< January 30	February 1 >

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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery to Category:Forest Lawn Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries

• Rename - This category is for people buried in any of the related Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetaries, but the title fails to communicate that more than one cemetery exists. The name should be changed to the name of the actual company that operates the cemeteries, Forest Lane Memorial-Parks & Mortuaries, which is also used in the Wikipedia article on the company. (Note that the company uses an ampersand in their title.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category is for burials at the Glendale Forest Lawn. There may be a couple of people that are from other Forest Lawns, but not too many. I agree that the naming of the Forest Lawn categories is wrong (along with the articles), but I don't agree with your suggestion as to how to fix it. Mike Dillon 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I found this category through Walt Disney, who was listed in both Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery and Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park before I removed one of the categories. He is apparently buried in the Hollywood Hills cemetery, so he does not belong in a "Glendale" category. I suspect other people buried in the Hollywood Hills cemetery are also listed in Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery. Given how the categories are named, it is unclear where to place people buried in either the Glendale or Hollywood Hills cemetery. Maybe a third category for the Glendale cemetery is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 11:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale) and sort with (Hollywood Hills). Is a parent cat for these two needed? ~ BigrTex 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I don't think we need to create the parent. Vegaswikian 06:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am ambivalent as to whether this category treated as a parent or as a category specifically for the Glendale cemetery (although reorganization is needed if the category is renamed for the Glendale location). Regardless, the category is dysfunctional and needs to be fixed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 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: rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park to Category:Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills)

• Rename - This is for people buried in Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills), one of several related cemeteries with the name Forest Lawn Memorial Park. The name change is needed to avoid confusion with the other cemeteries named "Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery". which is presumably for people buried in any of the Forest Lawn Memorial Park cemeteries. Dr. Submillimeter 23:44, 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: yes, it's very ironic to give salt to people with eating disorders. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with eating disorders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Speedy delete and salt - This was on WP:CFD on 2007 January 19. The debate was closed on 2007 January 28 with a decision to delete. The category was recreated on 2007 January 29. Dr. Submillimeter 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and salt per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and Salt per nom, and previous CfD. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 03:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How long does it take to delete an obvious recreation like this? Shouldn't WP:CFD have a speedy deletion criteria for categories like this one? Dr. Submillimeter 15:37, 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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swedish regents to Category:Regents of Sweden

• Rename, Per WP:NCCAT. Slarre 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Pinoakcourt 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename As it is now, the phrasing implies Swedish regents for any country. User:Dimadick

---

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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swedish Governors-General to Category:Governors-General of Sweden

• Rename, More precise, consistently with other subcategories in Category:Governors-General. Slarre 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename To match the other categorys in Category:Governors-General. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename For consistency. User:Dimadick

---

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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swedish Privy Councillors to Category:Members of the Privy Council of Sweden

• Rename, More precise, consistently with e.g. Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. Slarre 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename To match the other categorys like this one. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename For consistency. User:Dimadick

---

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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian air marshal into Category:Marshals of the air force

• Merge, There has only ever been one Marshal of the Italian Air Force (Italo Balbo) and, at present, there is no prospect of any more being created. I propose that this cat be deleted and Italo Balbo added to Category:Marshals of the air force which is for 5-star air force officers who are titled as marshals. (Note, Category:Air marshals would not be appropriate for Italo Balbo as this cat is for 2, 3 and 4 star officers in commonwealth air forces). Greenshed 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom—no real need for single-member categories like this. --Xdamr^talk 23:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Doesn't that mean that Category:Air marshals should be renamed Category:Commonwealth air marshals? Because if Italo Balbo is an air marshal he should fit. Since various countries have various numbers of stars on these people. 132.205.44.134 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Distinction between "marshals of the air force" and "air marshals". Generally, air marshals (ie officers in the ranks Air Vice-Marshal, Air Marshal and Air Chief Marshal) serve in Commonwealth air forces. The Eqyptian Air Force (Egypt is not a Commonwealth country) also appoints officers to the air marshal ranks. The Italo Balbo's rank of Maresciallo dell'Aria is better translated as Marshal of the Air Force rather than Air Marshal as it equivalent to a Field Marshal, not to a General. A good explanation of all this is on the Italian Wikipedia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maresciallo_dell%27Aria) Greenshed 13:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have create the category Italian air marshal and I'm agree with the idea of merging this category into Category:Marshals of the air force.Italo Balbo was the only five star general in the history of italian air firce

---

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: als0 rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swedish County Governors to Category:County governors of Sweden

• Rename, More precise name. Slarre 22:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Slarre. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:27, 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: als0 als0 rename. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of the Cabinet of Sweden to Category:Government ministers of Sweden

• Rename, Per standard title used in Category:Government ministers by country. Slarre 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per conventional title. Perhaps you might also consider adding the following non-standardised sub-categories of Category:Government ministers by country to the nomination?

• Category:Lists of Hong Kong secretaries
• Category:Ministers of Lithuania
• Category:Cabinet secretaries of Mexico
• Category:Members of the Cabinet of New Zealand
• Category:Members of the Cabinet of Singapore
• Category:Members of the Cabinet of the United States

Xdamr^talk 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, one-man show. There was an article computerization, which I deleted last night through PROD. Chick Bowen 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move article Since there is apparently no longer a main article for Computerization, and there's only one article in this category, it seems safe to delete the category and move the only existing article into a different appropriate category for the company's industry. Dugwiki 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created yesterday and no contains a whopping 4 entries... all of whom were curiously enough born in the United States. This simply isn't a necessary category.--Isotope23 21:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First, Wiki tries to avoid categorizing by gender. Second, we normally categorize people by nationality, not by continent. So this category fails on both counts. Dugwiki 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki. --Xdamr^talk 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category should be named African-American female rappers since all the people in this category were born in America, but since we don't categorize by gender, then I will go delete. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Female rappers. For whatever reason, we do categorize vocalists by sex (see Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers) and, absent a reconsideration of that consensus, deleting on the basis of this being a sex-based category is problematic. We don't categorize vocalists by race or ethnicity, so this should be merged to the existing accepted category. Should the female rappers category expand to the point of needing subdivision then it should be done by nationality. Otto4711 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about Female singers, Otto. Assuming Male Singers and Female singers aren't merged, I agree with your suggestion. Dugwiki 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per Otto4711. User:Dimadick
• comment - the reason people separate vocalists by gender is because gender affects voice types, which significantly affects performance within many types of music. --lquilter 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Female rappers per standards within singer categories. --lquilter 23:26, 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: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:New York Mets players, trivia. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per ProveIt. The Rambling Man 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge No need to go this in-depth in a category. nn. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:18, 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. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Media in Scotland to Category:Scottish media

• Rename to conform with convention; compare at Category:Welsh media, Category:Northern Irish media, and Category:Media by country.-choster 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom as it conforms to Category:Media by country. TonyTheTiger 19:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:17, 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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Youth organizations as subjective, or at least Rename to Category:Far-left youth organisations. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Youth organizations. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge 'Left' and 'Right' are difficult terms to define. Perhaps there is some scope for defining groups by ideology ie fascist, communist, concerned with animal rights, etc, but category is too subjective.

Xdamr^talk 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Subjective inclusion criteria. --Colage 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - left/right highly contextual. Category:Youth wings of communist parties already exist, Category:Youth wings of socialist parties could be started as an additional category. --Soman 11:34, 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: no consensus. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fictional mutants. The difference between "mutants" and "mutates" is that the former were mutated from birth, and the latter became mutated through something else (e.g. radioactive spider bite). This distinction is not found in biology, it is only made in the Marvel universe, and there only barely. However, many universes have their own terminology ("metahumans", "metamutates", basically everything in Category:Human-derived fictional species) and it does not follow that we should categorize Mutants by whatever they're called in that setting. >Radiant< 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename To "Marvel Comics mutates" or something similar. The Fictional mutants category has a sub category for Marvel Comics mutants, so why not people who are mutated? As you said there is a diffrence between people who are born mutants and those who were mutated later in life. (Animedude 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose the rename as worded. Spider-Man is not a mutant by Marvel definition. If the distinction is indeed made only in the Marvel Universe, we must use a name consistent with Marvel's naming conventions. If they define their mutates and mutants, we can't dub Spider-Man a mutant. "Marvel Comics mutates" makes some sense, although to be honest, it seems unnecessary. Doczilla 07:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a very clear definition and merging would only lead to further confusion. User:Dimadick
• Keep since a definition is given. If keep fails, rename Category:Fictional characters who have been mutated although I LOATHE the excessive wording.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This term only exists in Marvel, and we should not use Marvel's terminology as the basis for categorization. In theory, for example, Aquaman is a mutate, but he's not in Marvel, and thus would never gain this term. (In DC, Aquaman's a metahuman, which in theory Spider-Man would be, except Marvel doesn't use that term either.)--Mike Selinker 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt Aquaman born with his powers? He gets his powers from being a hybrid atlantian/human. This would make him Mutant, not a mutate. (Animedude 01:47, 8 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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss -- it seems to me that all of the subcats here really ought to be articles, not categories. If this were fully implemented it could add many new categories to hundreds of football players. Clearly there's some interest in this kind of information, but I don't think categories are the best way to do it. What do people think? -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think a typical pre-millenium Super Bowl team should have about 5 or 6 players notable enough for articles. However, each post millenium team may have about 20-30 if not more wikinotable players. I think these categories are valid and useful. TonyTheTiger 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment P.S. each team should also have a template as opposed to a list. TonyTheTiger 19:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for now. This would seem to be over categorization. I'm thinking listify or a template would be a better solution. Vegaswikian 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now until clarified and discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League What is the intent of this category? If it is to categorize the football teams that won the Super Bowl, then delete all the subcategories and clarify, possibly renaming this to "Category:Super Bowl champion teams". If the intent is to categorize individual football players who happened to play on a Super Bowl championship winning team, then I'm undecided on whether the category is a good idea or if this is a good way to handle it. Either way, the category appears to be prematurely implemented and not clearly defined. I say delete it and discuss a draft proposal on how best to do this, if desired, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League since they're probably the editors with the most experience on football related articles and categories. Dugwiki 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm understanding correctly, it would add at least one new category to every player who had had a superbowl victory. If they had had several victories, it could be many more. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With the emerging of separate team pages such as: 1989 Green Bay Packers season or 1969 Kansas City Chiefs season, I think as all of these pages become available, this should fill the category.++aviper2k7++ 01:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say delete all the Category:1999 St. Louis Rams Super Bowl XXXIV Championship Team pages, but leave the category for pages like 1996 Green Bay Packers season.++aviper2k7++ 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Categories for single games create clutter, so use templates instead. Carina22 14:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories by match are over the top. Osomec 22:40, 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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreated content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Was previously deleted along with all other Academy Award nominee categories. Dugwiki 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Dugwiki. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete recreation. Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Candidates_and_nominees. Doczilla 07:50, 6 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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball to match Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwanese Baseball. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Not to be confused with Category:Baseball in Taiwan.-choster 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per matching. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:10, 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 mistaken nomination. The ((cfd)) tag was placed on a section of the article Brian Gilbert; I have removed the offending section. Chick Bowen 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virginia Gilbert[edit]

Category:Virginia Gilbert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Theatre productions mentioned are mostly college theatre. Theatre company totally unknown. Second film not filmed yet - only one real film production. 81.158.202.199 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Chanel[reply]

• There's no category by that name and never has been. There was an article Virginia Gilbert which was deleted on December 26, following this discussion. That article matches your description--is that what you were thinking of? Chick Bowen 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, found your CfD tag--see above. Chick Bowen 21:48, 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. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rivers named for women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, indiscriminate category cluttering up the categories, and encouraging further categories such as rivers named after dogs, rivers named for men, boys named for rivers, dogs named for chairs, cats named for kings. Possible POVPUSH. Bards 11:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The rivers otherwise have little in common and should not be grouped together. Dr. Submillimeter 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify - Categorization by name, a bad idea. Where interesting and relevant lists are appropriate. (And I don't know what the POV is supposed to be (rivers named after women are better? worse? than rivers named after geographical features or men?), but honorary naming patterns are of interest--buildings for instance are largely named after men; Venusian craters after women; and so on. There's often some historical or cultural reason for naming patterns that is, actually, of use to scholars.) --lquilter 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every other article in every other category only really has one thing in common. Thats the point of a category. So, I'll go with delete because of WP:OC. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, nothing more than clutter really. --Xdamr^talk 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this clutter. Doczilla 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted Category:Rivers named after women. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of Grutness's remark, up my position to speedy delete of recreation. Doczilla 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Native fauna of Texas into Category:Fauna of the United States

• Merge - See the discussion on Fauna of the United States by State below. Unlike Category:Native fauna of Hawaii, which contains animals that are only found in Hawaii, Category:Native fauna of Texas contains animals that are found both in Texas and outside of Texas. In other words, this category is redundant with Category:Fauna of Texas. If Category:Fauna of Texas is merged into Category:Fauna of the United States, then Category:Native fauna of Texas should be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States as well. If Category:Fauna of Texas is kept, then Category:Native fauna of Texas should be merged into Category:Fauna of Texas. Dr. Submillimeter 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and merge if appropriate to "Native fauna of southwest United States or Native fauna of southwest region, North America". As for "native" versus just "fauna", this is an important distinction; I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for a category, but I would be loath to eliminate it at this point without specific discussion about the "native" aspect. "Native ... Hawaii" for instance is not, actually, things just found in Hawaii, but things found in Hawaii prior to introduction of European & African species starting in 16th century. --lquilter 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My book on the birds of Hawaii uses the word endemic to describe species originating from and found only within Hawaii. That may be more appropriate. (Note that most of the animals in Category:Native fauna of Texas may not be considered endemic by zoologists, as they naturally occur outside of Texas.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - obviously that's also an important distinction. i wouldn't want to rename the category until we had a report from someone about how it is currently being used -- native (in hawaii prior to modern colonization); endemic (only in hawaii); actual/current fauna (in hawaii regardless of nativity or endemicity (?)). --lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am very familiar with Hawaiian animals. Except for one, the animals are all endemic. The one non-endemic species is the Black-winged Stilt; however, a subspecies of this stilt is endemic to Hawaii. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Fauna of Southwestern United States, I agree categorization by states does not work, but the American southwest does make sense. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Much of the fauna in the American Southwest is also found in Northern Mexico, mainly because some of the ecological zones (specifically the Chihuahua Desert and Sonora Desert) cross the U.S.-Mexico border. While Category:Fauna of Southwestern United States is better, does it still work? Another point: some of the fauna are not Southwestern U.S. species but are instead species found in the South Central United States (East Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas). These animals include the Strecker's Chorus Frog and Pallid Spiny Softshell Turtle. These animals should not be in a Southwest U.S. category. Dr. Submillimeter 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • that's why there's an east texas & west texas subcat, right? i think if the distinction is not yet made in this fauna category then we should not upmerge to "US" because then we lose the value of the work already done to place those species in texas (southeast or southwest US). --lquilter 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless, classifying things as "from Texas" clearly does not work here. Dr. Submillimeter 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're in complete accord that "from Texas" doesn't work for fauna/flora. Just trying to figure out a) what's ideal (I think bio/ecoregions is best); and b) do we go for ideal now, or some intermediate step; and if intermediate, which is best as an intermediate? -- upmerge to US, leave with Texas, or rename to a perhaps not quite right attempt at a bioregion? I have no really firm opinions, but feel that upmerging could lose whatever fine gradations are presently embodied in the category. --lquilter 21:27, 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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vertebrates of Connecticut

Category:Amphibians of Connecticut

Category:Fish of Connecticut

Category:Mammals of Connecticut

Category:Reptiles of Connecticut

Category:Invertebrates of Connecticut

Category:Frogs-Toads-Salamanders of New Mexico

Category:Fish of Utah

• Merge into Category:Fauna of the United States - See the Fanua of the United States by state discussion below; this merge should only take place if that one proceeds. Currently, most animals except for birds in Category:Fauna of the United States are not divided by type (e.g. no subcategories exist for mammals, amphibians, etc.). If that merge proceeds, then these subcategories should also be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States. If that nomination fails, then these categories should be left alone. Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename & merge into appropriate bioregions: X of northeast United States, or X of northeast North America; southwest US or southwest NA; western North America. --lquilter 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Dr. Submillimeter. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Sumahoy 02:43, 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: delete per AFD. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of video game music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All articles in this category are facing deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_8-bit_Atari_game_music. Shawnc 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

• Comment. Facing deletion does not mean they'll be deleted, though. Doczilla 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending AfD results. --Dweller 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending afd results If any of the list articles end up getting kept, then this is probably an ok way to categorize them. However, if all of the articles end up getting deleted, then the category would be empty and can be safely deleted. Dugwiki 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I anticipate deletion for all these lists. The AfD currently has 10/12 votes for deletion. Shawnc 08:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: The category is now empty. Suggested speedy deletion. Shawnc 06:19, 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: merge the lot of them. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of the United States by state

Category:Fauna of Alabama

Category:Fauna of Alaska

Category:Fauna of Arizona

Category:Fauna of Arkansas

Category:Fauna of California

Category:Fauna of the San Francisco Bay Area

Category:Fauna of Colorado

Category:Fauna of Connecticut

Category:Fauna of Delaware

Category:Fauna of Florida

Category:Fauna of Georgia (U.S. state)

Category:Fauna of Idaho

Category:Fauna of Illinois

Category:Fauna of Indiana

Category:Fauna of Iowa

Category:Fauna of Kansas

Category:Fauna of Kentucky

Category:Fauna of Louisiana

Category:Fauna of Maine

Category:Fauna of Maryland

Category:Fauna of Massachusetts

Category:Fauna of Michigan

Category:Fauna of Minnesota

Category:Fauna of Mississippi

Category:Fauna of Missouri

Category:Fauna of Montana

Category:Fauna of Nebraska

Category:Fauna of Nevada

Category:Fauna of New Hampshire

Category:Fauna of New Jersey

Category:Fauna of New Mexico

Category:Fauna of New York

Category:Fauna of North Carolina

Category:Fauna of North Dakota

Category:Fauna of Ohio

Category:Fauna of Oklahoma

Category:Fauna of Oregon

Category:Fauna of Pennsylvania

Category:Fauna of Rhode Island

Category:Fauna of South Carolina

Category:Fauna of South Dakota

Category:Fauna of Tennessee

Category:Fauna of Texas

Category:Fauna of Eastern Texas

Category:Fauna of Western Texas

Category:Fauna of Utah

Category:Fauna of Vermont

Category:Fauna of Virginia

Category:Fauna of Washington

Category:Fauna of West Virginia

Category:Fauna of Wisconsin

Category:Fauna of Wyoming

• Merge all into Category:Fauna of the United States - Although categorization of animals by country is questionable (since animals' ranges have little to do with political boundaries), categorization of animals by U.S. state is infeasible. Most North American animals are found in multiple U.S. states, and some (such as the prolific coyote and the almighty house sparrow) are found in every state in the Continental U.S. These two animals as well as others could easily be placed into almost all of the above categories. If the appropriate categories were added to animals' articles, the categories would quickly become an unusable mass of wikilinks. Given that the categorization system plainly is not practical, the entire category tree should be merged into Category:Fauna of the United States. However, an exception should be made for Category:Native fauna of Hawaii. This category will only include animals that occur in Hawaii and can therefore be used more realistically. (Additionally, note that additional debate on subdividing animals according to political boundaries instead of natural boundaries may require additional debate. Also note that a similar category tree exists for birds. However, the parent category is currently the subject of a rename debate, so to avoid confusion, any merge proposal on the bird categories should wait for the debate on the parent category to close.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of these categories contain other subcategories (e.g. Category:Invertebrates of Connecticut) that also need to be addressed. Dr. Submillimeter 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Texas category is subdivided into an East and West Texas categories, which also belong in this nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The category on fauna of the San Francisco Bay area also belongs in this nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 10:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. Cloachland 13:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and merge into regional variants of Category:Fauna of North America. If you just upmerge now you'll lose whatever regionality is currently included by proxy of states/state regions. In particular, E./W. Texas & SFBA do have unique fauna and if they're in there, then it would be a real disservice to readers to suddenly have to scan through the "US" or "North America" categories to get them. --lquilter 15:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could you post a more specific suggestion on how to sort these state categories into regional categories? I am uncertain if I like the proposal (as many animals would fall within multiple regions), but it would help discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As for fauna that fall within multiple regions : By categorization standards we do the most specific cat, so if it's multiple regions (like pigeons) then it should be in only the most specific bioregion cat, e.g., "Fauna of Earth", maybe.
• Strongly Oppose. This is one of the most damaging suggestions I've ever seen. This will completely destroy the work that went in to the effort that went in to forming these regional variations.--DaveOinSF 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment: Per Dr. Submillimeter's request I'm essaying a category structure that would fit within the existing category structure Category:Ecoregions. But I want to strongly second DaveOinSF (and my earlier comment), which is that we should only do non-destructive recategorization so that, where an existing specific category is useful, the value of that work not be lost. Here's a proposal:

      Washington, Oregon, and Idaho would go into Category:Fauna of the Pacific Northwest which would be a subcat of Category:Pacific Northwest (already exists) which should be a subcat of Category:North American ecoregion (which needs to be created but would be a subcat of existing cats Category:North America and Category:Ecoregions. The other North Am ecoregion cats don't yet exist, but probably we should create them.

      Category:Southeast ecoregion of North America (Alabama, Mississippi, East Texas, Louisiana, Virginia, etc.)

      Category:Northeast ecoregion of North America (Maine, Mass, NY, Vt, NH, etc.)

      Category:West coast ecoregion of North America (or is it West Coast?) (California)

      Category:Southwest ecoregion of North America (W Texas, Arizona, NM, Nevada)

      Category:Rocky Mountain ecoregion of North America (Colorado etc)

      Category:Gulf Coast ecoregion of North America (E Florida, S Louisiana, S Mississippi, SE Texas)

      Great Lakes, Midwest, Appalachians are other likely contenders. I'm not an ecologist and can't be very precise. I think if it's not obvious (like the ones I've listed so far) that we should have Category:North American ecoregion and dual-categorize (the political boundaries and the obvious/most specific ecoregion) until an ecology or biology project or some other knowledgeable person can deal categorize most specifically and without unnecessary categories. It is important to dual-categorize, rather than delete the categories, so as to not have destructive de-categorization and loss of the work already put into these. At any rate, the eco/bioregional fauna cats need to be co-categorized with the political boundaries, anyway -- so Category:North American fauna would need to be linked to the relevant political cats anyway (national & state sovereigns).--lquilter 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Can we have "endemic" added to those category names? I do not want to see the coyote or the house sparrow land in all of them. Also, can we demonstrate that these ecoregions are defined by an external reference rather than made up for Wikipedia? Dr. Submillimeter 17:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that categorization by state cleary doesn't work. However, I don't think merging all the north american animals into one big category is the right thing either. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you agree that categorization by state doesn't work, and one big category doesn't either, then what other option is there? —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose. Although some state animal lists are more complete than others (i.e. Minnesota). State lists can be valuable information to those state residents wishing to see what wildlife occurs in their respective states or regions. I live in New England, where the states are small. Someone in NH, ME,etc. may want to take a peek at the wildlife occurring in their own state, despite the duplicative nature of the lists. The State Fauna category allows for a further breakdown into more manageable categories, again see Minnesota. I do agree that listing each species across all animal Classes could get burdensome if listed in this manner under Fauna, but there is value in the Fauna List linking the Animal Classes or regions together, and this far outweighs the bursensome nature of people linking each species to the Faunal lists (any way to limit the Faunal lists to only include regional lists without confusing people?) The American Society of Mammalogists are devising their own state mammal lists for each state, and many organizations have their own state bird, butterfly, herp, fish which shows the interest in these types of lists. Wikipedia is in a unique position since we have the state wikis to link any verifiable state animal lists together to each state. It is a nice learning tool. My strong vote is to keep.Pmeleski 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Horrible category clutter. If it is important (which is doubtful) write an article for each state instead. Piccadilly 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See Category:Fauna of Europe. This seems like a fairly reasonable way to organize animals. On the other hand, some of the national subcategories (e.g. Category:Mammals of Estonia) appear to replicate many of the animals in a "Europe" parent category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing this out -- It looks good at a continent & type-of-animal level. But I wouldn't put too much weight on the lack of subdivisions, though; the fact that Fauna of Europe is not divided beyond continent is probably at least as much due to English/North American bias as it is to any decisions based on the best category structure. --lquilter 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  On the other hand, how many categories are needed to indicate the range of something like the Eurasian Badger? Shouldn't two (Category:Mammals of Asia and Category:Mammals of Europe) be sufficient? This and other animals do not need categories saying that they live in virtually every country between France and Sakhalin. Similarly, we do not need a category system that indicates that the coyote lives in every state and province between California and New Brunswick. Dr. Submillimeter 18:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the Eurasian Badger should only be placed in two (or one--Eurasia) categories, because those would be the most specific categories for that particular critter. But the category system needs to also accommodate critters that live in smaller and more specific regions. Fauna should be placed in the most specific category appropriate to that creature, per Wikipedia:Categorization; in some instances the most specific appropriate category is continent-sized; in other instances it might be as small as a particular bay, lake, forest, or mountain. --lquilter 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge This system has some use top down, but not enough to justify the damage it does bottom up (ie. from the articles). It also sets an alarming precedent as if these are categories are kept they will promote use of similar local categories in other countries. Some animals might end up in a thousand categories. Sumahoy 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose we just had this discussion 4 months ago. Trying to delete things without first having useful alternatives is of no value to WP. The problem I saw then and still see is that the contents of the articles do not generally have sufficient information to categorize them by bioregion or really in any other way. Is anyone going to fix these articles so they have sufficient facts? Where are the biologists to do this. I think categories should always based on article facts. Hmains 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, a fix was discussed at Category talk:Biota by country after several WP:CFD discussions, but no one ever took action. Second, most of the subcategories' articles indicate that the animals are located within the United States. Upmerging to Category:Fauna of the United States would make sense. Dr. Submillimeter 09:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all These categories are unrelated to habitat conditions. AshbyJnr 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - If we upmerge to Category:Fauna of the United States (or better yet, Category:Fauna of North America), could we include the category name information within the text of the article, in a section called "Regions found"; and note on the Talk: page that this is a temporary fix until there is a full bio solution? Would that satisfy the other folks who are concerned about losing any informational content contained by the state-based categorization, as a temporary solution? --lquilter 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all State boundaries are irrelevant to science. Carina22 14:02, 6 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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:High schools in Florida, convention of Category:High schools in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per convention. --Dweller 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per the convention. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Florida is far too big to have just one category. AshbyJnr 16:46, 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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:State of México to Category:México (state)

Propose renaming Category:Cities in México State to Category:Cities in México (state)

Propose renaming Category:Governors of the State of México to Category:Governors of México (state)

Propose renaming Category:Municipalities in State of México to Category:Municipalities of México (state)

• Rename all, so that all categories relating to México (state) (Estado de México) use the same term in their titles to refer to the political entity (ie the Mexican state which also happens to be called México). Presently they refer to it in several different ways, which is confusing as well as inconsistent. The proposed renames reflect the nomimal form of the article on the state itself. The rename of the municipalities subcat is also consistent with the way other municipalities by Mexican state cats are formed, ie uses the of not in construction. Note also that the use of the accented char in the titles is entirely consistent with usage employed when naming other Mexican states' articles and categories (eg Yucatán, San Luis Potosí, etc. cjllw | TALK 05:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename - The categories should automatically be renamed to match the parent article, especially when the name of the parent article is generally accepted by consensus or is otherwise non-controversial. I had proposed a speedy rename criteria like this on the talk page for this page, but I received no comments, and so I never pushed it forward. Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per Dr. Submillimeter. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename to match article name. --Xdamr^talk 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whats the need to create Criminals by ethnicity? See also discussion of July 19th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 05:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's well-known I support many occupation/identity categories, but that doesn't mean I want them to proliferate without reason. The existence of this would seem to necessitate a bunch of "Blank-American criminals" and I don't think that's helpful. Lastly the only name in it seems to be a rapper and that makes me think some kind of agenda is intended.--T. Anthony 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although criminality & ethnicity is an important & studied topic, categories of criminals by ethnicity are definitively not going to be helpful in studying it. The study of criminality & ethnicity/gender/nationality/religion/etc is statistical and quantitative, and the use of categories in wikipedia lends nothing to that. Moreover, while other identity & occupation categories are useful because they serve as barometers of notable persons in those professions, and can reflect social barriers to success based on race/gender/etc; that reasoning completely breaks down for the "occupation: criminals" category -- because what is a "notable" or successful criminal? More crimes? More punishment for fewer crimes? Less punishment per crime? Criminals are notable for all sorts of reasons; often because they are notable for non-criminal activities. So this category is not only not helpful, it is actually, actively, confusing. Delete all "Criminals by ethnicity" categories. --lquilter 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't put it any better than T. Anthony... this is completely useless.--Isotope23 20:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:OV by ethnicity. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not only is this over-categorization, it's wildly offensive that African-Americans are the only people categorized like this. --Colage 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously some crimes are racially motivated, but articles about those crimes already can be categorized under, for example, Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States. Likewise, for cases where a criminal's ethnicity led to unfair treatment by the judicial system or by vigilante groups, there exist racism related categories you can use to sort those articles. And obviously for criminals where ethnicity played no notable role in either the crime or the aftermath, there is no need to categorize those people by race. Thus it seems unlikely this particular category is actually needed and there is sufficient overlap with existing racism-related categories to cover the articles where ethnicity made a difference. Dugwiki 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless all other African American categories are deleted. Singling this out for deletion is an obvious breach of Wikipedia:Neutrality. Piccadilly 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? You have to handle categories one at a time, and we frequently delete African American categories as being a random intersection of ethnicity and occupation/status. If you have other similar categories that you think should be considered for deletion, I'm sure we'll consider them equally. Dugwiki 20:26, 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< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of places in Sweden to Category:Municipal commissioners of Sweden

• Rename, The title of mayor doesn't exist in Sweden, which is divided into municipalities led by a municipal commissioner (Swedish: kommunalråd). Slarre 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, makes sense to avoid inaccurate 'translations'.--cjllw | TALK 05:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - well, if we are talking about "inaccurate translations" then I must point out that translating the Swedish "kommuner" to the word "municipalities" is a debateable point! The English language already has a perfectly good translation of the word "kommun" - it is "commune". Why do we use the awkward "municipalities" for Swedish articles, but the standard "communes" for our French ones? --Mais oui! 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Let's be precise as per nom. TonyTheTiger 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename To match the title in Sweden. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:23, 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. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Australian Gaming conventions to Category:Role playing conventions

• Rename. Gaming in this case is totally ambiguous. Role playing makes it clear what this category is for. Vegaswikian 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. "Gaming" in many legal terms refers to gambling. Doczilla 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Doczilla. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is this a necessary category? It seems to me it should be deleted per small with no potential for growth, and possibly even Wikipedia is not a directory.
  • The problem I have with deleting this is that the whole area for games needed to be looked at and cleaned up to understand what belongs. I tried a little work on Category:Games today to see what could be moved down to see if there was a logical way to organize these conventions. Part of the problem is the name for the parent, Category:Gaming conventions, which is also ambiguous. Vegaswikian 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another option here is to rename to Category:Role playing conventions which would increase the scope of the category and allow more members. The by country designation could be added later if needed. I think this makes more sense, so I'm going to modify the nomination to reflect this. Vegaswikian 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename - Probably the most reasonable thing to do with the category. --Colage 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Game conventions per the discussion above on category:Gaming conventions.--Mike Selinker 03:27, 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: do not merge. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conflicts into Category:Conflict

• Merge, There is already a larger Category:Conflict. I changed everything that was categorized as Conflicts to Conflict since there is no need for two similar categories. --Jagz 02:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should not be a category named Conflict and another Conflicts, it is too confusing. --Jagz 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will remove the merge proposal template from the Category but will add a description of the Category to prevent confusion. --Jagz 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The 'Conflict' category should be reserved for articles on the sociological theory of conflict. The 'Conflicts' should be the overarching category for articles on conflicts that have occurred in history. Look at the categories to which these two categories belong to see the difference. Hmains 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just create a new category called Sociological Conflict or Theory of Conflict, etc.? It can be a subcategory of Category:Conflict. --Jagz 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unmerge and Rename Category:Conflict to prevent future confusion. ~ BigrTex 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am against the name Conflicts because it implies that it is for articles with more than one conflict. A category with the name Conflict could represent articles with one or more conflicts. --Jagz 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is a perfectly standard distinction between a category that covers everything related to a topic and a category that includes specific instances of it; c.f. Category:Fire (general topic) versus Category:Fires (specific instances). Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and unmerge per Kirill Lokshin. TonyTheTiger 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge; Comment - Clearly these should not be merged; "conflicts" is for examples of particular conflicts; and "conflict" is for the theory/study of. However, we might consider possibilities of renaming "Category:Conflict to render things less confusing. (Even though I agree it is standard to have Topic (singular) / Topics (plural) to distinguish between theory & examples, if there's a sensible way to distinguish, I think we should. In this case we could move Category:Conflict to Category:Conflict theory (my #1 choice) or Category:Conflict studies (my #2 choice), and retain Category:Conflicts the way it is. (Although conflicts should list as a subset of Conflict, also.) --lquilter 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Kirill Lokshin put it perfect. —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American English-language writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Canadian writers in English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pure time-wasting category clutter. There are something like ten thousand plus articles about American writers, of which this contains one. A vast amount of effort has been put into subcategorizing category:American writers, but it is a huge task and there is still a long way to go. All this would do is recreate that category. It is far more rational to make this category, and others for mainly English speaking countries, subcategories of category:English-language writers and add a qualifying note that those subcategories may contain a few non-English language writers. Sumahoy 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This categorization is not useful, as the majority of American writers have written in English. Dr. Submillimeter 09:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification of vote: Delete Category:American English-language writers, Neutral on Category:Canadian writers in English - The nomination changed to include a second category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If their american, don't they usually write in english? —mikedk9109^SIGN 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily; are there no American writers who write in Spanish? Native American languages? Bearcat 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are rare exceptions. What do we gain by adding this category to thousands and thousands of categories. Pinoakcourt 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an unneeded intersection of American writers and English-language writers. It makes more sense to fully populate both parents and delete the intersection. I don't think that American writers should be a subcategory of English-language writers. -- Samuel Wantman 21:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and apply the same approach as Category:English-language poets. Pinoakcourt 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now done. I am also adding a nomination for Category:Canadian writers in English. I know the exceptions are rather greater in that case, but I think an English-language category is clutter on the articles just the same, and there is no need to have it when there is an easy workaround. The tiny number of articles in both categories suggests that there simply isn't much demand for them and that there is little chance of them ever being fully populated (though full-population would be undesirable). Pinoakcourt 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another point to keep in mind is that if this system was extended some people would end up in not one extra category, but six or eight, eg an American novelist/short story writer/poet/dramatist and playwright/literary critic/travel writer could also be categorised in an English-language category for each of those genres. Pinoakcourt 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Pinoakcourt. Hawkestone 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both for being almost totally useless. AshbyJnr 16:46, 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.