< January 23	January 25 >

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 "?!" 09:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hackers known by pseudonyms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe there was once a category called Category:Hackers but it doesn't exist now so it has apparently been deleted. Even leaving that aside, being known by a pseudonym is not a defining characteristic. Sumahoy 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I know of other categorys that include people known by pseudonyms. Delete If the hackers category was deleted, then theres no point for this one. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does anyone know why there isn't a Hackers category? Doczilla 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer to Qusetions is here Gnangarra 06:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for that answer. Delete per the original reasons for deleting the Hacker category. Doczilla 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As is mentioned in the cfd for Category:Hackers, the term "hacker" is subjective and ambiguous. So categorizing people as "hackers" runs into POV problems. Dugwiki 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:39, 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. the wub "?!" 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sudbury, Vermont into Category:Rutland County, Vermont

Does a town of 583 people really need its own dedicated subcategory? Upmerge to county parent. Bearcat 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Sumahoy 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Lesnail 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and Merge. Robdurbar 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BBC regions into Category:BBC Nations and Regions

• Merge, Both categories basically do the same thing so I was thinking that it would be better to have both sets of contents in the same category. Category:BBC regions has fewer articles listed within it, plus Category:BBC Nations and Regions is a better title. I had tagged the BBC regions category for merging though have received no reponses to my proposal on the talk page as yet. Wikiwoohoo 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:BBC nations and regions per capitalization guidelines. Sumahoy 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guidelines aside, the BBC themselves use 'Nations and Regions' to describe this area (BBC - Press Office - BBC Nations & Regions. Given that the intention is that this category correspond content-wise to this BBC classification, I think it is appropriate that it use the same nomenclature, including capitalisation.

Xdamr^talk 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom (inc. capitalisation). --Xdamr^talk 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge without capitals The BBC has its style guidelines, but we have ours and should stick to them. Honbicot 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much a case of style guidelines—this category should surely be eponymous with the BBC structure. That is after all what it is attempting to list and to encompass, not any WP notion of BBC Nations and Regions, but the BBC's.

Xdamr^talk 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would agree that both categories should be merged into Category:BBC nations and regions. I had been thinking about this before beginning this nomination. Wikiwoohoo 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:BBC nations and regions per above. Pinoakcourt 13:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would I be correct in saying that this discussion could now be closed with the result being that both Category:BBC regions and Category:BBC Nations and Regions are to be merged into Category:BBC nations and regions? Wikiwoohoo 21:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now recategorised the contents of both Category:BBC regions and Category:BBC Nations and Regions into Category:BBC nations and regions. The two categorys now redundant have been listed for speedy deletion. Wikiwoohoo 22:24, 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 rename. the wub "?!" 09:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indigenous Australians - organisations to Category:Organisations serving indigenous Australians

• Rename; clearer phrase, and no hyphen. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Pegship. Xiner (talk, email) 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 01:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for those organisations serving indigenous Australians, there will also be Category:Organisations of Indigenous Australians, that is whose membership comprises Indigenous Australians. Paul foord 23:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and rename per Paul foord. Lesnail 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and rename per Paul foord -- this is the exact kind of organizational distinction that we need in the orgs categories. --lquilter 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Automotive related biographies to Category:People in the automobile industry

• Rename, because it is kind of non-standard. Note that Category:Biographies is for articles about books and category:People is for articles about people. Sumahoy 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 10:47, 27 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 speedily deleted. David Kernow (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with the power to ressurect themselves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category name is misspelled and no links. — Randall Bart 20:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Off the top of my head it would seem that this category would be too extensive to be useful. TonyTheTiger 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TonyTheTiger. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete recreation of unclear and now misspelled category. Doczilla 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Doc — J Greb 21:39, 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 merge/delete. the wub "?!" 09:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American record labels, or Keep. In this case, I think one big category is the most convenient for browsing. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is also Category:New York State record labels, which is similarly underpopulated. –Unint 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:American record labels does look extremely large. Maybe subdividing it by state (treating D.C. as a state) would make sense and make it easier to navigate and maintain? I don't work much with this category, though, so probably a good idea to get input from people that use it regularly. I'll post for feedback on this cfd from WikiProject Albums. Dugwiki 20:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xiner. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge into Category:American record labels Lugnuts 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:59, 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atlantic Coast Conference Atlantic Division into Category:Atlantic Coast Conference

• Merge probably mistakenly created as it reads like an article. No need for a subcat. Pascal.Tesson 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Also note that the only reason the parent category appears cowded is that a template appears to be adding talk pages to the Category:Atlantic Coast Conference. Maybe someone can sort that out, to make Category:Atlantic Coast Conference more useable? --17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Major League Baseball seasons. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge pretty uncontroversial. Pascal.Tesson 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - obviously the same category. 146.186.44.199 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge, no new name suggested. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Skeletal system, or suggest an appropriate name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The category includes the basic types of bones. The proposed category includes an enumeration of bones. Merging would then require the downmerging of all the bones into the classifications. However, I am not convinced that this is an important classification system of bones. Why is it any better than classifying bones by part of the body (feet, hands, arms, legs, body cavity, etc.). TonyTheTiger 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well, if you think it should be renamed, please do suggest a new name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for the present TtT is probably right, and should have a chance to devise his new system. DGG 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fengshen Yanyi characters, athough Category:Characters in written fiction is not entirely consistant. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Less words. Xiner (talk, email) 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Iranian Ministers to Category:Government ministers of Iran

Propose renaming Category:Ministers of Lithuania to Category:Government ministers of Lithuania

• Rename both, per convention / for disambiguation from religious ministers / speedy that capital M. Greg Grahame 14:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. 146.186.44.199 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Lets make a clear separation between "ministers" and "government ministers", which are rarely the same thing. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ESA images to Category:European Space Agency images

Propose renaming Category:ESA people to Category:European Space Agency personnel

Propose renaming Category:ESA probes to Category:European Space Agency probes

• Rename - The full name for the European Space Agency is used for the parent article and parent category. It should also be used in the subcategories. Additionally, "people" should be changed to "personnel" to match Category:NASA personnel. Dr. Submillimeter 10:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Most likely those in the know refer to it as the ESA, but the term does not have the same familiarity as NASA. The British general media uses the full name. Greg Grahame 14:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and the Ecological Society of America, Entomological Society of America, and others listed on the ESA page. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Lesnail 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, Not relevant as a category, if we had this for all movies/books that mentioned drugs... skagedal^... 09:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom said. Imagine how many categories you would have to put cocaine in...
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per breaking virtually every rule of categorization: capitalization, running together, bad idea for non-defining characteristic, comparable to "performers by performance" (in more ways than one) ... it's like the platonic ideal of bad categories. --lquilter 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lquilter. Bad bad idea for a cat. Was this a joke? 146.186.44.199 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's just a stupid catergory The Right Honourable 02:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hubble images to Category:Hubble Space Telescope images

• Rename - The full name for the Hubble Space Telescope should be used for this category's name, just as the full name is used for the article and parent category for the telescope. Dr. Submillimeter 09:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per ambiguity. David Kernow (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category names should almost always match the spelling of their associated main article. Dugwiki 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete including images as well, after they have been moved to Commons, no need to maintain a collection of PD images here. Gnangarra 02:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Do not delete as commons is a separate project that most people haven't even heard of. Pinoakcourt 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military units and formations of the United States National Guard to Category:Military units and formations of the United States Army National Guard

• Rename, To follow WP:MILHIST naming conventions to recategorize under Army National Guard, since all units listed are Army units, not Air Guard units. NDCompuGeek 09:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Xiner. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:MILHIST guidelines. --Xdamr^talk 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Air National Guard officers to Category:Officers of the United States Air National Guard

• Rename, Follow WP:MILHIST naming conventions (X of Y), and to stay consistent with the category heirarchy. NDCompuGeek 06:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and make changes like this valid speedy criteria, at least until WP:MILHIST finishes their cleanup. No need to bring everyone here for discussion. Vegaswikian 07:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WP:MILHIST guidelines. --Xdamr^talk 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Other Police of The Wire into Category:Police of The Wire

• Merge. Bizarre name, from what I understand, it is meant to include the sole (and also poorly named) article Other Police of The Wire. The latter is, well, a list of police officers in the series that don't fit in the other subcategories... Pascal.Tesson 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Lesnail 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European diplomats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Of seemingly no purpose. Currently, it is filled with what what seem like 'statesmen' (that is, Europeans that have had some importance on the world or European stage). Whilst a few have been Foreign Secretaries or Ministers (Eden, for example), many have nothing to do with diplomacy in the normal sense of that word (Balfour, for example). This is indicated by its presence in Category:Politicians, despite diplomats explicitly NOT being politicians. There is no reason for this to succeed Category:Diplomats by nationality. Bastin 03:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Europe is not a state and does not have a diplomatic corps. Greg Grahame 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The current content of the cat is wrong. But Greg is wrong: there are European diplomats who serve a good part of their career as representatives of the European Union in various bodies. The category European Union diplomats sounds perfectly reasonable (although I do understand that this is not what the current cat represents). Pascal.Tesson 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, noting that category's parent is Category:Politicians, which is probably appropiate for its current content, but wrong for a diplomatic category. Note too that the European Union does have diplomats, such as John Bruton (although he is a former politician, his current title is Ambassador). However, if there are enough articles on EU diplomats to justify a category, it would be best to create a new one and populate it accordingly (rayher than renaming Category:European diplomats, because most of the content of Category:European diplomats would be irrelevant to a European Union diplomats diplomats category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EU is not "Europe". The pretence that it is "Europe" is widespread but completely incompatible with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Greg Grahame 20:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I agree. That's why I suggested that a category on these lines should be called "European Union diplomats" (but per Xdamr's comment below, it doesn't seem likely to be well-enough populated at this stage). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A more appropriate cat per Tesson could be created in the future. Xiner (talk, email) 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xiner. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is certainly a case for creating Category:European Union diplomats, however, as far as this category goes, there seems to be little justification for it. Europe consists of nation states, each of which have their own individual and distinct diplomatic corps. Given that there is no de jure 'European' identity, categorisation in this manner is unwarranted. Potentially it could act as a supercategory, containing Category:French diplomats, etc, etc, however this would really be pointless overcategorisation. Xdamr^talk 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Will someone make sure that all the pages (apart from the few non-diplomats) have a national category also? Clearly EU-diplomats will be needed before long; plus some of these guys like Schumann and Monnet were important diplomats (in Monnet's case not as a regular government diplomat) in the setting-up of the EU. But lots of these people are random figures from the past, Poles working for Russian Czars etc. Johnbod 02:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless remade and renamed per Xdamr. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually Mais oui! seems to have gone ahead and created an EU category, so renaming this one is no longer an issue. --Xdamr^talk 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fine, but these guys should be sorted to the appropriate category, not just lost Johnbod 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have recategorised all the ones that did not already have a national category as well. Johnbod 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic houses in the United States into Category:Houses in the United States

• Merge, as per next item down. One can call any house notable enough to have an article "historic", but where does one draw the line and what is the point of trying to do so? Wilchett 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge good call Hmains 03:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Makes sense to me. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Must a place be historic to be notable enough for the merge destination. It seems like the former is places that should be in Category: National Register of Historic Places. TonyTheTiger 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom didn't say delete. What do you mean? >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic houses in Florida into Category:Houses in Florida

• Merge, per the categories for all other U.S. states. "Historic" is redundant - in this context it doesn't mean much more than "famous" or "notable" would do. Wilchett 03:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge good call Hmains 03:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but go the other direction. All the houses in the second category are historic, and the qualifying word is helpful. 146.186.44.199 20:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. and consistency with other states. Lesnail 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dreamgirls actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Highly unnecessary category. FuriousFreddy 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wilchett 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We've deleted way too many of these. I get tired of explaining what's wrong with listing seventy or more categories to cover single every job a performer ever had. Doczilla 03:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Doczilla. Pascal.Tesson 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Dreamgirls cast per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_15#Actors_to_Cast_Members. Highly necessary. If you're tired of explaining what's wrong with the category it means the reasoning is flawed. Tim! 07:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't. It just means it's dull doing the same thing over and over again, which unfortunately is the case with many valuable tasks. Greg Grahame 14:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that this is a film category, not a tv series category. There has been debate about actor-by-TV series categories, but consensus is much stronger that individual films should not generally have their own actor categories. Dugwiki 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it really means is that we have a categorization system that most people's first inclination is to treat like a simple tagging sytem. --Samuel Wantman 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla. It's overkill. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as category clutter. Greg Grahame 14:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify as with the other TV and/or movie actors/cast cats. — J Greb 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify per J Greb. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cast list within the film's main article is quite sufficient. Delete as per previous actor-by-film cfd discussions. Dugwiki 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Soon, we need to make artists categorized by their performances and productions a speedy delete. --Samuel Wantman 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actor-by-film (or tv series) categories are undesirable, cf. recent debates. --Xdamr^talk 23:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with all actors by show cat's. Carlossuarez46 02:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with all actors by show cat's. Rgds, - Trident13 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Howard Stern Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, We don't need a category for every person who got 15 minutes of (additional) fame on the Howard Stern Show. We have a List of celebrity guests on the Howard Stern show and don't need to muck up lots of bios highlighting one (minor) gig in their careers. Carlossuarez46 01:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The list covers it. The name of the category is too broad. What does it even mean? People who appeared on the show? People who work for the show? Celebrities who said they're fans of the show? Critics who said that show is overhyped crap? Doczilla 03:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category presumably covers cast, crew and guest stars of the show. The current consensus has been that guest stars should be put in lists, not categories. The regular cast of the show is listed in the main article, so this category isn't needed for them because a reader looking for information about the regular cast can view the main article. Generally speaking, films and tv/radio/stage shows should not have their own "people" categories, but should stick to using cast lists within the main article (or easily accessed from the main article). Dugwiki 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost correct. There is clearly a consensus to not categorize actors by their film and theatre performances. There is also a consensus to rename TV categories so they only include the main cast. There is NOT a consensus whether the TV categories should be kept. -- Samuel Wantman 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misread my comment. I said that there is consensus that guest stars should be put in lists. I did not say there is consensus on keep/deleting TV categories (there isn't). I did, though, say that in my opinion tv/radio/stage should not have their own actor categories but should stick to cast lists. I did not say there is consensus TV series actors one way or another - I'm just giving my opinion. Dugwiki 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A category bearing this name could be useful if used for only cast and crew. Adding guest stars makes it useless. TonyTheTiger 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete much better as a list. -- Samuel Wantman 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the articles which contain information about The Howard Stern Show, which may mean culling much of its current content: however this is not a valid reason for deletion. This means articles such as Howard Stern Show Games and Bits would be uncategorised - which is much worse than a few articles being overcategorised. Tim! 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have flagged Howard Stern Show Games and Bits as an article under Category:Radio games and Category:Game shows. That eliminates the problem of it becoming orphaned if this category is deleted. Dugwiki 18:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete enough already. we can't go creating categories for every appearance of a person on every television/radio show. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Bill.matthews 04:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Pinoakcourt 13:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 22:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate radiation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per precedent of all the other vague power categories we've been deleting. This is quite possibly the most useless and most vaguely named of them all. Everything can "manipulate" radiation. A white sheet manipulates radiation by reflecting it. Doczilla 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom — J Greb 14:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD G1 as patent nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Xiner (talk, email) 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per previous discussions regarding "people with X power" categories. Dugwiki 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well gee-whilikers, I created the category and I certainly don't think it's patent nonsense or useless or vague. The idea behind the category is to gather together those characters whose primary powers are the emission and manipulation of radiation, for example, Firestar emits microwaves and Radioactive Man controls a wide variety of energy across the electromagnetic spectrum. I don't think anyone but the basest of idiots would see the category and think that it was for, you know, sheets. Someone like Presence or Nuke who don't really have much else in the way of powers can't be characterized by their primary power without the category, any more than, say Mister Fantastic could be categorized by his powers without Category:Fictional characters with the power to stretch themselves. Now, if it's not important to categorize characters by the powers they possess, fine, then delete them all since that's the only reason any of them exist. But this category, properly understood and not taken to an absurd extreme involving bed linens, has some measure of utility and dismissing it as "patent nonsense" is ridiculous. Otto4711 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category is not really defining. So many super heroes emit bolts of energy of some sort that they could just as easily fall into this category given the category's broad, ill-defined inclusion criteria. Half of the X-Men may qualify for this category. (I would also support deletion of all "superheroes by powers" categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I don't know who's in the X-men these days but none of the original five (Cyclops, Angel, Iceman, Beast or Marvel Girl) had any sort of radiation manipulation powers (Cyclops' optic blasts are concussive force, not radiation) and none of the original replacements did either (with the possible exception of Storm who could control lighting, but that is a subset of her weather powers and she is correctly categorized as a weather manipulator). Otto4711 19:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 off the top of my head:

• Cyclops: Converts solar radiation into his optic blasts.
• Havok: Same basis.
• Sunfire: Maniputales thermal radiation.

As you point out, Storm can be included as lightning is a form of electromagnecit radiation. By the same point Iceman (thermal radiation) and Polaris (electormagnetic again) fit. — J Greb 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated below, the intent of the category was to capture those characters whose powers were radiation-based and not otherwise categorized. Iceman is correctly categorized as manipulating cold and ice. Havok and (upon reconsideration) Cyclops aren't huge stretches for this category and they aren't otherwise categorized by power. Sunfire is categorized by manipulating fire which seems more appropriate than this cat. Otto4711 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per otto4711. I suggest people read up on G1 as well - patent nonsense is for people who create a category called "Aliens with 3 heads that landed in Massachusetts", not for a category that actually has useful reference. What's more, as I stated below in the "Energy Field" debate, I'm a little surprised in this deletion call. It's fiction, guys, do we really have to write out an in depth scientific equation of how the radiation is manipulated? It's useful and encyclopedic (IMHO). 146.186.44.199 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom --Bill.matthews 04:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Double delete this. Superheroes by power is a useless and subjective system, and this wouldn't be useful even it weren't a bad system. Anything that absorbs, reflects, or projects heat or light manipulates radiation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Anything that absorbs, reflects" etc. are not fictional characters. This category does not contemplate nor did it ever contemplate the notion of including inanimate objects, fictional or otherwise, any more than there has been any rush to include rubber bands in the "stretch themselves" category or clouds in the shapechangers category. I find arguments like "any XYZ can do ABC" to be more than a little disingenuous. Most fictional characters have the "power to manipulate fire" by blowing out candles and the "power to manipulate water" by drinking it in and later urinating but those categories aren't overloaded with superfluous entries because it appears that people are able to grasp that the categories are for those with this power to a superhuman degree. This category is similarly for those with the power to manipulate radiation to a superhuman degree and was created to fill a gap I perceived in the power categorization scheme. Otto4711 19:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You cling to the hyperbole while missing the point. This is a really poorly-defined category. Does Cyclops manipulate radiation? Do Green Lantern rings? Does Superman? Where do you draw the line between obvious radiation-themed characters (Captain Atom, Marvel's or Simpsons' Radioactive Man, Monica Rambeau) and characters with radiation-manipulation in their origin or the fictional mechanics of their powers (Havok, Cyclops, Superman, etc.)? Even if you can draw such a line, how will it not be an arbitrary, original-research definition? How will such a definition be useful to anyone but the one defining it?

  This doesn't even get into the fact that superhero powers are generally ill-defined due to the fluid nature of reality and continuity in comics, making these largely in-universe classifications totally useless and subjective. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cling to the hyperbole"? I'm not the one spouting hyperbole to support a deletion... Otto4711 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete probably the daftest category ever? I think a dafter one would be sandwiches with the ability to make boiled egg edible - but that's physically not possible! Rgds, - Trident13 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Games that take place in the future (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Futuristic games was deleted as being too vague, and this category is pretty much the same. Thunderbrand 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Thunderbrand 00:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed with above: far too vague. --Scottie theNerd 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as nominator. Combination 08:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) ^SIGN 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lesnail 16:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom Romanista 11:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, how is too vague a bad thing in this case? You don't want it to be too specific, otherwise you won't get enough to fill the cat. Mathmo ^Talk 14:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.