officially accused of doing anything criminal at all. Dugwiki 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Why should people who break the law have a category on Wikipedia? I find it pointless. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's even worse than that. These are people who were arrested, which includes people who were wrongfully arrested and/or who were never charged with or convicted of breaking the law. Being arrested simply means the police at some point claimed you broke the law. Dugwiki 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's pretty darn unmanageable. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A mere arrest is trivial. Honbicot 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - each article is now well referenced, and the category is helpful. Unless we are going to delete Category:Murderers and every sub-cat, then there's no reason to delete this. What's more, an arrest is hardly trivial in the biography of an NFL player. 146.186.44.199 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but an arrest is trivial in the biography of an NFL player. Not so trivial that it shouldn't be mentioned in the player's bio but trivial enough that we shouldn't give it undue weight with a specific category. For the same reason we don't have categories for NBA, MLB, NHL players that have been arrested or for actors who have been arrested. Pascal.Tesson 16:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Biased Slander or Include the Rest of the NFL's Arrested Players!

This is an obvious attempt to slander the Cincinnati Bengals organization and nothing more. Otherwise, this list would include the numerous other NFL players from other NFL teams whom have been arrested, and not just the members of the Cincinnati Bengals whom have been arrested. As is, I don't know how it can be justified and why it should obviously be deleted. Thanks for listening, Frank Doughten

• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:57, 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. the wub "?!" 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional comic-relief characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Subjective, and far too general of a category to be useful. For some series, this would be everyone, while others don't really have comic relief members at all. Basically, this category seems to be an attempt to pick out "the funny one" from the group, but there is no objective standard for doing so. Similar categories have been deleted, such as Fictional cynics and Promiscuous fictional characters.
  Also, many of the categorized members are inaccurate. For the always attractive Naruto example of how this is misused (there seems to be one miscatted Naruto character in any given category), Rock Lee has been listed as a comic relief character when he is a seriously developed fighter of the team and used for less jokes that the uncategorized protagonist of the series Naruto Uzumaki. Characters which are unmistakably comic relief can always be mentioned as such in their articles without needing to be categorized by it. --tjstrf talk 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too subjective and imprecise for a category. A well-made list could have some value but this will just serve to clog categories. Pascal.Tesson 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not sure even a list would be helpful here. A well-written article on the comic relief character, along with a few choice examples, should suffice. --lquilter 01:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no listify - even the most deadly serious of characters (c.f. Jack Bristow) are occasionally used for comic relief, neither a category nor a list is tenable. Otto4711 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective category. Do not listify. This is not objective enough for a list. Doczilla 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too subjective. Far as I know there's not really a clear distinction between a character with a sense of humor, a character who does (possibly unintentionally) funny things, and a "comic relief" character. Dugwiki 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way too subjective. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as both subjective and cruft. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:58, 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.