< January 29	January 31 >

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

The result of the debate was keep/withdrawn. the wub "?!" 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fiction short story collections into Category:Science fiction anthologies

• Merge, two overlapping and basically indistinguishable categories (which have each other as categories as well). Avt tor 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (This is my first CfM, if I've missed a step, please advise.) Avt tor 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close per nominator withdrawal. Otto4711 00:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Weak keep with the proviso that "anthologies" be reserved for collections of stories by multiple authors and "short story collections" be reserved for collections of multiple stories by the same author, which is what I understand to be the difference between an anthology and a short story collection. Otto4711 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The distinction is that "anthologies" contain the works of multiple authors and "collections" contain the work of a single author. If this is not clear, providing clearer instructions on the category pages is the way to go, not merging the the categories. --Paul A 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Another alternative would be to clarify the situation by renaming the collections category to [[:Category:Single-author science fiction collections]], but I am not in favour of this as the new name seems a bit unwieldy. --Paul A 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is sufficiently non-obvious that I'd still prefer to merge the categories, but if the distinction were made clear somewhere, that would solve a lot of the problem. Avt tor 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - collections & anthologies are defined as single-author and multi-author; no need for more complex terms. To the extent this is confusing or a little bit specialist, a simple template could be devised that would create a standard explanation of collections/anthologies with links to the other category. --lquilter 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - collections & anthologies are defined as single-author and multi-author, clearer instructions and definitions might be needed. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Far be it for me to argue against consensus. If someone voting "Keep" could put some clear wording on the two category pages, I can withdraw the nomination. Avt tor 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added some verbiage to each category description; if it meets with your approval you can withdraw the nom. Otto4711 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good enough. You are da man. :)

Withdraw nom - by nominator per consensus. (What do I do now?) Avt tor 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavic tribes into Category:Slavic ethnic groups

• Merge or put a note on both category pages explaining the difference. (I also fail to understand why Silesians are categorised as a "Slavic nation" while Pomeranians are categorised as a "Slavic tribe" – please have a look at that disctinction, too.) Wikipeditor 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:OC#Opinion about a question or issue --Nowke 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonsense. Category appears to have only one member. Therefore, this individual can just as easily post that box on his/her own page instead of creating a one-member category. Doczilla 05:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is that "one member" who's been trying to recruit some of the other fans (who, it seems, don't care for Wikipedia, and sometimes I don't blame them). Thanos6 12:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer to WP:UCFD. >Radiant< 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures in Dallas to Category:Buildings and structures in Dallas, Texas

Category:Landmarks in Dallas to Category:Landmarks in Dallas, Texas

Category:Mayors of Dallas to Category:Mayors of Dallas, Texas

Category:People from Dallas to Category:People from Dallas, Texas

Category:Sports in Dallas to Category:Sports in Dallas, Texas

• Rename, Consistency with other Dallas, Texas categories. --Vossanova ^o< 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - is the disambiguator needed in any Dallas-related categories? I for one can't think of any other places it is likely to be confused with. There are quite a few places called Dallas, but I doubt any of them is big enough to cause confusion. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is those other Dallas categories that are out of line with the agree style for subcategories of front rank U.S. cities, so they are the ones that should be renamed, dropping "Texas". Sumahoy 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Sumahoy. AshbyJnr 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Banned documentaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the category for banned films was recently deleted. Logically this category for a subset of films should also be deleted. Otto4711 18:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per established consensus that these sort of 'Banned' categories are best discouraged (Banned writers - CFD 07/01/07, Banned books - CFD 24/09/06, Banned films - CFD 16/09/06/CFD 22/01/07, et al).

Xdamr^talk 20:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Someone could ban a documentary in their home. No need for this category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ban this category. >Radiant< 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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/delete. >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Broadcast media in Oklahoma City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicates both its own subcategories and Category:Oklahoma City Media Category:Oklahoma City media, whose scope is more in line with the rest of Category:American media by market. I've submitted OKC Media for speedy renaming for capitalization, which leaves this category to delete. -choster 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Convention is usually "Media in (city)", then "Radio in (city)", "Television in (city)", "Newspapers of (city)", etc. underneath. Everything that's here is already in Category:Oklahoma City media and its subcategories. It looks like we still need to decide between "Media in (city)" and "(city) media", though. --Vossanova ^o< 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, convention is largely City media (under Category:Media by city) except for 11 American, 5 British, and 2 Australian categories, and almost universally Country media (Category:Media by country) except for the standard problematic adjectival forms. I haven't had time to nominate the others for renames yet.-choster 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Oklahoma City media per convention. AshbyJnr 16:48, 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. >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:High schools in California. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:13, 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: merge. >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:High schools in California. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:12, 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: merge. >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uperge back into Category:High schools in California. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge No need to go this far into subcats. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:11, 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< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Italian writers in French, convention of Category:French-language writers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename as above Aaronbrick 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename per Otto. >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Washington University in St. Louis presidents, convention of Category:American university presidents. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild oppose if the office is indeed "Chancellor." No reason not to Rename to Category:Washington University in St. Louis chancellors to follow the convention while still preserving the correct name of the office. Otto4711 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Otto4711. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Otto4711, using appropriate Washington terminology. --Xdamr^talk 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, The name of the office is indeed "Chancellor." Do we wish to misrepresent the name of the office to comply with an unecessary convention? Lmbstl 09:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, categorization of political parties based on how they stand on one single issue. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seemingling pointless category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 00:28, 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 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 as creator error. Mairi 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:British Christians, convention of Category:Christians by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I created this in error during recategorisation work, and have done the merge already. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll update the tag. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, categorization by published list, see Triple J Hottest 100. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published_list. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator Hot 100 winner is a very prestigious title due to its very nature and winners deserve to be grouped in a category. It is not in violation of copyright, nor is the list too big (like the RS 500 category). Wwwhhh 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as notable 'winners' category. ~ BigrTex 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published_list, and Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. Policy is clear. This does not belong. Doczilla 09:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. >Radiant< 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, all the relevant information is already included at Triple J Hottest 100, no need for a separate category.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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 (list already exists). >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crime Syndicate members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete and Listify per multiple previous CfDs for super-teams. Otto4711 14:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Listify as per nom. — J Greb 15:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify per previous. Doczilla 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Listify per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:06, 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Somehow People by people doesn't seem like a good way to categorize. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete bad precedent. Lesnail 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Patrick Henry is not notable enough to have his own category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague category. Doczilla 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I do think Patrick Henry is notable enough to have his own category, I think this one is pointless. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transportation in Oman --> Category:Transport in Oman

Category:Transportation in Saudi Arabia --> Category:Transport in Saudi Arabia

Category:Transportation in Israel --> Category:Transport in Israel

Category:Transportation in Israel by city --> Category:Transport in Israel by city

Category:Transportation in Haifa --> Category:Transport in Haifa

Category:Transportation in Jerusalem --> Category:Transport in Jerusalem

Category:Transportation in Tel Aviv --> Category:Transport in Tel Aviv

Category:Transportation companies of Israel --> Category:Transport companies of Israel

• Rename all. All mentioned countries seem to use "transport" form. Categories are currently in "transportation" form, because almost all countries' categories and articles were started from CIA World Factbook data which uses American "transportation" form.

Israel: [1]

Oman: [2]

Saudi Arabia: [3] - Darwinek 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Israel was once part of a British mandate. Cloachland 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Tewfik^Talk 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and convention, Tewfik^Talk 22:15, 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at Talk:Longest_word_in_English. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not create. Fayenatic london 13:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that a new category be set up for long words in English. I suggest that all words mentioned in the article Longest word in English should be eligible to be included. At the moment the article Floccinaucinihilipilification has no categories, and this proposal would find it a home and companions. The proposal is posted here in case it's a bad idea or a category that has been deleted already. If there is a more appropriate place to raise it then please advise me to move it. Fayenatic london 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per previous CfDs on subjective categories like "long." In fact we may have deleted a longest words category once already. The problem comes when trying to decide what qualifies as "long." How many letters constitutes a "long" word and why is the mark set at the number and not another? Otto4711 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Length of name is non-defining. Plus, we can't specify a number without it being arbitrary. And if we don't specify a number, it's subjective. I'm sorry it just doesn't work. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above arguments and per 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary' WP:NOT#DICT. --Xdamr^talk 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose - A variant on this category was deleted recently. Moreover, this category does nothing to bring together articles on similar topics. Furthermore, categorization by name is a form of overcategorization. Dr. Submillimeter 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above, although I thank Fayenatic london for bringing this for discussion unlike people who would have simply created a category, thereby causing a bigger hassle when deletion time came. Doczilla 05:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I'll close the discussion, and post a link on a talk page or two. Someone else has categorised Floccinaucinihilipilification in Category:Words now. Fayenatic london

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< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supervillains by adversary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Category:All-Star Squadron villains
• Category:Aquaman villains
• Category:Atom villains
• Category:Avengers villains
• Category:Batman villains
• Category:Captain America villains
• Category:Captain Britain villains
• Category:Captain Marvel villains
• Category:Daredevil villains
• Category:Doctor Strange villains
• Category:Doom Patrol villains
• Category:Fantastic Four villains
• Category:Firestorm villains
• Category:Flash villains
• Category:Ghost Rider villains
• Category:Green Arrow villains
• Category:Green Lantern villains
• Category:Hawkman villains
• Category:Hulk villains
• Category:Iron Man villains
• Category:Justice League villains
• Category:Justice Society villains
• Category:Legion of Super-Heroes villains
• Category:Moon Knight villains
• Category:Namor villains
• Category:Nick Fury villains
• Category:Outsiders villains
• Category:Punisher villains
• Category:Shang-Chi villains
• Category:She-Hulk villains
• Category:Silver Surfer villains
• Category:Spider-Man villains
• Category:Superman villains
• Category:Teen Titans villains
• Category:Thor villains
• Category:Thunderbolts villains
• Category:Wolverine villains
• Category:Wonder Woman villains
• Category:X-Men villains

Delete this and all sub-categories. Very rarely does a superviallain (other than those who appear once and are never seen again and are thus not notable) fight only one superhero or super-team. Categorizing villains by whoever they happen to fight once or even several times is a haphazard scheme. As a concrete example, look at someone like Punisher. He's categorized as a Wolverine villain, a Spider-Man villain, a Hulk villain and a Captain America villain, but then he himself is used to categorize other villains! Then you have the POV problems inherent in any "villain" category. For example, you have someone like Hulk, who has fought pretty much everyone in the Marvel universe at one time or another, and he isn't categorized as a villain of anyone. Otto4711 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As they stand, Delete as per nom. This is a case where some of the cats may be valid if two things occure: 1) name changes to (Superhero/team/villain) advisaries and 2) trimming by primary use. — J Greb 16:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Aside from the POV problems and the problem with villains becoming heroes or vice versa, these heroes often have common villains. For example, Doctor Doom is probably a "villain" for most of the Marvel characters in the above list, although he has also worked with many of the above heroes before. Dr. Submillimeter 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Eventually every supervillain fights every superhero, making these categories meaningless regardless of the POV issue on the word "villain". Doczilla 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't people choose who they thing is a villain? —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While certainly any given superhero and villain can fight, in many cases, there are clearly apparent connections between a given villain and superhero. For example, Lex Luthor and Superman are so explicitly connected that there's little question they are identified as being part of an antagonistic pair. Since the category for Superman is limited to "primarily identified" I'd say that's a fair enough restriction. The same goes with say, Batman and the Joker. In many cases, there are even reference books that specifically list a given character as an adversary. Even if some villain turns good, the former identity is still applicable. Now I'm not saying that every entry or category in this section is right, or appropriate, I have my doubts about several entries That said, given the existence of pages like Superman enemies and Batman villains, I consider the information secure enough even absent a category. FrozenPurpleCube 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, added this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board. FrozenPurpleCube 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Something that has not be mentioned yet is the fact that some villains have only fought the one hero. A good example is Thor, who has a range of Asgardian foes that the mortal heroes will never fight. Some allowances should be made for this. Another category, such as a very general "Marvel Villains" needs to be created (it would be several pages long) or something specific, such as "Asgardian Villains".

Asgardian 06:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Asgardian[reply]

• • Comment Um... no. Part of the problem here is the term "villain". These cats are up because current consensus and precedent is that the term requires a POV judgement call for inclusion/exclusion. That's the main reason the Fictional villains and Fictional heroes cats were removed. Both cats you suggest have the same fundamental problem.
    I had suggested up-thread that it may be appropriate to create cats such as Adversaries of Thor, to use your example. Inclusion in such a cat would be limited to characters that only appear in relation to a given other character or team (no POV issue) or are primarily associated with a given character or team (limiting the POV issue as much as possible). — J Greb 09:18, 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< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Islands of the Galápagos to Category:Galápagos Islands

• Rename. This category is formatted in the style used for categories that simply group articles about individual islands, but it has a broader scope than that. It is possible to adjust the title to reflect this without losing much. Pinoakcourt 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.

• Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:01, 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 both. >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football Player (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category and Category:Young Football Player are both empty, don't follow capitaliziation conventions, and are probably redundant with existing categories. They were probably created by an eleven-year old editor, so be polite, please.Kchase T 12:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was under the impression that empty categories didn't really exist. Is this not true? If they do, then delete. Lesnail 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can be speedied if they have been empty for four days (I'm not sure how one is supposed to determine that), but this is just my way to make sure I don't forget.--Kchase T 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete empty and inappropriately capitalized categories. They're redundant to Category:American football players, referring to players of American football as opposed to soccer players. Doczilla 11:00, 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: rename per Otto. >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick to Category:The Chronicles of Riddick

• Rename, Since the release of the film The Chronicles of Riddick, the film Pitch Black has been released and is now referred to as "The Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black" to follow all the subsequent releases to the franchise. Therefore it is not nesicarry to have "Pitch Black" in the name of the category. Also having both titles is a little combursome and oddlooking. I propose shortening the title to simply "The Chronicles of Riddick" Animedude 08:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unsupported claim regarding film title. If it was released with a copyright under the title of Pitch Black. Maybe the most recent DVD box says the longer colon-linked title, but (1) it never had a theatrical release under that name, (2) the film may or may not still say Pitch Black when played from the DVD, (3) you have cited no sources for your claims, and (4) this ain't Star Wars. Do you realize how many DVDs have altered titles, special editions, platinum editions, and the like? Doczilla 08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Riddick franchise, otherwise just Delete and be done with it. Otto4711 15:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't mind that if a consensus cannot be met. (Animedude 06:10, 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: moved. >Radiant< 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WP:SFD, as per instructions at the top of the page Grutness...wha? 00:32, 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete inaccurately named, inappropriate, and essentially unpopulated category.

1. Name is inaccurate. There is no specific disorder called anxiety disorder. The group of anxiety disorders, plural, include generalized anxiety disorder, phobias, panic disorder, and others, not one called "anxiety disorder".

2. The disorders mentioned above are not defining characteristics anyway. People should not be categorized based on conditions that do not tend to be lifelong. Some experience it on and on for years. Some experience very brief difficulties. Categorizing by states people experience is inappropriate, especially when those states involve moods. We all experience a wide range of moods.

3. Except for a subcategory, this category is unpopulated. Doczilla 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is not a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty (disagree with #2) The category is empty, aside from from a subcategory Category:People with obsessive-compulsive disorder which already appears as a subcategory of Category:People by medical or psychological condition. So this category can safely be deleted with no need to upmerge. However, I should mention that while I agree with #1 and #3 in Doczilla's comments above, I do not agree with all of what he said in #2. Just because an experience isn't lifelong doesn't mean that it is historically unimportant in a person's article. If the condition, though ultimately cured, helped define the person for a notable portion of their life, and is verifiable and significant enough to appear in the person's article, then it is likely a characteristic that is important enough to possibly consider as a means of categorization. Yes, everybody has mood swings, for example, but very few people have articles about themselves that specifically mention a specific mental or physical illness in published news accounts. Thus in the case of mental or physical illness which is notably mentioned in specific people's articles, it can be perfectly appropriate to use that as a means of categorization for those articles to sort people with unusual, significant historical similarities. Dugwiki 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reluctantly I agree with Doczilla. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian rock groups to Category:Canadian rock music groups

• Rename, The proposed renaming would be more consistent with category wording for other nations e.g. Category:Australian rock music groups, Category:British rock music groups, Category:Spanish rock music groups, etc. Dl2000 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Doczilla 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Neonblak 16:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename For consistency. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Cloachland 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename, i don't love the redundancy but if it's more consistent.... Aaronbrick 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blade Runner cast and crew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Another unnecessary category the sweeps in not just people who were in front of the camera for this movie, but those who were just associated with it. The crew, as best I understand it, includes the (admittedly important) director, cinematographer, producer, but also (the likely unimportant) best boy, hairdressers, under-costumers, sandwitch-makers, and all those hundreds of names that roll past at blistering speed while you are leaving a theater. C'mon. We should not be categorizing actors by their movies/tv shows/etc. much less the behind-the-scenes folks. Carlossuarez46 01:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 02:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 06:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cast and crew categories for movies are infeasible. Harrison Ford could easily gain a few dozen categories for all of his movie roles. Dr. Submillimeter 09:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cast lists for films are best left to their main article (or a linked subarticle). Dugwiki 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Better in their article. No need for a category. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's only one thing worse than 'actor by appearance' categories—those are categories where you go and lump in the crew in as well.

Xdamr^talk 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:i television network to Category:ION Television network
• Category:i network affiliates to Category:ION Television affiliates
• Rename: The i television network changed its name to ION Television today, and the associated categories should change with it WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: Wikipedia needs to reflect accurate information. dhett (talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I previously suggested in the CTVglobemedia move a few weeks back, that we should consider adding straightforward "the subject of the category has changed its name" cases to the list of speedy renaming criteria, and I'd suggest that again. Bearcat 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Space visionaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The term "space visionary" is ill-defined. It is not even clear as to who should be included in this category. Maybe it is for people who have thought about space colonization? Maybe it is for people who first thought about launching rockets into space? Who knows? It should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and because it's impossibly POV. Nearly every sci-fi writer/actor/movie producer/cinematographer may fit this category; nearly every politician from the space-faring nations (or the future ones) who have articulated ideas, voted for or against money for projects, etc. related to "space" also fit. Only an editor's POV defines who's in and who's out. This category should be "out". Carlossuarez46 01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper above users. Sumahoy 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 06:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above reasons, before I put Gene Roddenberry in it... Fayenatic london 14:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above arguments. --Xdamr^talk 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 21:53, 30 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.