< May 31	June 2 >

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 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 debate was merge Category:StarCraft universe to Category:StarCraft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:StarCraft universe to Category:StarCraft

• Merge - I'm not seeing the point of maintaining a separate "universe" category. A lot of the stuff in the universe category is already categorized in the parent. Merging will simplify the structure. Otto4711 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, pointless sub-category. -N 18:36, 2 June 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 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 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 debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reg Grundy game shows to Category:Two parent cats

• Merge to Category:American game shows and Category:Australian game shows as appropriate per article. We just did another one of these not too long ago and consensus was not to categorize game shows by production company. Otto4711 22:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separate Category useful for navigation as no template exists. -N 18:37, 2 June 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 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 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 debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand user templates to Category:Location user templates

• Merge, We are not going to have a CAT for all 50 states, and this cateogry is sort of random being put right in CAT:UT I say merge it with Location user templates, but there is prolly a better CAT. -PatPeter 21:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose, though it needs a better parent vcat and is probably worth splitting into origin and residence, as per those for other countries, e.g., Category:Canadian province of residence user templates andCategory:US city of origin user templates (which itself needs renaming to remove the abbreviation, but I digress). From the nature of the nomination, I suspect the nominator may for some reason think that New Zealand is one of the United States's 50 states! Grutness...wha? 23:36, 1 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Omega Psi Phi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Small category, little chance for development in near future. History of similar cat deletions. —ScouterSig 21:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per other fraternity categs. We don't a categ for one eoponymous article plus a template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mowsbury 14:51, 2 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the throne of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pure WP:OR and violation of WP:NOR and WP:NONSENSE. There is no known "line of succession" to the "Israeli throne" and the "Israeli throne" does not exist! Therefore any "pretenders" must be lunatics because not a single respectable rabbinical organization or body from any of the Jewish denominations accepts such a crazy claim! The article further violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL as no-one knows who the "next king of Israel is or will be" since according to Judaism, the claimant to the throne of final rulership of all Jews is the Jewish Messiah himself! Wikipedia already has a List of Messiah claimants ("messiah" meaning mashiach "anointed" king, in Hebrew) and the last one on that list of Jewish ones is Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson who is a lot more notable. IZAK 21:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the Israeli throne
• NOTE: see relate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosef Dayan

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Kingdom of Israel did exist, but not exactly recently. It seems to me that there is a case for keeping track of pretenders to the thrones of recently-overthrown monarchies, but 2,000 years on is pushing the relevance factor a bit, particular when (as IZAK points out) there is no meaningful concept of an authorised claim to the long-defunct throne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - neither sanity nor the continuing existence of the throne in question are necessary criteria for Pretenders - if anything the reverse. If the only member loses his AfD, then that is an end to it. Otherwise the category is not OR, as it reflects the article. Unless Izak knows something we don't, the Messiah issue is irelevant. I must say I was expecting to see JC in the category. As to time elapsed, the Category:Claimant Kings of Jerusalem - fallen 1291 - is very thickly populated. Johnbod 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnbod" "Claimant Kings of Jerusalem" is part of normative Crusader history, part of the Christian Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem, very different to what Judaism says about its own past and future kings, and there is no comparison with Judaism's history, where the Jewish king is the equivalant of the Jewish Messiah. In fact throughout Jewish history there are families with a claimed lineage that reaches back to King David in order to qualify them for the re-establishment of the Jewish monarchy which is what the Jewish Messiah is -- THE Jewish king, and that's why there is the List of Messiah claimants#Jewish messiah claimants, see also Jewish Messiah claimants. The word "messiah" is from the Hebrew mashiach in Hebrew which means "annointed" because when a king was inducted he was first annointed with oil which was poured on his head, usually by a prophet. No one person has any credibilty in this department and if any Jew goes too far in making such open claims he is deemed to be a total lunatic and should be certified, not given categories on Wikipedia. IZAK 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, unverifiable, so that even if the article containing this pretender to the throne is kept, we shouldn't be categorizing him according to his singular claims. -N 00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. nadav (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I suggested deleting the "Line of succession" partly due to the fact I haven't seen any claim even on Dayan's part to be the king. He is probably a descendant (as are hundreds more), but that doesn't mean he claims to be king (unless I missed something). DGtal 22:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons. Alex Middleton 23:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BHG and nom. Carlossuarez46 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the category concerns claimants to the throne of David, or perhaps to the northern kingdom after the separation of Judah. Any such claim is inherently unverifiable. Some kind of natability is needed before we can have such a category. Peterkingiron 22:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Bulldog123 04:16, 5 June 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 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 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 debate was rename/merge to lowercase f --Kbdank71 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mortal Kombat Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are only four films in this category, and little possibility for expansion. The films should be added to the Mortal Kombat template, and the cat should be merged into Category:Mortal Kombat. But, if kept, it should be renamed to Category:Mortal Kombat films. Quuxplusone 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:, films that have less sequals have their own category (28 Days Later, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc.). But it should have the F in films lowercase. Andrzejbanas 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - some film series categories have been deleted in the recent past and there is some sentiment against them, for instance categories for the Stuart Little and Charlotte's Web franchises, the Scary Movie franchise and the Poltergeist films have been deleted. Number of articles in a category or films in a film series isn't a good indicator of whether a category should exist. Otto4711 14:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Rename and also Restore Category:Mortal Kombat television series – Necessary for clear navigation and categorization purposes; see Template:Mortal Kombat series. (I see the Television category was summarily deleted without the notification of even one Mortal Kombat WikiProject member. Nice.) The movies and television series are ludicrously far removed from the actual game series. There's absolutely no reason to clutter up the main Mortal Kombat category with them, especially since the categories exist serve that precise reason: to categorize. They're here to keep things organized, not to create a mish-mash of every random facet in the series. There's also absolutely no reason to clutter up the main Mortal Kombat template with more links. (Are you aware of the living hell that all video game-related navboxes went through just to get the bare minimum included in the templates? This was the compromise.) Unless you're suggesting that someone creates List of Mortal Kombat films, this category is perfectly ideal for the navigational purposes that it should be used for. MarphyBlack 04:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MarphyBlack, who voiced my opinion a hell of a lot more coherently than I could have. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 7 June 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 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 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 debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of New Hall, Cambridge to Category:Alumnae of New Hall, Cambridge

Category:Alumni of Newnham College, Cambridge to Category:Alumnae of Newnham College, Cambridge

Category:Alumni of St Hilda's College, Oxford to Category:Alumnae of St Hilda's College, Oxford

United States

Category:Barnard College alumni to Category:Barnard College alumnae

Category:Bryn Mawr College alumni to Category:Bryn Mawr College alumnae

Category:Mary Baldwin College alumni to Category:Mary Baldwin College alumnae

Category:Mount Holyoke College alumni to Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae

Category:Radcliffe College alumni to Category:Radcliffe College alumnae

Category:Smith College alumni to Category:Smith College alumnae

Category:Vassar College alumni to Category:Vassar College alumnae

Category:Wellesley College alumni to Category:Wellesley College alumnae

Nominator's rationale: Rename, because these are women-only colleges, and hence have alumnae (female) rather than alumni (male). The parent category is Category:Alumnae of women's universities and colleges, which is correctly named; the sub-categories should be renamed to match. It would be helpful to create a category redirect in each case.

Note that the UK and the United States categories use different naming conventions: Category:Alumni by university or college in the United States use "foo alumni" and Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom uses "Alumni of foo". I suggest that any moves to standardise the US and UK conventions should be done in a separate group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Merriam Webster has this on alumni: "Main Entry: alum·nus, Inflected Form(s): plural alum·ni, 1 : one that has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university <a Harvard alumnus> <an alumnus of my college> -- usually used of a man in the sing. but often of men and women in the plural." That last bit tells me we can use alumni to define all students. Failing that, we have to change all to "alumni and alumnae," which is clunky, or to "students" or the probably better "attendees." (Not "graduates," though.) I also follow the statements below about certain institutions having some male attendees, and think that suggests this would be a maintenance problem.--Mike Selinker 20:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Alumni" is just wrong for all-female circumstances. The Merriam Webster definition is referring to female and male former students together. Timrollpickering 20:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is confirmed by Alumnae#Usage, which I should have cited with the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, Wikipedia is not exactly considered a reliable source! :) Anyway, while I'm not actually convinced this is necessary, I think it's a good idea and worth doing, so support. Xtifr _tälk 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that was a self-reference, but mentioned it because it has lottsa external references on that point. I shoukd have said that was whY I linked to it :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for purposes of naming accuracy. -N 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Support per uses of the English language. —ScouterSig 19:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Neutral The parent category is "Alumni" because it contains both sexes; therefore the sub-categories should be similarly named. Also, some of the categories have turned out to not be single-sexed. I do, however, still think that in the female-only categories, "Alumni" is plain wrong. —ScouterSig 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per Mike Selinker. Also, categories of graduates of co-ed schools are referred to as Alumni of foo, not Alumni/alumnae of foo. Since those categories are referring to both the men and women, I don't think it's unreasonable to leave these as they are. Of course, if anyone wants to nominate everything to change to Graduates of foo, I'll support it. --Kbdank71 21:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But "alumni" is the mixed gender plural - I don't see where this "attendees of co-ed schools aren't listed as 'alumni/alumnae of foo'" comes from. The point is that for female only institutions "alumni" is wrong because the group by definition contains no males. "Graduates of foo" is a complete mess - in earlier eras "graduation" had a different meaning from now. Even in the modern era it's often very difficult to tell whether or not someone "graduated" (and "I didn't graduate" can mean anything from not taking out the formal degree to just not bothering to attend the ceremony). Plus there are many institutions that do courses that don't lead to awards (particular vocational but also short courses of interest), whilst some institutions have other awards for which the term "graduation" is never applied - in my own case I took courses at one institution that could be put towards an award, although many didn't, for which the term "graduation" is never used - am I a "graduate" of that insititution or not? (I am, however, definitely an alumnus.) Timrollpickering 23:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it is simpler to use the generic. In any case, get Vassar off the list, because it is now co-ed. DGG 22:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Bryn Mawr should also be removed; males graduate from the post graduate programs at Bryn Mawr and males are included in its alumni category; Hmains 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Same with Mary Baldwin; males attend, graduate and are alumni. Hmains 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it appears that some (perhaps many, even all) of these are co-ed to some extent. Even were all female, consistency seems a better plan than monitoring which colleges go co-ed. Another point: if a female graduate changes sexes, he becomes an alumnus of the institution. Are we 100% sure that no-one has ever had a sex change who graduated these colleges? Care to monitor it? Carlossuarez46 05:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need to monitor whether any graduate has had a sex-change, all that matters is the limited number of graduates categorised here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per past discussions. Because "alumni" is used both for mixed gender and male-only former students, the existence of any "alumnae" categories implies that existing "alumni" categories are male-only, and I do not care to see a forest of "Alumnae and alumni" categories rise up down the line.-choster 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this is ultimately a matter of Latin grammar. "Alumni" is a male form and would be the correct Lation form for a group of men and women. "Alumnae" is potentially a female form, and if its use is well-attested (of which I am no judge), it would be unobjectionable to amend the categories as suggested. Peterkingiron 22:57, 3 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Six Feet Under merchandise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category is small and unlikely to expand. Everything in it is categorized elsewhere and interlinked through each other and the main article. No need for the category. Otto4711 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorisation per nom. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, so we don't need to separately categorise the commercial spin-offs of every film or TV series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Delete overcategorization. This is not an ad sheet. Doczilla 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category: Six Feet Under which will make that category more useful. Tim! 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & BHG. Carlossuarez46 05:09, 3 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tallest Building in Michigan (year-by-year) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as follow up to the next listing but one down. Another list-article in category space. Content copied to Chronological list of tallest buildings in Michigan. Oliver Han 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There really should be a speedy criterion for articles in category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mowsbury 14:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:09, 3 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Created by a noob, this serves no purpose (all people who could be categorized in here are categorized in their actual country instead, and this parent glomming category isn't particularly useful), is largely contraindicated by precedent (see virtually any "...by country" supercat); is malformed (does not actually have the Category:German pool players, etc., categories in it as subcategories, and has itself as a subcat!), and is being misused (the only use of it so far has been to redundantly overcat articles that are already in a more specific country category; I've reverted all of that). If there is some compelling reason to keep it, then alternatively it should be cleaned up to not be a loop and to contain the Eur. country categories that apply, and have a ((Notice)) added to it to not put actual players in this category but only in subcategories. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oliver Han 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I see no need to encapsulate by-nationality categories in by-continent wrappers, and there is no other reasonable use for this cat. Xtifr _tälk 12:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alex Middleton 23:06, 2 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tallest Buildings in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This is a list article in category space, so I have copied the content to List of skyscrapers in Michigan. The existing category category:Skyscrapers in Michigan is more comprehensive, with these buildings and more in its city subcategories, so there is no need for a merger. Oliver Han 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly obsolete. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There really should be a speedy criterion for articles in category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if these could be speedied as tests? In any case, if they are moved to an article and blanked, I think a speedy would be reasonable since it is not removing information. But would this leave GFDL issues? Maybe we need a discussion on the talk page. Vegaswikian 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mowsbury 14:53, 2 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proponents of free trade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ill-defined, necessarily incomplete and arbitrary. Most economists should be here, from Adam Smith (who is not) on down; if it is to exist at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Arbritrary category. CloudNine 16:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Free trade has been a dominant economic principle in developed nations for over a century, and even episodes of protectionism (such as in the 1930s) are best viewed as exceptions to the general principle shared even by the protectionists. For the last hundred years or more, the debate is better viewed as being about the extent to which is acceptable to regulate the market; a crude division into proponents and advocates of free trade creates an artificial division in a much more complex series of debates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; we might as well have Category:Proponents of democracy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There may be a good way of categorizing these folks, but this isn't it. There's no objective criterion for inclusion. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, categorization by opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Will Beback & Pavel, there is a special place in deletion hell for categorization by undefinable opinion. Carlossuarez46 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The omission of Adam Smith is easily repaired. Several of those listed were prominent proponents of free trade at a time when this was a controversial issue. The list accordingly serves a useful purpose. Peterkingiron 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A selective and annotated list might serve a useful purpose, by noting promiment advocates of free trade from particular eras, but a category will include all proponents of free trade, which currently includes just about all major politicians in Europe and North America. That's not a useful category, because advocacy of free trade is no longer a distinguishing characteristic amongst politicians or economists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 6 June 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 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 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 debate was keep. the wub "?!" 10:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Order of the Stick characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An "Order of the Stick" category has already been deleted, as the presence of significant interlinking within the articles and a template were considered sufficient. If the overall category was considered to be unnecessary, then a sub-category must be equally unnecessary. Tailkinker 14:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate - Note that nominator depopulated the category before nominating it. This category is an appropriate sub-category of Category:Webcomic characters and is in line with other fictional character sub-cats such as those found in Category:Television characters by series and Category:Film characters. Otto4711 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subcategory of Category:Webcomic characters The nominator's logic is faulty. Just because a parent category is deleted doesn't mean the subcategories should be deleted. For example, we frequently delete eponymous categories named after television shows, but we keep their subcategories for episodes and characters. In this case, the characters subcategory appears to be a valid part of Category:Webcomic characters, subdividing webcomic characters by comic title. Therefore keep the category as part of that scheme. Dugwiki 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I reverted and repopulated the category that Tailkinker prematurely depopulated. Don't depopulate a category while it's still active. (Obviously you can depopulate a category that is deleted, but this one hasn't been deleted.) Dugwiki 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a very valid subcatagory and makes the articles much easier to navigate than explicit links. Timmccloud 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These articles can't go anywhere else.--Mike Selinker 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, I removed the category, which was my screw-up - never nominated a category for deletion before. My humblest apologies. The navigation template for the Order of the Stick is more than enough to provide any links required to move directly to the character pages without having to navigate through a category page, plus it can include other pages relevant to the topic, something that the category fails to do. As such the category is redundant. --Tailkinker 10:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tailkinker, categories are not redundant to templates. The categories serve to organize articles by commonality. Just as Category:Planets of the Solar System could easily be "redundant" to a template, but is kept anyhow because it groups all related articles, this one does that too. It also stops Category:Webcomic characters from becoming huge.--Mike Selinker 02:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid use of the category namespace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:15, 7 June 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is redundant with Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev and all Rus', which uses the titles that are more often applied to these people. The primates category should be deleted accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 11:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now This is a tangle - the Patriarchs cat contains people from Early medieval Kievan Rus, a communist-inspired church, and the modern post-independence one. But it is a sub-cat of the Primates category, which seems odd. Primate is a role or function, which may or may not be a title. I don't think either nominator or myself understand the categories sufficiently to abjudicate. Johnbod 12:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Most of the "Primates" hierarchy was created by a disruptive editor who is currently blocked for excessive category creation (see User Talk:Pastorwayne). He has been deliberately creating categories that are redundant with existing bishop, patriarch, metropolitan, etc. categories (again, see User Talk:Pastorwayne). I really think that it would be more appropriate to delete the "primate" categories when the term is not in use and when the categories are redundant with existing categories. Dr. Submillimeter 12:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was aware of the "pastorwayne problem" from these pages, & don't support a separate Primate category when the Primate is always, eg Archbishop of Cape Town. That doesn't mean there should be no primate categories - The Ukrainian Catholic one below seems useful, as there were Heads of the church, who had no common distinguishing title. In this case, where the category you say makes this one redundant contains essentially 3 different churches, and the titles vary, I can't see what the actual situation is from the articles, & you have not demonstrated that you can. Plenty of other Primate categories remain. It is almost never used as a title - that argument cuts no ice with me. Johnbod 12:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for different reasons to those discussed above, but drawing on Johnbod's concerns. The article Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church shows that the history of this church is too complicated to allow a single category to accommodate all the people who might have claimed the title of "Primate of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church". I think that this category illustrates rather well one of the dangers of the whole Category:Primates (religion), that the concept of primate is a bit of a movable feast. In the case of the churches in the Soviet bloc, I think that it might be better to have one general category of primates, with article(s) explaining the complex history. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category has now been contracted (by ??) to just 2 members - did it not have more before?- who do seem to represent the first 2 Heads of the UAOC, as I am learning to call it. After that the name of the church changes to Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy. The fact it is all so confusing is an argument for the category (once made coherent) in my book, not against it. It could be renamed to "Heads of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church", but I am now clearer in favouring a keep. But the Patriarchs should not be a sub-cat of this, I think. Johnbod 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This primate category had three members when I nominated it, but one of the people belonged in Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev and all Rus', which is a subcategory of this category. Following Wikipedia's general recommendations on categorization (WP:SUBCAT), I removed the person from the primate category and put him in the metropolitans/patriarchs category. The other two people in this category are also in the metropolitans/patriarchs category and could technically be removed from this category, leaving just the subcategory. Dr. Submillimeter 22:19, 1 June 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 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 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 debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church primates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is redundant with Category:Ukrainian Greek Catholic bishops, and all the people in the primates category are also in the bishops category. The title "bishop" is used to refer to these people, not "primate". The category should be deleted accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many bishops, but only one "head of the church" at a time, which is the office these people have held successively. The term Primate may not be the usual one for them, but they qualify. Johnbod 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Could you then suggest a rename? The title "primate" is not used for these people. (Maybe a title using "Cardinal" would be appropriate.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but the articles (& some of the external links) use "Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church". Some have been Cardinals, but not all. Likewise "Metropolitans" as far as I can see. I would support a rename to Category:Heads of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Johnbod 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Three of the people could be called "Major Archbishops of Kiev" or a variant of that name. The fourth person, however, held a similar position but was called a "Metropolitan Archbishop"; the title "Major Archbishop" was not created until after his death. Maybe it would be appropriate to split these people into a couple of archbishop categories? Dr. Submillimeter 12:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are not about titles, but about functions. The Archbishop of Canterbury is always called that, & the Pope likewise. I hope all those recent discussions on primates that I have not participated in were not using these sorts of arguments. Johnbod 12:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - To the average reader, differentiating between titles and functions is very difficult, especially when specific functions are associated with specific titles. Having two categories trees (one for functions and one for titles) is not really useful; it will just lead to a lot of confusion (and a lot of silly category names, such as Category:Primates of the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and Alexandria and Jerusalem). If both the title and the function are the same, then the most common way of referring to the people should be used (WP:COMMONNAME). (As another example, consider that the Presidents of the United States are only categorized under Category:Presidents of the United States. They do not also need to be categorized under Category:Chief executives of the United States or Category:Heads of state of the United States or Category:Heads of government of the United States. The title "Presidents of the United States" is sufficient for conveying both the title and the function.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, but as you have explained above, this is not a case where they did all have the same distinguishing title. Also it is not clear if a Major Archbishop/Metropolitan would be ex officio Head of the Church. So keeping it as is,or renaming to "Heads of the ..." seems better. Johnbod 12:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep or rename. Point is that the title of these people changed, some of them were called Metropolitan, some Cardinal and some Patriarch. There is clearly some sense to have Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky and Lubomyr Cardinal Husar in the same cat and have them in a separate cat from the rest of the bishops. --Irpen 15:26, 1 June 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Propose renaming Category:Primates of Continuing Anglicanism to Category:Bishops of Continuing Anglicanism

Nominator's rationale: Rename - These people are generally referred to as "bishops", not "primates". The current category name is confusing and should be changed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 11:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as in the last nom, these are all bishops who have been head of their respecive churhes, under a variety of titles. They qualify as Primates. Johnbod 11:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - However, with one exception, these people are generally not referred to as primates. However, they are all referred to as bishops (including the one person who is also referred to as a primate). WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that we should use "bishop". Dr. Submillimeter 11:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Primate" is a function or role, which may or may not also be a name or title. Naturally they are all bishops as well. Johnbod 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can tell from from the articles, only one of these claims to be a Primate; Metropolitans and Presiding Bishops are not the same. The Free Church of England has a Primus (of which the plural should really be Primi), but they are a Low-Church secession, and the Primus is elected annually. (Also, these are several different secessions; they should not be lumped as they are.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is another illustration of the conceptual problems inherent in attaching a "primate" label to so may heads of a national or regional church across the diverse strands of Christianity. The term "primate" is just one of the terms which may be used to describe such religious leaders, and in this case we have the further complication of different sorts of breakaway Anglican group being lumped together. As well trying to deter Pastorwayne (talk · contribs) from creating these categories,I think that a systematic review of the primates categories is now needed; it's not my field, but I am very concerned that it may include far many other posts where the term "primate" is inappropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After the last two "delete" comments, I looked at the subcategories more carefully and discovered that not all the churches are part of the Continuing Anglican Movement. Some of these churches, such as the Free Church of England, were established more than a century before the Continuing Anglican Movement. Others appear to be similar but not directly related denominations. Since this category falsely implies that the various denominations are related, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it is all a hopeless muddle. The main categories Category:Anglican denominations and the very poorly-named Category:Anglican churches (to which many people have understandably added their parish church) are in even more of a mess, both an indiscrimate mixture of provinces of the main Anglican Communion and bodies outside it. (Now sorted out) Since the continuing Anglican Movement seems to generate new splits like a cell under a microscope, I could see a useful role for a category for "Heads of Anglican Churches separated from [or not in communion with] the Anglican Communion", especially as the Churches categories themselves are currently so useless at making this distinction - which as in the nearby Catholic discussion, I think is the most important and informative. This could round up various other groups not included in this one. But I admit my resolve is weakening. Johnbod 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod as usual makes a lot of sense ... one's resolve does weaken faced with any religious category. I find for instance that Rowan Williams is not only apparently English by nationality (having been placed in English bishops, despite being very Welsh acc to his article) but in a subcat of the category Category:Pre-Reformation UK bishops (itself oddly named as the UK came into existence in 1801). Muddle and error wherever one looks. -- roundhouse 13:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - At least Category:Pre-Reformation UK bishops makes some sense. The term "pre-reformation" refers to the modern-day UK bishoprics that were formed before the Reformation and that were later incorporated into various Protestant churches (as opposed to Category:Post-Reformation UK Catholic bishops, which refers to the modern-day UK bishoprics that were formed by Protestant churches after the reformation. While the differences are worth discussing in an article, I wonder whether these categories themselves are really needed. Dr. Submillimeter 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so ('Pre-Reformation UK bishops' suggests to me a bishop who was (a) serving in the UK, (b) pre-reformation) - perhaps you will concede that to find Rowan Williams categorised (via subcats) as an Anglo-Saxon bishop is startling (as is John Sentamu). -- roundhouse 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I did not realize that Rowan Williams was the current Archbishop of Canterbury at first, and I can understand why the label "Pre-Reformation" applied to him is confusing (although the label is for the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury and not the actual person). Maybe these categories need to be deleted simply because they are too confusing and somewhat esoteric. Does anyone else have any comments? Dr. Submillimeter 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a case of mis-categorisation, and merely needs an edit! 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The pre-Reformation UK Bishops are now being discussed here Johnbod 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a great muddle of churches and denominations (mostly very small) which have broken away from the Anglican / Episcopalian Church over various issues in the past (say) 150 years. There may be some merit in having a category covering all these denominations, and of a sinlge category for their primates, but I doubt there is much point in having a subcategory with one or two items in it for each denomination. However, I do not think there is a means of providing additioanl information on them respectively in category lists. Nevertheless, I am not sure that the title works right. Peterkingiron 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These ARE the cats for those who serve as Primates/Presiding Bishops of their respective churches. As said above, it is function even if not the title used (though knowing Anglicanism generally, the title Primate would not be refused). There should also be cats for Bishops of these denominations, too. "Continuing Anglicanism" seems to be applied to these different churches more from outside, not necessarily from within. Even those denom.'s which preceeded this wording are still thought to be part of this "movement." Pastorwayne 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to see multiple links to external websites that show that these people should be grouped together under the heading "Continuing Anglicanism" and that they are primarily called "primates". Otherwise, I still recommend that this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 23:43, 7 June 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 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 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 debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Biochemicals to Category:Biomolecules

Nominator's rationale: Rename, All biochemicals are biomolecules, but not vice-versa. Main article for category has always been Biomolecule. This rename will also bring categorization of biochem articles on English WP in line with WP in several other languages, and allow a much-needed clearout of the overloaded Category:Biochemistry. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Categorization of biomolecule articles for more detail. Clicketyclack 09:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency with lead article and per explanation of difference between biochemicals and biomolecules. Bencherlite 10:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• no opinion - This was one of the first categories, when the feature was brand new. The first categorization task I gave myself had to do with chemicals and chemistry. We didn't have much in the was of planning back then, everything was done ad-hoc. If since then a more structured hierarchy has been developed, I don't have a problem with the cat being renamed to fit the standard. Gentgeen 20:33, 4 June 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 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 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 debate was rename Category:Monsho of municipalities in Japan to Category:Symbols of municipalities in Japan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Monsho of municipalities in Japan to Category:Symbols of municipalities in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The word "symbol" is now being used in the names of the images (such as Image:Sendai, Miyagi Symbol.svg as opposed to the former Image:Monsho of Sendai, Miyagi.svg). Although monshō is technically the correct word, "symbol" works just as well and would make it easier for people to search for the category. Nameneko 07:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for clarity in the English language (this is an English-language encyclopedia!). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, or possibly to Category:Emblems of municipalities in Japan. Haddiscoe 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I can't find the discussion page, it has been brought up that "symbol" would be more appropriate than "emblem", particularly because the definition of emblem doesn't really match the category's contents, though the two are pretty much used interchangeably on a day to day basis. -Nameneko 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --MChew 18:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, or possibly Category:Crests of municipalities in Japan. Neier 12:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:40, 2 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - after redirecting some stubs to the main article per WP:FICT the remaining material does not warrant a category. Otto4711 06:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LukeHoC 00:33, 4 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rainbow (TV Series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - minus the improperly categorized articles for performers, the category has the show article and a character subcat. Cat not needed for navigation. Otto4711 03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:12, 3 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Commander in Chief Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category for a cancelled series, unlikely to expand and the material is linked through the articles and navtemplate. Otto4711 03:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:13, 3 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boy Meets World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the material in the category does not require an eponymous show category to navigate it. Otto4711 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:13, 3 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Catherine Tate Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the characters subcat and show article do not need a category for navigation. Otto4711 03:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & per precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:13, 3 June 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 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 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 debate was rename Category:Bookstores of Australia to Category:Bookshops of Australia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bookstores of Australia to Category:Bookshops of Australia

Nominator's rationale: Rename, in Commonwealth English, in line with Category:British bookshops. Baridiah 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the British category is something of an aberration in Category:Bookstores. Every other nationality category, including the Commonwealth country of Canada, uses "bookstores." Otto4711 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately Canada is overexposed to American influences. Baridiah 12:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, assuming that, as in UK, bookshop is the term usually used; "bookstore" is never heard in UK. Johnbod 09:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question does anyone have any evidence of which term is actually preferred in Australia? I don't want to assume that Australia follows British English. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until they wake up in a few hours, Ghits on "Melbourne bookshops"/"bookstores" suggests bookshops by about 3/1. Johnbod 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Australian, and bookshops is correct here. Until I removed it in anticipation of it becoming redundant, the category had an introductory comment to that effect by a user from Perth. Baridiah 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, unless others Aussies contradict you, I'll say rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Mowsbury 14:53, 2 June 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 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 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 debate was delete per May 28 discussion of supercat --Kbdank71 13:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big Brother presenters from around the world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, see May 28th discussion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Doczilla 02:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Game show hosts. We categorize reality TV hosts/presenters as game show hosts. From the parent the articles can then be disbursed to an appropriate national subcat if one exists. Otto4711 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Otto. Doczilla 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There seem to be enough BB presenters to make a category useful, and it's such a high-profile show that hosting it is a defining attribute of its presenters. However, if the consensus is that it is too narrow, it makes no sense to me to lump reality TV hosts in with game show hosts: it would be much better to create a new Category:Reality TV presenters or Category:Reality TV hosts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to making a new reality TV hosts/presenters category and placing it as a subcat of the game show hosts cat. I don't agree with a show-specific category for the same reason we don't have other performer by series categories. Otto4711 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's OK by me, tho I don't think that reality TV should be a subset of game shows; do you have any preferences on the name of a reality TV hosts/presenters category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My preference is for "hosts." Otto4711 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• And any new category should spell out the word "television." Otto4711 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a game show. Doczilla 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. (However, whatever happens, the phrase "from around the world" is totally unnecessary in this context.) I also think there should be a separate category for reality TV hosts, presumably a subcat of Category:Reality television participants. --Quuxplusone 21:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to either "game show hosts" or "reality show hosts" (don't care which), I disagree that "reality shows" are different from game shows, but they are at least a distinct subgenre, so I have no objection to making a separate category. But I do object to creating hosts-by-show categories, as that is effectively Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by performance. Xtifr _tälk 12:20, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.