< January 26	January 28 >

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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category is inherently POV. Even with the word "alleged" it is a bad idea because it encourages users to make the implied statement that a state is alleged to be a puppet state without naming who made the allegation. It looks to me as if only one contemporary state (Iraq) is so categorized. A quick Internet search reveals that other states have also been alleged to be puppet states (including the USA, Britain, and North Korea) but I don't think the solution is to add them to the category. Boson 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently not neutral and impossible to make unbiased. This category runs 180% counter to the neutral point of view policy. Picaroon 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories are being used more and more as a backdoor way of putting a POV on an article. --- Safemariner 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see my contribitions to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 7#Category:Territories under military occupation --- Safemariner 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Lesnail 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Alleged by whom anyway? A category page can't tell you that. Wryspy 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why isn't Israel's big puppet state in North America included? ReeseM 11:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Pascal.Tesson 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Alleged" implies unverified/unverifiable. Dugwiki 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 'alleged' in the title is justification enough to nuke on sight. --Xdamr^talk 15:12, 30 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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there are only 216 Language Colleges in the country, there is no need to group them by county. The pages in this list are in a national level category already. robertvan1 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems harmless and maybe even slightly useful. Lesnail 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is absolutely no reason why this category should not exist. A category of 216, and rising, is unwieldy. Scribble Monkey 10:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Scribble, not all the specialist schools have Wiki pages, and it is doubtful they all ever will. Sorting by county overcomplicates things, and I think over categorising guidelines may apply. You are also the creator of this category, so it is natural for you to be protective of it. robertvan1 20:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did create the category, but I did it because I thought it was necessary. I still think it's necessary, regardless of whether you consider that being protective of it. It's a shame you didn't consider discussing it on the category's discussion page first, but I'm getting used to that as the Wiki way. Scribble Monkey 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made no comment about the over categorisation point robertvan1 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are suggesting that the category is subject to the Intersection by location guideline. However, Buckinghamshire schools share a common LEA, and I think that the categorisation is valid and certainly does no harm. Scribble Monkey 11:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is causing harm, because no other counties have their own category! If you start a job like this, you should finish it, or it ends up causing a lot of confusion and hassle. The far easier solution is a single, nationwide category. robertvan1 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to start somewhere. Perhaps more progress would be made if you didn't delete the categories (I see you are doing the same with Arts, but not with any other specialism, as they don't apply to your school) that are being created. Scribble Monkey 09:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be creating all the other categories once this is done with. I didn't want to start doing it my way, then have to change it if it was wrong. However, I have a feeling that this debate has already finished, but I will wait the compulsory 7 days before closing it. robertvan1 16:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that's it? It doesn't matter that I had organised all the Buckinghamshire secondary schools into categories; you decide it doesn't fit your view of things based on your school, and three people agree with you, so you're going to undo all my work? Would it really be so bad if Buckinghamshire secondary schools were organised by county? How many other counties have all their secondary schools in Wikipedia? Scribble Monkey 09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not undoing, per-se. Just making it easier and simpler to list specialist schools. There are plenty of other secondary schools outside Buckinghamshire with a wp page. I agree with sorting comprehensives, private schools etc by county, but due to the small number of specialists, overcategorising them makes it harder for everyone. If my particular view is agreed to be the best by others, then it is probably not just my view, but the whole community's. robertvan1 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DfES do a pretty good job of listing the specialist schools at that level. This adds no value and removes a perfectly valid local perspective. You might as well not categorise the schools, but just create a Language Colleges in England page and link it to the relevant DfES spreadsheet. Scribble Monkey 00:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:Language Colleges in England contains only 33 articles, no need to splut by county or LEA. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robertvan1 only created the Category:Language Colleges in England three days ago, and the fact that he has only managed to find 33 articles doesn't mean that there aren't any others. Scribble Monkey 09:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oversplittng does not help readers find articles --- Safemariner 02:47, 30 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Merged. - Darwinek 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Africa by province into Category:Provinces of South Africa

Speedy Merge, Useless and redundant category. Darwinek 20:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge obviously. Pascal.Tesson 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. - Darwinek 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, This category doesn't make any sense. Same user who created this cat created many "pearls" like "Morocco by city" etc. We have here perfect categorization in "Cities in XY" way. Other similar categories should be speedily deleted and I will do that as soon as the consensus will be given here. Darwinek 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. precedence was already made by speedily deleting Category:Cape Verde by city. - Darwinek 20:44, 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 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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Project for the New American Century is a United States neoconservative think tank. This category contains people who have been members of the think tank. Most of the members (such as Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, William Bennett, and Donald Rumsfeld) are better known for other activities than serving on this think tank. Moreover, this think tank is probably one of many in which these people have made contributions. Like many other minor "award" or "political committee" categories, these categories are a contribution to category clutter, as can be seen at the bottom of the Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld articles. I recommend deleting this category and ensuring that Project for the New American Century contains a complete list of the people who have participated in the group. Dr. Submillimeter 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hanbrook 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, before articles on politicians get drowned in think-tank categories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will be the contrarian here and I think this category is quite useful --- Safemariner 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of the article. Piccadilly 02:08, 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.

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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category brings together clubs named Dynamo, which are otherwise unrelated. There's also Category:Dynamo sports society. Category text duplicates dab page Dynamo. Conscious 19:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. Dr. Submillimeter 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OC. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lesnail 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Conscious -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is more properly used for electrical generators. 70.55.84.145 05:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list it is of doubtful utility. As a category pretty much useless. This is what search is best suited for --- Safemariner 02:52, 30 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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Scots → Category:Fictional Scottish people

Rename to match parent Category:Scottish people and sibling categories such as:

Category:Fictional British people
Category:Fictional English people
Category:Fictional Welsh people
Category:Fictional Northern Irish people

I previously suggested this move as part of a different discussion, but got no response. — CharlotteWebb 19:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lesnail 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Wryspy 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a person from Scotland is called a Scot. Fairly straightforward I would have thought! No equivalent, gender-neutral term exists for England, Northern Ireland or Wales, and the possible one for the UK "Britons" is not in common use, highly ambiguous (usually refers to the ethnic group during Roman period), and controversial. --Mais oui! 08:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that one-word descriptions do not exist or are not in wide use for comparable categories is a good reason to avoid selectively using them. — CharlotteWebb 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are in wide use and indeed the norm. See below. Ben MacDui (Talk) 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure "Fictional Chinamen" would be very well-received. Seriously, we need to use a predictable and globally compatible standard for naming. — CharlotteWebb 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to the standard form as in Category:American people (not Category:Americans, which is a redirect). Not to mention Category:Scottish people. ReeseM 11:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, with regard to the 'standard form,' 'Category:Fictional Europeans' is interesting. There are circa 28 entries and only seven of them include the word 'people', all of them requiring this word. Moving further afield I note the existence of 'Category:Fictional Americans'. 'Category:Fictional characters by origin' is also instructive. Is it fair to assume those voting for a Rename above were unaware of the existence of these categories and will re-consider their votes when they have had a chance to view them? Secondly, if there is any possibility of confusion, which I doubt, a 'Category:Fictional Scottish people' re-direct would suffice. Let's stick with the standard global use please. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Everyone who can read English will understand "Scottish people", but some of them may not understand "Scots". Pinoakcourt 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the proposition is extended to include every entry under Category:Fictional characters by origin. (And also, looking at the Disney-orientation of many of the entries in the Scots category, they may be "fictional Scots" but are hardly "fictional Scottish people"?) AllyD 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If species is a factor for inclusion, anthropomorphic ducks should not be contained in a subcategory of Category:Scottish people. — CharlotteWebb 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to admit that the rights of cartoon ducks are not uppermost in my life concerns, but a category surely should not be renamed in such a way that part of its current population no longer fit? The ducks certainly would not fit the "Fictional Scottish people" category. A fictional work creates a "character" not a "person" so these categories would all be more precise as "Fictional X character" - more precise and inclusive of all fictional creations regardless of species? AllyD 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A couple of points, some of them more obvious than others: 1. In a set of fictional character categories which are otherwise parallel, it seems ridiculous for some of them to be explicitly animal-friendly and others not. 2. The McDuck example quacks like a duck, yes, but it also walks on two legs, has opposable thumbs, and speaks some flavor of English. 3. There is no nationality-based parent category for non-human fictional characters of this type because real ducks don't act like humans, and aren't individually notable. 4. "Scottish fictional characters" might be a better naming convention, but that's a separate issue (and it is also kind of ambiguous some people might read it as "characters from Scottish fiction"). The issue here is consistency. Categories intended whose scopes differ only by nationality should also have titles which also differ only by nationality. — CharlotteWebb 11:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is Scrooge McDuck a person? --MacRusgail 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If Disney Corp. can be a legal person, Scrooge McDuck can be a fictional person :-) --- Safemariner 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename per Pinoakcourt --- Safemariner 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Wimstead 12:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per category Category:Scottish people. Piccadilly 02:09, 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.

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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filming locations of music videos are not notable enough for their own categories; almost all videos for singles by Italian artists could be placed in this category. Extraordinary Machine 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hanbrook 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wryspy 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now if the category was Non-Italian Music Videos filmed in Italy, it would be more interesting. --- Safemariner 02:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Music videos themselves are scarcely notable enough for articles. Wimstead 12:22, 30 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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be overcategorization, and would be better done as a list in concurrency. NE2 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This may be overcategorization, but making a list in the concurrency article would (IMO) take away from the quality of the article. Maybe the list could be made in a separate article, as was done with List of unused highways. No vote on the cat. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, it doesn't have to be a category, but there needs to be something for these articles to fall under: a list or whichever. There's only 3 entries so far because I haven't really found anymore yet. It's hard to search for concurrency articles. I expect some of these concurrent route articles won't just be routes of the same type; i.e. Interstate and US route concurrent, so they won't really fit into the other categories. Combining the two route articles for a long concurrency could be efficient and will reduce repetition of information. Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong and there aren't that many long concurrencies. Actually, now that I think about it maybe "long" is the wrong word. U.S. 1-9 in NJ is only 30ish miles. Maybe a more proper title would be "Category:Concurrent routes" or something...strictly for concurrent route articles, not routes that have concurrencies. --TinMan 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The inclusion criteria are arbitrary. What is the definition of "long" in this situation? Are "long" concurrencies different from "short" concurrencies? Does a gray area exist between "long" and "short" concurrencies? This should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's just supposed to be for route concurrency articles, but not routes that have concurrencies. It just needs to be renamed and redefined. --TinMan 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too vague and unclear. If the category description was clearer it might help --- Safemariner 03:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It needs to be more clear and less vague. Needs a better name! Any ideas? --TinMan 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Dr. Submillimeter, the criteria for inclusion are simply too arbitrary. --Xdamr^talk 15:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor to List of long concurrencies (roads). I like TMF's proposal. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 18:55, 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.

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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial categorization, see also the deleted Athletes in music videos. Otto4711 18:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. Doczilla 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lesnail 01:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReeseM 11:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the category was Non-entertainment industry celebrities in music videos, it would be more interesting. --- Safemariner 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial, non-defining characteristic. --Xdamr^talk 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as trivia, and would have similar problems to actors in a TV series criteria. Rgds, - Trident13 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, trivia in the first two instances, and the third is so completely ordinary and expected that it fails to even be trivia. Postdlf 07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought that this would be an interesting way to categorize people who were in music videos because not everyone is in one and there are some unlikely candidates. Did you know that Matt LeBlanc or Demi Moore were in music videos? Besides, its more interesting than many of the existing categories Plus the third cat meant for cameo appearances and them not contributing to the music at all--dputig07 03:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to make a properly-sourced list article instead. Assuming this is the sort of thing that belongs on Wikipedia, this is a case where a list would be preferable to a category. Otto4711 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then Why did I make a list of music videos made in a certain year and have it deleted? I feel that it is something that needs to be on one page and not looking for in each actor article Wikipedians cant have both ways.

I don't know why your list of music videos by year was deleted. I don't know whether a list of people who appeared in a music video would be deleted. Otto4711 23:18, 4 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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Birds of Central America, see related nomination. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lesnail 01:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. What is wrong with birds? I had to look up the meaning of Avifauna --- Safemariner 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per related discussion. --Xdamr^talk 15:17, 30 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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massively underpopulated. It would be tedious, or take a massive collaboration, to bring it up to standards. We ought to just merge it and go with the other subcategories of Category:Writers - or organise a project to populate it. Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorization. This is not a manageable category. Doczilla 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the women cat right below this one and above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to categorise writers by gender. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
Merge to Category:Writers. We can delete only if we know all of these are already listed in Category:Writers. Vegaswikian 20:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modify category to include only writers closely associated with their masculinity and make it part of their writing. Pcu123456789 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Vegaswikian Lesnail 01:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This category should get the same treatment as the one below. Sorry I didn't have the gobs of time it would take to add all the appropriate members to it before the CfD nom. -- Jeff G. (talk|contribs|links|watch|logs) 07:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not upmerge as the vast majority of them are already in more appropriate subcategories of category:Writers. ReeseM 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla and ReeseM. --Xdamr^talk 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to "Male writers" and redefine to contain just subcategories and put a "populate with appropriate subcategories" tag on it - If there are relevant subcategories of writers where being a male writer is defining then they would need a good category tree & this would be it. Examples might include male writers of gothic fiction; male writers of romance novels; male writers of works of feminism. Individual categories would need to stand on their own. --lquilter 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. AshbyJnr 16:58, 4 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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for ridiculously broad and pointless categorization. This category would have too many members to be useful for anything. Doczilla 17:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above Johnbod 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to categorise writers by gender. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
UpMerge to Category:Writers. We can delete only if we know all of these are already listed in Category:Writers. Vegaswikian 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hanbrook 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modify category to include only writers closely associated with their femininity and make it part of their writing, e.g. feminists. Pcu123456789 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No need; there's already Category:Feminist writers for that. Bearcat 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - "Femininity" and "Feminist" are not the same thing. --lquilter 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Vegaswikian. Lesnail 01:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge to Category:Writers per Vegaswikian. -- Jeff G. (talk|contribs|links|watch|logs) 07:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not upmerge as the vast majority of them are already in more appropriate subcategories of category:Writers. ReeseM 11:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Delete and only upmerge the few that are not already in more appropriate subcategories of category:Writers? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly categorised and useful for women studies. User:Dimadick

Delete as overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 15:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing remarkable about a woman becoming a published writer. Piccadilly 02:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; don't upmerge unless a person in this category is found in no other writer categories, or else it'll be duplicate categorization that people will have to waste time fixing. Bearcat 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same as "Delete and only upmerge the few that are not already in more appropriate subcategories of category:Writers" above, is it not? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, yes, but since it wasn't the original proposal I had to spell out exactly which approach I was endorsing. Bearcat 23:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overbroad and not useful. Categories that target the author's genre or subject would be useful for women's studies; this simply indiscriminately lumps together every women from every culture who ever wrote on any subject in any manner, in all of recorded history. Postdlf 04:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree with Postdlf that lumping all these eras & genres together is problematic. But if it were to be broken down further (e.g., "Women writers of the X movement", "American women writers of the 18th century"), I suspect someone would come along & call it triple categorization. And yet those would be absolutely vital and useful and defining categories, which would fit into a "women writers" category. (maybe the problem is that these should just be container categories & not hold individual articles.) The problem is that identity categories are absolutely critical to studying fields (and not just women's studies), but the value of them varies across time and place. "Male writers" for example might really be a useful category in some literary fields & eras. --lquilter 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Comment - We should really keep this until there is broader discussion on the value & relevance of identity intersection categories. Approaching them in an ad hoc manner, then attempting to define some sort of "practice" or "consensus" based on the outcomes of the ad hoc votes is essentially leading us to a majority-vote system -- which is not what this is supposed to be. Moreover, having the discussions here, over and over again, makes for lengthy, simultaneously repetitive & incomplete, discussions, that swamp the discussions of other categorizing issues. --lquilter 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That discussion has already taken place; see WP:CATGRS. Bearcat 23:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know it has, but despite the guidelines, there's no consensus; people keep wanting & using these categories, and arguing for them in this forum. So I think it needs to revisited. --lquilter 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per commemts above. AshbyJnr 16:58, 4 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 all of them. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Belize to Category:Birds of Belize

Category:Avifauna of Bermuda to Category:Birds of Bermuda

Category:Avifauna of Costa Rica to Category:Birds of Costa Rica

Category:Avifauna of El Salvador to Category:Birds of El Salvador

Category:Avifauna of Greenland to Category:Birds of Greenland

Category:Avifauna of Guatemala to Category:Birds of Guatemala

Category:Avifauna of Honduras to Category:Birds of Honduras

Category:Avifauna of Iceland to Category:Birds of Iceland

Category:Avifauna of Nicaragua to Category:Birds of Nicaragua

Category:Avifauna of Panama to Category:Birds of Panama

Category:Avifauna of Fiji to Category:Birds of Fiji

Category:Avifauna of Mexico to Category:Birds of Mexico

Category:Avifauna of New Zealand to Category:Birds of New Zealand

Category:Avifauna of the United States to Category:Birds of the United States

Rename all Most of the bird categories are 'Birds of xxx', and the parent category is Category:Birds by country. The names should be standardized either way, but I would prefer to move all the 'Avifauna of xxx' to 'Birds of xxx' rather than the other way around, since 'Birds of xxx' is already more commonly used, is less pretentious, and is perfectly clear. 'Birds of xxx' is also consistent with categories such as Category:Mammals of Australia. As stands, it is hard to categorize birds by country, since the categories are inconsistently named. Lesnail 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and comment - Fine, birds is much better than avifauna. But come on -- I realize that we do everything by country but sorting local fauna by country is purely ridiculous. Are migratory birds going to get listed in every country they hang out in for a few weeks? Do pigeons get listed in every country? Regional /continental categories make much more sense in the flora/fauna categories than do country categories -- and are used to some extent anyway, e.g., Category:Fauna of Central America by region. The various sovereignties should be used only when they are coterminous with the bioregions, and then bioregions should be categorized sensibly with national categories. --lquilter 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. We should prefer common names when feasible. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Categorizing birds by location may be practical for some species that are indigenous to specific locations (such as the iiwi) but will be impractical for widespread and migratory birds (such as the house sparrow and the barn swallow). This type of animal categorization already has problems; see boar, which appears high in Special:Mostcategories. This category scheme is not viable; these categories and the other "animal by country" categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But deleting, without having the bioregion categories in place, would cause everything to just be upmerged to, what, birds? While I completely agree with you that "x by nationality" is a poor scheme for categorizing flora/fauna, nations at least serve as some sort of rough proxy for bioregions until the bioregion cats are fully devised. Why shouldn't we hang on to them until the better system is well in place? --lquilter 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Birds of Central America many of them could merge to. In the long term these country categories are unfeasible. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename Per nom. But under the same common name theory are we also going to rename all the 'fauna' categories to 'animals' and all the 'flora' categories to 'plants'? Hmains 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer that, in the long run. Common names just work better, when they are feasible. But there's also issues with common names ... sometimes you have two unrelated species known by the same common name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hanbrook 22:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recategorize all - per Submillimeter; categorizing by country will produce redundancy. They should be categorized by region. Pcu123456789 23:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Wryspy 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all since classifying birds by country does not work very well. However, if the categories are kept they should be renamed as suggested. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and do not delete. Birds is a much better description than Avifauna. 90% of the readers of wikipedia would not know what avifauna stands for. 100% would know what bird stands for. For people without passports, country borders are very significant. --- Safemariner 03:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Birds do not need passports, nor do they care about human geopolitical boundaries. This is not a realistic way to categorize birds. Dr. Submillimeter 09:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As the scientically "respectable" categories have inpenetrable names, it is best to keep these categories, which are at least usable for all of us. Wimstead 12:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The rationale behind these categories probably needs to be considered, but, in the meantime, consistency in naming seems to be a useful thing.

Xdamr^talk 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and recategorize by region; bioregions are far more sensible for classifying wildlife than political boundaries. If kept, rename for consistency and clarity. Mairi 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Category talk:Biota by country. This subject has been discussed before. It is unclear as to whether anything happened after mid-November 2006 or whether any consensus was reached on categorizing animals using geopolitical boundaries versus using natural boundaries. Dr. Submillimeter 15:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Safemariner. Birds do not read wikipedia or go birdwatching. Piccadilly 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Avifauna" would be appropriate for a specialist publication, but it is not the term to use in a general encyclopedia. Hawkestone 14:26, 2 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 per consistency and precedent of several earlier instances of consensus on this issue. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney villains into Category:Disney characters

Merge - another "villains" to "characters" merger. Otto4711 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per many recent villain CfDs. The term invokes POV. Doczilla 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all previous discussions like this. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I don't know if I can vote on this, not having created an account, but there is no possible POV here. Disney villains are very clearly defined as villains and there is no way to mistake them as being otherwise. 67.171.163.212 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disney characters are not that ambigously defined for much POV to creep in. --- Safemariner 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Some of the TV series characters are more complex than the classical villain. Categorizing them as "villains" in inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom, though I'm tempted to say delete as per Nicktoon villains reasoning. — J Greb 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Safemariner. --(trogga) 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that some characters may have ambiguous status as villains. However, others are obviously villains; if their status as villains is ambiguous, we can remove them from the category, but the category itself has a place. Cosmetor 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because Otto4711 doesn't think these guys aren't villains doesn't mean they aren't villains, 'cause they are villains! --- Nintendo Maximus 00:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with whether I personally think they are villains or not. This is about the emerging consensus that use of the word "villain" to categorize fictional characters is improperly POV. Otto4711 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT POV! --- Nintendo Maximus 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a concrete example (categorized as a "Disney's Aladdin villain," which would be a subcat of this cat): Iago (Aladdin). Iago starts out as Jafar's henchman, then switches sides for the sequel and the TV series. Iago spent more screen time as a "good guy" than a villain yet he's categorized as a villain. So the question is raised, is a single "villainous" appearance sufficient to permanently categorize someone as a "villain"? If not, why not? If so, how is it reasonable to discount the entire remainder of the character's history for the purpose of the "villain" categorization? What about characters who switch back and forth, like Emma Frost or Jean Grey or Magneto, who before the categories were deleted were categorized as heroes and villains simultaneously? What about someone like Namor who from his very first appearances switched back and forth between "good" and "bad" on practically an appearance by appearance basis? What about Galactus who operates on a morality beyond human comprehenson but who as written is a fundamental necessity of the universe? He was lumped into the "villains" categories too. What about characters who in some iterations are "villains" but in others are "heroes" but are reported within the same article? Why not go with the solution that doesn't require any judgment be made and categorize the characters factually as characters? Otto4711 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Safemariner. Tim! 10:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim! I'm curious as to whether you're deliberately ignoring the consensus which has emerged on "hero" and "villain" categories, among other places, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here? Or do you disagree with it but for whatever reason aren't choosing to articulate a rationale? Otto4711 16:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you want to delete this just because the other villain categories were deleted and not because there is actually anything wrong with this one? 67.171.163.212 02:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "admit" anything. The previous examples were cited as support for the position. If you, you know, read them you might understand better. Otto4711 03:53, 4 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 to "film characters" as a reasonable compromise, and per ample precedent cited of earlier consensus. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all previous "villain" category discussions. Otto4711 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the other villain categories we've been deleting for being ambiguously defined at best and requiring POV. Doczilla 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous discussions like this. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Film characters. Some of these characters will become uncategorized by source if we delete. I hope people voting delete will reconsider this option. (The nominations for "Animated villains" and "literature villains" will also have this effect, so if you buy this logic here, drop down and check those out too.)--Mike Selinker 16:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a merge. Otto4711 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an example of over sensitivity to possible POV. This category is quite useful. --- Safemariner 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Film characters - Characterization as a "villain" may suffer from POV problems, and some characters may act heroic at times. Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mike Selinker. — J Greb 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Safemariner. --(trogga) 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that some characters may have ambiguous status as villains. However, others are obviously villains; if their status as villains is ambiguous, we can remove them from the category, but the category itself has a place. Cosmetor 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: who decides which characters are "villainous" enough to be included and which ones aren't? As has been discussed numerous times over the last several weeks, labelling a character a "villain" requires POV which is impermissible. Otto4711 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Safemariner. Tim! 10:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim! I'm curious as to whether you're deliberately ignoring the consensus which has emerged on "hero" and "villain" categories, among other places, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here? Or do you disagree with it but for whatever reason aren't choosing to articulate a rationale? Otto4711 16:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't troll me Otto, I said I agreed with Safemariner. Maybe those so-called "consensuses" were no such thing. Tim! 16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't falsely accuse me of things, Tim. And you know as well as I do that useful isn't exactly a persuasive argument. Otto4711 17:41, 3 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 the lof of them. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manga and anime villains into Category:Manga and anime characters

Category:Dragon Ball villains into Category:Dragon Ball characters

Category:Kirby villains into Category:Kirby characters

Category:One Piece villains into Category:One Piece characters

Category:Pokémon villains into Category:Pokémon characters

Category:Sailor Moon villains into Category:Sailor Moon characters

Upmerge - more "villains" to "characters" merges. Otto4711 15:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per all the other villain categories we've been deleting for being ambiguously defined at best and requiring POV. Doczilla 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per all previous discussions like this. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per nom. — J Greb 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that some characters may have ambiguous status as villains. However, others are obviously villains; if their status as villains is ambiguous, we can remove them from the category, but the category itself has a place. Cosmetor 19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Manga and anime characters are more complex than this label implies. Dr. Submillimeter 20:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are, but some of them aren't. The ones that are complex enough that their role as villains is questionable will be left out of the category. This should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not as a universal nullification of the label. Cosmetor 21:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The average user will not appreciate those nuances when trying to categorize articles. Many complex characters will still be labeled as "villains" anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can argue those points on a case-by-case basis. However, like I said before, there are several characters, such as Freeza, for whom the classification of "villain" has little doubt. Although it can be argued where exactly the line between a villain and a more complex character is, there are characters on each side. Cosmetor 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cosmetor. Tim! 10:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim! I'm curious as to whether you're deliberately ignoring the consensus which has emerged on "hero" and "villain" categories, among other places, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here? Or do you disagree with it but for whatever reason aren't choosing to articulate a rationale? Otto4711 16:47, 3 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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:London Underground stations, to match London Underground. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what idiot set this up? Johnbod 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Johnbod. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge New York has a subway, London an Underground --- Safemariner 03:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per into Category:London Underground stations to observe national usage. --Xdamr^talk 15:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per nom. Seems like someone used an American English term for an English English item. Rgds, - Trident13 22:28, 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. "It's useful" is not a particularly strong argument, and even some keep-commenters note that this is ambiguous. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if "villains" were not POV, categorizing characters by the network on which they appeared is a terrible idea. The characters should be categorized as being from their individuals shows of origin. Otto4711 15:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the other villain categories we've been deleting for being ambiguously defined at best and requiring POV. Doczilla 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous discussions like this. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an example of over sensitivity to possible POV. This category is quite useful. --- Safemariner 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These characters are villains. It's not POV. And if it's really terrible that the Nicktoon characters are all categorized under "Nicktoon characters", then I supposed by Otto4711's logic, categorizing Disney, Warner, UPA, and Hanna-Barbera's characters by company should also be a bad idea. Seriously, these categories deserve to stay up. --Nintendo Maximus 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney, Warner and H-B charcters jump shows, films and other source material in a way that to the best of my knowledge Nicktoons characters do not (not familiar with "UPA" so no comment). That is some justification for maintaining them, since many of the characters can't be easily categorized by a single show. I would oppose, for example, a "Toon Disney characters" category for the same reason, because categorizing characters by the network on which they appear is a poor choice. I would also oppose such things as "CBS characters" or "CW characters" or any other such scheme. Otto4711 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These characters do not always act as villains. The category suffers from POV problems and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, just because you don't think they're villains doesn't mean they're not villains, 'cause they are. -- Nintendo Maximus 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. More so given that lumping by broadcaster/production house becomes overly broad. — J Greb 15:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Safemariner. --(trogga) 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that some characters may have ambiguous status as villains. However, others are obviously villains; if their status as villains is ambiguous, we can remove them from the category, but the category itself has a place. Cosmetor 19:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: who decides which characters are "villainous" enough to be included and which ones aren't? As has been discussed numerous times over the last several weeks, labelling a character a "villain" requires POV which is impermissible. Otto4711 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Safemariner. Tim! 10:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim! I'm curious as to whether you're deliberately ignoring the consensus which has emerged on "hero" and "villain" categories, among other places, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here? Or do you disagree with it but for whatever reason aren't choosing to articulate a rationale? Otto4711 16:46, 3 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, per all the above. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disney animated features canon villains into Category:Characters in the Disney animated features canon

Category:Earthworm Jim villains into Category:Earthworm Jim characters

Category:G.I. Joe villains into Category:G.I. Joe characters

Category:The Incredibles villains into Category:The Incredibles characters

Category:James Bond villains into Category:James Bond characters

Category:Jewel Riders villains into Category:Jewel Riders characters

Category:Kim Possible villains into Category:Kim Possible characters

Category:Kingdom Hearts villains into Category:Kingdom Hearts characters

Category:Mickey Mouse universe villains into Category:Mickey Mouse universe characters

Category:Scrooge McDuck universe villains into Category:Characters in the Scrooge McDuck universe

Category:Static Shock villains into Category:Static Shock characters

Category:TaleSpin villains into Category:TaleSpin characters

Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles villains into Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters

Category:Transformers villains into Category:Transformers characters

Category:Disney's Aladdin villains into Category:Disney's Aladdin characters

Upmerge all - Per the emerging consensus regarding "villains" categories, umerge all series-specific villain categories into a parent "characters" category for the series. Otto4711 14:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per all the other villain categories we've been deleting for being ambiguously defined at best and requiring POV. Doczilla 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per all previous discussions like this. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an example of over sensitivity to possible POV. This category is quite useful. --- Safemariner 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Safemariner. Calling these guys villains is in no way POV, because that's what they were written as. --- Nintendo Maximus 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - Many of the characters in these series are more complex than being just "villains". Some characters even change alliances. Dr. Submillimeter 09:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as per nom. — J Greb 15:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Safemariner. --(trogga) 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that some characters may have ambiguous status as villains. However, others are obviously villains; if their status as villains is ambiguous, we can remove them from the category, but the category itself has a place. Cosmetor 19:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not POV, useful and encyclopedic QuiteUnusual 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Safermariner. Tim! 10:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim! I'm curious as to whether you're deliberately ignoring the consensus which has emerged on "hero" and "villain" categories, among other places, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here? Or do you disagree with it but for whatever reason aren't choosing to articulate a rationale? Otto4711 16:47, 3 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 per reasonings above. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Godzilla villains into Category:Godzilla characters

Merge - per all recent discussions of "villain" and "hero" catagories, categorizing as "heroes" or "villains" is inapproprately POV. Also nominating Category:Godzilla heroes for merger for the same reason. Otto4711 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Lesnail 15:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the other villain categories we've been deleting for being ambiguously defined at best and requiring POV. This category in particular is problematic because there is too much room to argue about who's the hero and who's the villain when the fight between Godzilla and (fill in the monster) has them both wrecking Tokyo. Doczilla 17:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all previous discussions like this. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an example of over sensitivity to possible POV. This category is quite useful. --- Safemariner 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Many Godzilla characters work for or against the people of Japan. Even Ghidorah has changed alliances in some movies. The category should be merged. Dr. Submillimeter 09:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom & Dr. Submillimeter. — J Greb 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Safemariner. --(trogga) 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Safermariner. Tim! 10:20, 3 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< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fire disasters in the United States to Category:Fires in the United States

Propose renaming Category:Building fire disasters in the United States to Category:Building fires in the United States

Rename the higher category per siblings. If a fire is notable enough to get an article it is unimportant whether it meets anyone's definition of disaster or not (such definitions probably vary rather a lot). Renaming of the lower category follows on the same basis. Pinoakcourt 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to match peers in Category:Fires by country. ×Meegs 14:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per Meegs. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:23, 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< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transportation in Africa --> Category:Transport in Africa

Category:Transportation in Algeria --> Category:Transport in Algeria

Category:Transportation in Egypt --> Category:Transport in Egypt

Category:Transportation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo --> Category:Transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Rename all. As for the parent category, vast majority of subcategories use "Transport" form (they were already renamed long time ago), so it would be illogical to keep parent cat in "Transportation" form. As for the rest, all countries mentioned above use standard "Transport" form, main articles also use this word for a long time.

Algeria: [1]

Egypt: [2]

Democratic Republic of the Congo: [3]. - Darwinek 11:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. Per nom --escondites 11:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. It should be noted that Egypt, though not a member of the Commonwealth, was controlled by the UK in the colonial period. The main European language in Algeria and Congo is French, and the French for transport(ation) is transport. Pinoakcourt 13:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Lesnail 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. ReeseM 11:53, 28 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< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is for people who have performed a specific version of Godspell in Toronto. Categorization by performance is generally bad, as hundreds of such categories could be added to individual articles, rendering the categories unusable from individual articles. (I found this category in the article on Martin Short, which is #15 in Special:Mostcategories.) The category should be deleted. If this cast is particularly notable, then it should be listed somewhere instead. Dr. Submillimeter 08:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessively narrow intersection/overcategorization. Doczilla 08:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Performers by performance, and Legendary is POV. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 14:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lesnail 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:23, 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< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to the Wikipedia article, absolute pitch is defined as "the ability of a person to identify or sing a musical note without the benefit of a known reference note". While the information is useful, its implementation as a category in very awkward, as half of the category is a referenced list. The references also seem questionable; some of the referenced information originates from http://www.perfectpitchpeople.com, a commercial website selling books and other materials related to "perfect pitch" that wants to demonstrate the prevalence of the phenomenon. This information belongs in an article, but the awkward implementation demonstrates that it is inappropriate for a category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Verifiable, non-trivial, and a notable characteristic of musicians and composers. I see no difference in the value of this category compared to anything in Category:People by medical or psychological condition. I don't know what is meant by "implementation as a category is very awkward". The referencing can only be a good thing, and if the referencing is poor, that is outside the scope of a category deletion debate. –Outriggr § 08:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What I meant when I said that the "implementation as a category is very awkward" is that the page does not entirely function as a category. Half of the page is a referenced list; such referenced lists are usually not found in category space. The list would be more appropriate as a referenced article instead of as a category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We aren't discussing the members of Category:People by medical or psychological condition, but for what it is worth I for one would like to see some of those deleted too. Pinoakcourt 13:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "absolute pitch" can be a transient quality and many, many people who reportedly have perfect pitch have not been confirmed to have it. At best, you'd have to rename the category to something like "People alleged to have perfect pitch". But try to define "perfect" or "absolute". The words just are not that concrete. A list might be useful to anyone wanting to research the phenomenon because a list will require external sources so we can at least evaluate the validity of this claim. However, even a list will have POV and V problems because pitch is more subjective than one might think. Doczilla 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There is extensive interest in this topic. For a time a list was kept at the absolute pitch article, but it was an annoying magnet for spam. The references on this page appear because there is no easy way to add a reference for a category in the article itself (short of adding a comment about the category somewhere in the article, and adding a citation there). The category page itself seemed a reasonable place to put it. As for the linking to "perfectpitchpeople.com", there are only two links to that site, and I don't see any advertising on the linked pages other than directly for the artist's work (the pages don't appear to be advertising books related to perfect pitch). This category page is a bit of a spam magnet, but as I've said, there is extensive interest, and myself and others have managed to keep this page clean. - Rainwarrior 09:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This connects random musicians on the basis of not necessarily reliable comments about an attribute they may have had at a certain time. It is not a defining characteristic. Pinoakcourt 13:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – despite the name, absolute pitch is a subjective label, and one that is often applied casually. I don't support it either, but if we are represent this set, it must be in list form, and with high quality references. Incidentally, I checked 20 articles from the "category" section (C through H), and only three of them mentioned the term (and one of them was tagged ((fact))). ×Meegs 15:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether someone has perfect pitch is a good thing to put in articles, but the category is not useful and is very unwieldy and problematic. Lesnail 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that it's difficult to place in the article simply highlights the fact that this is not a defining feature. I too think it's very interesting & thought about it carefully, but a list is the right way to handle this. The spam-magnetness of the list suggests other solutions, such as semi-protection. I wish to reiterate that categories are very difficult to police appropriate inclusion or exclusion therefrom. If it's not mentioned in the article, I for one would have great difficulty in determining whether or not to take off a recently anonymously added Category:People with absolute pitch tag. A list can require individual sourcing. --lquilter 16:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lesnail. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For any suggesting that it should be a list and not a category, it was originally a list and it was suggested that this list become a category. It might be relevant to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with absolute pitch, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/List of people with absolute pitch. - Rainwarrior 08:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although categorization was recommended, the recommendations were not very strong. Moreover, this "category" actually partially looks like a referenced article. It could be considered the recreation of list of people with absolute pitch as an article in category space. Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the sources are consistently reliable. ReeseM 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By and large, things that aren't suitable to have as lists are even less suitable to have as categories. So if "perfect pitch" failed two different deletion reviews as a list article, why would it then be acceptable as a category? Dugwiki 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus is clear, but I am truly surprised by it. This is a reasonably clear-cut category that has been applied in a normal fashion to group together notable examples of a notable trait. I'll tell you what: it is infinitely more encyclopedic to note that Chopin had perfect pitch than it is to note that Einstein was a Swiss vegetarian. I expect Category:Synaesthetes will be CfD'ed next? (Sure, I am aware of the limitations of the don't-delete-because-there-are-others-like-it argument, but at least they make you think globally.) Just because it's a trait you might like to have is not a reason to delete it. –Outriggr § 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You are right that don't-delete-because-there-are-others-like-it is a lousy argument. Wikipedia is full of lousy categories because most people don't nominate them when they see them, just as most people don't do even easier things like correcting spelling mistakes. After all, you haven't yet nominated Category:Synaesthetes yourself. Piccadilly 02:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to nominate it. It's fine. It's descriptive. It's of interest to someone reviewing that topic. What's the problem? –Outriggr § 20:26, 3 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: delete. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Council on Foreign Relations is a think tank. Many of the people who have joined the think tank (such as Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton) are much more notable for their activities outside the think tank. Categorizing these people as to whether they worked in this think tank therefore does not seem useful. The category instead adds to category clutter, as can be seen at the bottom of the articles on Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton. Hence, the category should be deleted. (The memership list is already listed at Council on Foreign Relations, so listifying is unnecessary.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 13:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a defining characteristic, better as a list. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Counil on Foreign Relations has an enourmous influence on American Foreign policy and some say the council in effect writes American Foreign policy. Members of the council are influential in this policy setting role --- Safemariner 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While I agree with the above comment, it is impractical to categorize politicians, especially high-profile politicians, according to every think tank that they have served in. The Council on Foreign Relations article is more appropriate for listing the members (as well as describing the think tank in general). Dr. Submillimeter 10:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Hawkestone 14:28, 2 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: do not rename. Since several people suggested deletion, I'll renominate them for that under today's listing. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Diabetics to Category:People diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Diabetics by nationality to Category:People diagnosed with diabetes by nationality

Rename Category:Fictional diabetics to Category:Fictional characters with diabetes

Rename Category:American diabetics to Category:Americans diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Argentine diabetics to Category:Argentine people diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Australian diabetics to Category:Australians diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Austrian diabetics to Category:Austrians diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:British diabetics to Category:British people diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Cambodian diabetics to Category:Cambodians diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Canadian diabetics to Category:Canadians diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Egyptian diabetics to Category:Egyptians diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:English diabetics to Category:English people diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Ethiopian diabetics to Category:Ethiopians diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Filipino diabetics to Category:Filipino people diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:French diabetics to Category:French people diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Italian diabetics to Category:Italians diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Nauruan diabetics to Category:Nauruans diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Scottish diabetics to Category:Scottish people diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Somali diabetics to Category:Somali people diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:South African diabetics to Category:South Africans diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Vietnamese diabetics to Category:Vietnamese people diagnosed with diabetes

Rename Category:Diabetics and its subcategories because "diabetic" is an adjective. Using it as a noun is professionally inappropriate. Even though you'll hear some professionals misuse the term, they should know better. People are not their diseases. Doczilla 07:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. The Nauruan and Vietnamese categories are empty and may qualify for speedy delete. If they are not deleted, however, the suggested rename stands. Doczilla 08:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- F.Y.I. for anyone who just wants to vote to delete the whole lot: Several of these categories recently survived CfD nomination. So this time, please focus on the name. People who want to discuss deletion can always try again later. Doczilla 08:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all The current names are normal English and it sounds like professionals are coming round to its convenient brevity. Pinoakcourt 13:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all people who have diabetes are diabetics. How is this different from Category:Amputees?. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all Use of 'diabetic' as a noun is included in the Oxford English Dictionary with examples dating back to 1840.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])
- This isn't 1840. A lot of nouns that got used for people in 1840 are no longer appropriate. Obvious examples can be seen in words used for members of different racial and ethnic groups. Plenty of nouns still in the dictionary nouns are not appropriate for Wikipedia categorization. For example, you're not going to find a "Negro" category even the dictionary still defines the word. Doczilla 17:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Use of diabetic as a noun is still in widespread use, unlike "Negro," so the above argument is moot.Pcu123456789 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the political correctness that people are not their disease, but also would like to point out that people are not their nationality, as in the numerous proposed and existing "Australians with X" or ""Americans with X" categories. But we have to try to make categories work in a practical way, and people are, for better or worse, generally known in English as "Americans" and "Diabetics". Proposal seems likely to generate a lot of needed "don't use this category" blank categories, policing of those blank categories, and so on. --lquilter 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Australians" and "Americans" thing did cross my mind even as I typed them. For those I referred to other categories to see what appeared to be the most common wording. Medical professionals are trained to avoid using nouns like "diabetic"; they are not trained to avoid using nouns like "American". Doczilla 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave all - a diabetic is a person diagnosed with diabetes; shorter titles are better. Pcu123456789 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If no consensus is reached, another option would be to compromise and use "diabetic" as an adjective, e.g. "Diabetic Italians." --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that won't work. Compromises are not supposed to sound worse than the two opposing sides they seek to bridge. Picaroon 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. Regardless of the correctness of its use as a noun, "diabetics" is widely used for the purpose of referring to people with diabetes. Picaroon 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. Wikipedia should reflect reality, not seek to shape it. I realize that there is a movement to not use terms like "diabetics," but until that movement "wins," Wikipedia should not take sides and simply use the accepted English. Doing otherwise will lead to chaos, as everyone takes their favored spin on a term and propose renaming based on it. SnowFire 03:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RENAME PER WIKIPEDIA MANUAL OF STYLE.[4] but with "people" in each category name for consistency. It is not shaping reality to say that they are people diagnosed with diabetes. That is perfectly accurate and is terminology everyone uses without disagreement. There is not universal agreement regarding diabetics as noun. The Wikipedia Manual of Style's medical section clearly states: Be careful not to define a person or group of people by their medical condition. For example, seizures are epileptic, people are not. Wryspy 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since I see you are stopping by talk pages, I figured this would merit a response. First, that is a proposed guideline and a fairly young one at that. The line you are referencing was added only about three months ago on a not heavily-trafficked page. And, to put it bluntly, I don't agree with that and would support its removal even from a proposed guideline. Look at the line introducing that sentence: "Ensure your language does not cause offence." "Ensure your language does not cause offence?!" That sounds like a formula for choking off a gigantic amount of content at Wikipedia, and causing tortuous rewriting. People can and will take offense at anything, but Wikipedia is not censored. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." There is no good way through the offense minefield; Wikipedia is going to be causing offense no matter what. The only reasonable standard to set is typical English usage.

Again, I'll note that when "person with diabetes" displaces diabetic as common English usage, by all means reintroduce this proposal. But, having known diabetics myself who had no problem using the term, I don't think that time is here just quite yet. (Edit: And just to clarify. If you are hanging your hat strictly on the "it's grammatical" argument, you are correct that diabetic is an adjective, but it's also a noun. Merriam Webster's #2 definition is "affected with diabetes." So "Bob is a diabetic" is grammatical, too.)SnowFire 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline exposes the kind of silly politically correct thinking behind this proposal. My dad is a diabetic, and I know how he would vote. There are still a lot of rational people in this world who don't waste their time going around looking for opportunities to be offended, and as far as I am concerned those that do damn well deserve to be offended often as their politically correct intimidation and censorship offends me every day. ReeseM 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all as political correctness gone mad per above. ReeseM 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per all professional style guides. (Though, I'd prefer People with diabetes as the diagnosed bit is clumsy and superfluous). First: yes WP:MEDMOS is just a proposed style guide (note: guideline not policy). Please feel free to comment over on its talk page. Those who equate encouraging good style with censorship are IMO missing the point. A quality newspaper will hopefully censor rarely and may use language many find offensive – that doesn't stop them having a guideline of not deliberately, gratuitously or carelessly causing offence. For example: The Guardian Style Guide says on Epilepsy:

seizures are epileptic, people are not; so say (if relevant) "Mr Smith, who has epilepsy ..." not "Mr Smith, an epileptic ..." In the Guardian, we do not define people by their medical condition.

Professional style guides commonly advocate the so-called Person First terminology. See the oft cited Guidelines for Non-Handicapping Language in APA Journals. Those who think everyday speech is acceptable in an encyclopaedia obviously live in a very polite and formal society. Formal, professional writing is careful. We all need to be reminded from time to time to "take care", particularly when writing about the marginalised and disadvantaged. Whilst "offensive" writing may be tolerated on Wikipedia, for good reason, I think you'll find that "offensive language" is swiftly dealt with as it would in any encyclopaedia. They are not the same thing.

Wrt to diabetic: the argument against the noun is not as strong as some medical conditions. For example: Encarta regards the term epileptic (noun) as offensive, but not diabetic. My theory is that this is related to how stigmatised the people group are or were. We didn't send people with diabetes (or e.g. coeliac disease) to institutions the way we did with those who were mentally unstable or impaired. You wouldn't think of calling someone a retard, cripple or spastic. I can appreciate how someone may be quite comfortable with being labelled diabetic (e.g., this person). I note that the Diabetes UK charity uses "people with diabetes" almost exclusively, and the Journal of the American Diabetes Association: Instructions for Authors says "The term diabetic should not be used as a noun." Colin°^Talk 16:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What I meant was that diabetic is still accepted as a term for diabetes in accepted formal English (for example, see this NYTimes search). I agree that usage in informal English counts for less (where diabetic wins by a much larger margin). That said, I very much disagree that diabetic somehow "gratuitously" causes offense. Does "Albert is a Chicagoan, businessman, and diabetic" somehow trivialize Al as "just another Chicagoan" as well? If so, then there's a LOT of things to rename and rephrase.

I don't want to get too much into the morass of debating the merits of person-first terminology, as that isn't something we can cite Wikipedia policy on and will probably turn into an Internet forum style discussion. I will only say that you're probably correct that "diabetic" will be "offensive" in 10-20 years. It only takes a small number of people to decide something is offensive (note: Your cited style guides) to start a ripple effect where you can avoid conflict and angry letters by using the "new" term. And I think few people object to "person with diabetes," so the term of least resistance will win, even if it means exactly the same thing in English. Your example of "Retard" is good on this: in the 1950s, retard may well have been a neutral way to describe a mentally handicapped person, and not insulting like "feebleminded" (and would have been appropriate for a 1950s Wikipedia). As the usage fell out of favor in higher circles, it became such that the only reason to use it nowadays is to be intentionally provocative and/or offensive. So "retard" is not appropriate for modern Wikipedia. However, people identify as diabetics and are called diabetics all the time without any intent to be offensive currently, so "diabetic" is currently appropriate for Wikipedia.

Also, Colin was the one who added the line being contended to the proposed MEDMOS in the first place- which is fine, of course, just wanted to point that out. SnowFire 18:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikipedia is not supposed to set the agenda for ten or twenty years time. Sumahoy 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all, not a defining characteristic. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all This world is topsy turvy when people want to keep this category but people want to get rid of fictional villains! A person's misfortune in being a diabetic should not be trumpeted out. This information should be considered private and personal and people should respect the privacy of diabetics. If diabetes affects a persons public life, it may be mentioned in an article about the person but grouping diabetics together like this is an invasion of privacy, ghoulish and cruel. What is next, a list by country of people with bipolar disorder, AIDS, Tuberculosis, Leprosy, Alzheimers? --- Safemariner 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What a topsy-turvy world when people think that categories for fictional characters are even comparable in importance to categories for real people :) Piccadilly 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All - its scientific and referenceable, in that someone is or is not. Its something which in recent times was a major contributary factor to a cause of death. Its something which other diagnosed diabetics would regularly search for - its a resultantly a useful support mechanism. Much as though the style manual should be used as the guide, in this case I think the precedent of English should be used as convention. Rgds, - Trident13 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Most people are not notable because they are diabetic. They are notable for doing other things. Categorizing by health condition just does not seem meaningful. Dr. Submillimeter 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all "Diabetics" is standard English and Wikipedia is controlled by ordinary people, not the politically correct liberal elite. Piccadilly 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normal people also say, "That guy has diabetes." It's not always, "He's a diabetic." In everyday conversation, it's both. Is your only reason for opposing it an aversion to "political correctness"? How about we say what is medically most correct? Doczilla 08:02, 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.

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< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Renamed to Category:Olympic medalists for Turkey for conformity reasons. CeeGee 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CeeGee. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:15, 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We just deleted this on after a CFD on Jan 10th & already it's back again. This category is redundant of the preexisting, well-established, and fully sorted Category:Nobility tree. It should be deleted. lquilter 05:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete recreation of redundant category. Doczilla 06:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Doczilla Lesnail 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy de;ete per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:14, 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 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< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As per precident, remove superhero/villain team category and replace with a list. J Greb 04:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per J Greb. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:14, 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: merge. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very small (populated with one article) category, it is for practically the exact same topic as Category:Life after death. I recommend merging the two. Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 04:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge underpopulated category per nom. Doczilla 08:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Doczilla. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:13, 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: lack of consensus; this issue may need clarifying. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Christian fiction and allegory. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning towards merge but am not wholly comfortable. Certainly it's good to put CS Lewis (more allegory) together with Left Behind (more fiction), but is it wise to always put together allegory and fiction? And, won't people be tempted to just use the simple "Christian fiction" category name again? Why do "Christian fiction and allegory" rather than just "Christian fiction", with a note that allegory is a common format for Christian fiction? --lquilter 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments of Lquilter. Lesnail 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep separate this is a distinct genre, and the examples mentioned indicate it. DGG 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Christian fiction is a clean clear category (apart from what constitutes "Christian") however if we add "allegory" that muddies the water. It is conceptually a sub category of Category:Christian fiction as Category:Christian allegory. Maybe Category:Christian fiction and allegory should be split and so aligned, "allegory" under "fiction". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:19, 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: merge. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional priests and priestesses. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into and redirect to Category:Fictional priests and priestesses as redundant and needlessly gender-specific. Picaroon 03:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why are both genders listed in the proposed target? I thought this would be a reverse merge based on previous renames. Vegaswikian 08:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Historically some cultures or religions have had clear distinctions between priests and priestesses. They weren't necessarily synonymous. Doczilla 08:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Lesnail 15:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am leaning to supporting merging the other way -- FP&P should be merged into FP. The proposed merger would place fictional characters at odd with real-life characters, which use "priests" as the generic for both genders. See discussion at Category talk:Priests and Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Archive01 at "Splitting/not splitting categories by gender". In general I think it's better to keep fictional & real-life categories as similar as possible. --lquilter 16:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although you make a great point, we have to consider the historic differences in meaning. Merging priests and priestesses into priests might be like merginging kings and queens into kings. We can't merge "male X and female X" into "male X". The words aren't the same. Doczilla 19:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this example is inapposite: we don't use kings or queens; we use the gender-neutral term "monarchs". Anyway -- these discussions have been had, at length, in the real-person categories, which resolved to use "priests" as the Episcopalians do to mean priests of whatever gender. I would just prefer not to have "fictional X" be different than "real life X". (Frankly I agree with the folks on the earlier discussions who said "priest" is entirely unnecessary and suggested "cleric". --lquilter 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the other way - keep the shorter title Pcu123456789 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the other way per Lquilter's comment Johnbod 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Find some gender-neutral alternative to both. Wryspy 07:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Fictional priests and priestesses separate from Category:Fictional nuns or Category:Fictional monks as opposed to a gender neutral (example) "fictional clergy" might suggest inclusion of all.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the other way per Lquilter. Priestess as a feminime version of Priest connotes more than gender. Most ordained Episcopal and Lutheran women are (self-)termed Priests. I would think that the ordinary parishoner of such congregations would not view their "pastor" as "priestess" à la some pagan religion. A potential gender-neutral alternative is "religious" as a noun not a verb which would encompass the nuns and monks as well. 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1958 NCAA Division I-A football season to Category:1958 NCAA Division I football season

Rename, Seeing how Division I wasn't split into I-A and I-AA until 1978, the name for the category doesn't make sense. Billma 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom --Legis (talk - contributions) 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. with a redirect. Lesnail 01:12, 28 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: no consensus. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as intersection by irrelevent region. It makes much more sense to categorize them by county, than by geography. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "county"? Do you mean by country? Doczilla 08:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Prove It—though to be pedantic, it makes much more sense to categorise them by legal system than by geography. --Xdamr^talk 04:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they are sub-categorised by country. Given the small size of many of the Caribbean countries, many more things are done regionally than in South or North America. This seems a perfectly sensible & harmless category to me. Johnbod 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Although the Caribbean is technically a collection of (very small) independent states, because they are each so small, they are frequently aggregated for many political, economic and sporting purposes. This is particularly so in the legal sphere, where most Caribbean countries are subject to the joint jurisdiction of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (this integration is proposed to be further extended by the new Caribbean Court of Justice), and the region shares a single university, the University of the West Indies, where law students from all Caribbean nations study a pan-regional LLB degree. In culture, economic and political terms, see CARICOM, OECS and the West Indian cricket team. --Legis (talk - contributions) 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Just to disclose my interest, I created the category, and each of its sub-categories, so naturally I am in favour of keeping it. Legis[reply]

Comment I was aware of the Caribbean Court of Justice etc, but my understanding is that, other than these superior courts, the nations retain their own legal apparatus. This includes independent national Bars/solicitor's bodies. If a pan-Caribbean Bar etc has been formed then I would agree with your strong keep, categorising as I advocated above, under the legal system rather than the nation.

Xdamr^talk 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod. Lesnail 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Prove It. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OC#Intersection by location states "Avoid subcategorizing items by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the items' other characteristics"; however, per Legis, it seems that the boundary in this case does have relevant bearing, so there is no violation of the overcategorisation guidelines. cab 10:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Caribbean, as a boundary, only works if the institution itself is pan-Caribbean. In the case of lawyers, this means that there should be a pan-Caribbean Bar and a pan-Caribbean solicitor's body. Only then can there be said to be 'Caribbean lawyers'. So long as the two are regulated by the individual states and lawyers continue to pertain to one legal system or another, this unified category is inappropriate.

Similar circumstances apply to other countries, such as the UK. Both England and Scotland have their own legal systems. Scottish lawyers cannot practice in England, English cannot practice in Scotland. They are categorised separately as a result, despite the fact that the two jurisdictions share their highest civil court, the House of Lords. My understanding is that the same circumstances apply to the Caribbean nations, as such, it isn't correct to group them together.

Xdamr^talk 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete, go by country instead. >Radiant< 15:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab Piccadilly 02:19, 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.

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< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Heartbeat (TV series), to match Heartbeat (TV series). -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested. Figaro 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. "Connections" is fairly meaningless. Doczilla 06:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. Lesnail 15:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't actually see why this category is necessary at all. It has four entries: the main article (which should instead be categorized under one or more of the other television categories), the cast list (which is under Category:Lists of fictional characters in television), Heartbeat (recordings) which is a list of DVD recordings of the show and should be nominated deletion (far as I know Wiki doesn't normally have lists of DVD collections, Best of collections, etc), and List of Heartbeat episodes (which is under Category:Lists of drama television series episodes). Thus of the four articles in this category, three already are sufficiently categorized and the DvD collections article should probably be deleted in its own right. I recommend deleting this category altogether and also placing Heartbeat (recordings) up for afd. Dugwiki 21:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This series is more notable than most pop culture bands/series etc with categories, but it appeals to an older non sci-fi non-geeking audience so coverage may be somewhat behind where it would be if it was a manga series or something of that sort. Piccadilly 02:22, 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.

January 27

Category:Alleged puppet states

Category:Language Colleges in Buckinghamshire

Category:South Africa by province

Category:Africa by city

Category:Project for the New American Century

Category:Dynamo

Category:Fictional Scots

Category:Music videos filmed in Italy

Category:Long route concurrencies

Category:Celebrities in music videos

Category:Avifauna of Central America

Category:Men writers

Category:Women writers

Birds by country

Category:Disney villains

Category:Film villains

Category:Manga and anime villains

Category:London Subway Stations

Category:Nicktoon villains

Category:Series-specific villains

Category:Godzilla villains

Category:Fire disasters in the United States

Category:Building fire disasters in the United States

Transport in Africa

Category:Legendary Toronto Godspell Cast

Category:People with absolute pitch

Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

Category:Diabetics

Category:Turkish Olympic medalists

Category:Nobles

Category:L.A.W. members

Category:Afterlife

Category:Christian fiction

Category:Fictional priests

Category:1958 NCAA Division I-A football season

Category:Caribbean lawyers

Category:Heartbeat (TV series) connections