< June 11	June 13 >

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, consistency. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Oliver Han 09:52, 15 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 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Pejoratives and Hate Speech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Redundant category. Category:Pejorative terms for people, Category:Discrimination, Category:Prejudices and Category:Profanity all already exist. Vassyana 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : redundant, unnecessary, more precise categories already exist (if keep, at least correct the capitalization problem) -SESmith 23:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I could not find a specific category for hate speech, so I created one. I have no strong opinions either way. If its addressed elsewhere, then I guess this is ok. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Hate speech and Keep. Perhaps a subcat of Category:Prejudices, but definitely a distinct idea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Hate speech and Keep per Pmanderson. Needs working into category structure - orphaned at present. Johnbod 23:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Hate speech" is a controversial term that should be avoided by Wikipedia. Oliver Han 09:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the articles here are Hate speech and similar topics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the same term may or may not be perjorative or hate speech depending on who is using it and in what context; particularly true with a number of the articles categorized here. Carlossuarez46 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 02:10, 17 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Persian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge, These categories are essentially the same thing. In articlespace, Persian cuisine redirects to Iranian cuisine. I believe we should follow this example in the categoryspace as well. GentlemanGhost 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Bencherlite 11:18, 18 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 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging both. Casperonline 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, those listed include more than just drama. Theatre covers many performing arts, including dance, magic, comedy, stagecraft, and others. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 19 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; arbitrary inclusion. Category:Wealthy fictional characters was closed as delete. --Kbdank71 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Having a million (or billion) dollars (or pounds) is an arbitrary inclusion criterion. Is a person with 999,999 dollars really that different from a person with one million? But even if you're inclined to answer yes, these categories have a much bigger problem: Just how many Rigellian credits or Barrayaran marks must one have to be considered a millionaire? No one has provided us with exchange rates for Middle Earth or Ferenginar. Even if you ignore fictional monetary systems and exchange rates, the inclusion criteria is pretty vague. Someone who had a million pounds in 18th century Britain is a whole different animal from someone has a million pounds in 21st century Britain. And a character from a future Britain in a time of runaway inflation might be described as a "millionaire" to indicate his grinding poverty. "Millionaire" and "billionaire" are slippery, ill-defined concepts, and not appropriate for categorization.

Note: the related category, Category:Wealthy fictional characters, is also being debated here. I tend to agree that that category is subjective, but while contemplating the matter, I realized that these categories seem even worse, hence this nomination.

Note2: The billionaires category was previously nominated on April 17, but that debate was closed as no consensus, and I believe that this nomination raises some significant new points that were not mentioned at the previous discussion, so I don't consider this a hasty nomination. -- Xtifr _tälk 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:Wealthy fictional characters, which is the non-arbitrary category for this defining characteristic. Haddiscoe 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge up per Xtifr, even though that category is now also nominated for deletion. —OverMyHead 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Xtifr (that's me) suggested deletion, not merger. I would also find a merger acceptable if that other category is kept, but I'm not asking for it to be kept. I actually tend to think we might be better off with categories that are neither arbitrary (like these) nor subjective (like "wealthy"). Perhaps something like Category:Fictional financiers or Category:Fictional magnates. Xtifr _tälk 09:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:Wealthy fictional characters, which is less arbitrary and more useful. Casperonline 21:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both per several. If nom supports the "wealthy" one, why is nom delete not merge? Just asking. Johnbod 23:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom doesn't support the "wealthy" one. Nom merely opined that these categories "seem even worse". Xtifr _tälk 11:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wealthy fictional characters. ANNAfoxlover 14:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't merge to "wealthy" anything because that's an arbitrary designation. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I also think both should be merged. Angie Y. 01:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Fictional wealthy characters (as per suggestion from various participants in the discussion below about the related category of Category:Wealthy fictional characters) to avoid arbitrary distinctions between currencies and time periods as to definition of millionaire etc. Bencherlite 23:24, 18 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Why wouldn't this be named 'Military equipment of the United States in the Vietnam War' to match the rename of the category just after this one? This proposed rename and the following one cannot both meet a standard. Hmains 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think it's intended to be a category for US equipment only - the parent is Category:Military equipment by conflict, not Category:Military equipment by country.Carom 23:36, 13 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Vietnam War U.S. forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge, categories are redundant. The "Military units..." category follows WP:MILHIST naming guidelines found here. jwillbur^talk 20:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, unless someone can suggest a viable reason for maintaining what appears to be a redundant category. Carom 23:38, 13 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 reverse merge --Kbdank71 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Mississippi State Bulldogs men's basketball coaches into Category:Mississippi State Bulldogs basketball coaches. The Lady Bulldogs have their own category, and in the case of the men's and women's programs having different names, we don't use "men's" or "women's."--Mike Selinker 21:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I didn't even realize that they used the "Lady" distinction for their women's teams. In that case, merge the categories. --fuzzy510 03:33, 13 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/delete as nominated --Kbdank71 14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Entrepreneurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Entirely subjective category; at the moment a subcat includes Alexander Graham Bell who didn't even file his own patents. Upmerge this to Category:Businesspeople (although some, like Bell, should go to Category:Inventors). This should apply to all similarly named subcats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I propose to

upmerge all the instances of Category:Entrepreneurs by nationality into the corresponding Category:Businesspeople by nationality (many of these are redundant anyway).
upmerge Category:IT Entrepreneurs into Category:Information technology (again, largely redundant; and wrongly capitalized at present).
Merge Category:Music entrepreneurs inot Category:Music promoters; the difference being largely salesmanship.
Rename Category:Child entrepreneurs into Category:Child businesspeople. Every lemonade stand is an act of entrepreneurship; the members of the cat did more. (Perhaps this should stay as an established phrase: but I wanted to make a clean sweep.)
Delete Category:Social entrepreneurs as a catchall, even more subjective than the rest of this. (If someone has a better idea for the last one, fine.)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the entrepreneur categories go, the appropriate treatment for Category:IT Entrepreneurs would be renaming to Category:Businesspeople in information technology, as a biographical category should not be merged into a non-biographical category. Honbicot 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, on condition that Category:Information technology is then removed from them as redundant; several of these have both. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — needs tidying rather than deleting, there is worthwhile information here. — Jonathan Bowen 23:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category. Define entrepreneur. The definition isn't clear enough. Doczilla 08:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for who is in and who is out, therefore the category cannot be useful or kept. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:IT Entrepreneurs to Category:Businesspeople in information technology as suggested by Honbicot. Merge, rename or delete the rest as suggested by nom. Xtifr _tälk 06:30, 19 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 14:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Kreator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - as with many recent CFDs for categories named for bands, this categroy is not needed to navigate the material. The articles in the various subcats are interlinked, there is an enormous navtemplate and the subcats are all in appropriate "by artist" categroy trees. Otto4711 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Needless category. Horologium t-c 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 15 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 speedily deleted by J Milburn (author request). Bencherlite 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The author has requested deleting this page. (He could try adding ((db-author)) to the page.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7 Why is this still here? DB1 Horologium t-c 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now; it's possible that the closing admin didn't see it listed here. Horologium t-c 21:49, 12 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, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - The people are much more commonly referred to as the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh. Even the Wikipedia article on the subject uses the "archbishop" name. The "primate" naming scheme is insane and will only confuse people. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename as nom; congratulations to the good Dr. for pursuing these, but it may be time for a nice cup of tea. This should be treated as a support for the rest of these. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom; one's head spins with all these primates. -- roundhouse0 00:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. Always the same guy. Johnbod 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to Category:Archbishops of St Andrews and Edinburgh. Note that the creator of these hundreds of misnamed categories is now indefinitely blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 14 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, redundant. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Honorary Roman Catholic Primates of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - This category is redundant with Category:Archbishops of Baltimore. All of the articles in the "primate" category are also in the "archbishop" category. The title "archbishop" is much more frequently used for these people. The "primates" category will only cause confusion and should be deleted. (These misnamed or redundant categories seem endless.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as above and below. -- roundhouse0 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per many precedents in the huge task of cleaning up the mess created in the Category:Primates (religion) hierarchy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 22:23, 16 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, as redundant to existing scheme. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Bohemia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - *Delete - This category is redundant with Category:Archbishops of Prague. All of the articles in the "primate" category are also in the "archbishop" category. The title "archbishop" is much more frequently used for these people. The "primates" category will only cause confusion and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; see elsewhere. -- roundhouse0 00:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as yet another duplicate category in the primates category tree. I fear that there are still dozens more to sort out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on area of the Czech Republic are two Roman Catholic archbishoprics: one in Prague, another in Olomouc. There's another archbishop in Hradec Králové and a titular archbishop - the nuncio of Vatican. Orthodox Church has one archbishop in Prague (for both Czech Republic and Slovakia). Possibly User:Cinik (here or on the Czech Wiki) could be asked for an opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 15:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it sounds as though we need Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Prague as a subcat of Category:Archbishops of Prague, which should be moved out of the Roman Catholic tree. CfDs are proving to be a blunt instrument when it comes to repairing interlocking houses of cards. -- roundhouse0 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment tgo comment - And who will be in Category:Archbishops of Prague? Do you know any non-catholic Archbishops of Prague? --Cinik 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Vozenilek (above) is mentioning an Orthodox one. There is Christopher (Pulets) of Prague, an escapee from the haphazard rounding up of 'primates', who is an (Orthodox) Archbishop of Prague and the Czech Lands. John of Rokycan is described as Archbishop of Prague and appears to be Hussite, categorised as Protestant. There is also http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/ which seems to have a lot of material (eg Category:Non-Chalcedonian_Bishops, not yet on this wikipedia). (I know nothing first-hand of any of these matters.) -- roundhouse0 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am sorry, I disremembered of this (orthodox church in Czech republic cover 0,2 % of population). Statement John Rokycana was archbishop of Prague is easy questionable... --Cinik 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicity with Category:Archbishops of Prague. --Cinik 17:45, 14 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. WP:SALTed, for good measure. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Saturday Night Live actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Previously deleted as part of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25#Category:Actors by series. waffle iron ^talk 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreated content. Suggest salting as this is likely to be recreated fairly regularly. Otto4711 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I'd recommend against speedying, as it is likely that the category was created in good faith by a different editor. A quick review of the SNL article reveals that there is no overarching list of all cast members, only a list for each group. Perhaps a list could be generated to take the place of the category, although maintaining it may become quite a chore. Horologium t-c 19:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not as a speedy Haddiscoe 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 08:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for the reasons it was deleted in the first place. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Two lists exist that more than cover what's in this category, Saturday Night Live cast and List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests --Ebyabe 20:02, 17 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 merge and delete. (NB the cat is now empty anyways). --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Split Enz albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to the suggested target and Category:Compilation albums. Otto4711 17:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to both cats as per Otto4711. Horologium t-c 19:31, 12 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 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this doesn't fit a speedy criterion and fundamentally changes the nature of the category. Otto4711 17:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Conscious 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my above comment a bit, season-length summaries are IMHO properly categorized in an "episodes" category as part of the Category:Television episodes by series structure. They are in most cases functionally list of episodes articles. Renaming and repurposing this category under "seasons" opens up the notion of building yet another Category:Television shows by season structure, which doesn't add much in the way of navigation and fragments the articles. Note this CFD for a similar season summary category for American Idol which (with admittedly light participation) resulted in deletion and perhaps the start of a sentiment against season summary categories. Otto4711 17:53, 12 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, overcategorisation by non-defining opinion; per consensus established. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as categorization by opinion about a question or issue. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is neither a defining feature nor often verifiable. Past consensus on a similar category says delete as well. Qwghlm 16:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Qwghlm. Carlossuarez46 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Here is a source to back up the people in the category: [1] - PeeJay 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per ProveIt. Reference cited by PeeJay is not a reliable source, and in any case does not justify creating a category that is specifically proscribed in WP. Horologium t-c 17:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These categories just contribute to category clutter without saying anything meaningful about the people. This is not even worth listifying. Dr. Submillimeter 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Haddiscoe 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and past precedent. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In many cases the evidence that these people are Arsenal fans is hearsay only. --G2bambino 14:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whereas in other cases, such as Rory McGrath, Matt Lucas and Alan Davies, their support of the club is much more outspoken. Perhaps the category should be kept, and have only people who are definitely confirmed as Arsenal fans in it. As a Man Utd fan myself, I could give you mountains of evidence regarding celebrity United fans, so I'm sure there must be a similar amount of sources for Arsenal. - PeeJay 10:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent as a non-defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reply here. Please note that the previous link is a discussion on deleting the parent cat and the 3 subcats, so there is some overlap with this entry.-Andrew c 22:47, 15 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, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hollins University alumni, to match Hollins University. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and convention. Bencherlite 23:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. —Over My Head 02:29, 13 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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as neologism ... linked webpage also defines both Western Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox editors. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is based on a neologism that someone invented on their website. (Where does emacs fall in this great schism of text editors? Is it Orthodox or Catholic? Maybe it's Mormon.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tsk tsk, Dr S. You really should know that Emacs is part of Editor of the Primates of the Archbishopric of the Patriarchate of the Supreme Maronite Catholicosate of Linux, BSD, UNIX, GNU and all open-source systems of the West and of all computing environments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First versions of Emacs were commented in Latin and used Latin for variable names. Pavel Vozenilek 19:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - replace with Text-mode text editor and line editor. EMACS is Unitarian. 132.205.44.134 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Text editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
blank vote. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox file manager (same source). And User talk:Jerome Charles Potts#Orthodox text editors. --Jerome Potts 04:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reading the links provided by Jerome Potts. Pavel Vozenilek 22:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. I made the mistake of clicking through to the external link, and boy is that a clueless article! Author seems unaware that vim has a predecessor, and thinks that the first scriptable editors used REXX. Forget Emacs—where's TECO?? :) Xtifr _tälk 06:45, 19 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 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Edward Jones Investments people, convention of Category:People by company. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and delete included articles as spam. The company itself may be notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per PMAnderson. List all included articles at AfD (they are currently prodded). The company itself is absolutely notable, but these four gentlemen do not appear to be so. Horologium t-c 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deprodded; listing at AfD. (Since this nomination will close before the AfD will, this will not empty the category.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Johnbod 18:20, 18 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, redundant. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - *'Delete - This category is redundant with Category:Archbishops and bishops of Lund. The titles "archbishop" and "bishop" are more commonly used for these people. The redundant "primate" category is only going to cause confusion and should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; these primates seem to be everywhere. -- roundhouse0 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 18 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:Science and engineering awards - Both categories are redundant, and the distinction between science and engineering may be blurry enough in some situations to warrant categorizing both together. However, the category should be named using "awards" to match the parent category Category:Awards by subject. Dr. Submillimeter 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Science and engineering awards per Dr. Submillimeter. Haddiscoe 22:07, 12 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Primates of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge - Category:Primates of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople only contains Category:Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople and Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, which means that the "primate" category is an unnecessary layer of categorization between Category:Roman Catholic primates and the "patriarch" category. The categories should be merged together into Category:Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople to streamline navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the 2 categories are one under different names - an absurdity. -- roundhouse0 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod 22:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Another absurdly-named duplicate category . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 18 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - The title "Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussel" is currently used for these people. Historically, the title "Archbishop of Mechelen" was used, but it appears that "Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussel" implicitly includes people who used the older title. In either case, this category should either be renamed as Category:Archbishops of Mechelen-Brussel or split into Category:Archbishops of Mechelen-Brussel and Category:Archbishops of Mechelen categories. I recommend using the "Mechelen-Brussel" name for all people in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - to the more usual name (using "Mechelen-Brussel"). -- roundhouse0 00:44, 13 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, by creators request. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Mohyals. I thought we had decided against Category:People by caste. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Previous discussions had established that people would not be categorized by caste. Dr. Submillimeter 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not Delete~~ Delete (see discussion below) - I am new to Wikipedia, but this seems totally inconsistent. The article on Mohyals itself needs to be redone a bit. Mohyals are not just a caste, they are a small, distinct and cohesive ethnic tribe from one specific geographic area, speaking one specific language with an acute sense of their tribal history, like the Sials, Pashtuns, Memons or Bishnois. There are Muslim, Sikh and Hindu Mohyals - who share a strong ethnic identity in common. Unless we are also deleting List of Rajputs, Category:Pashtun_people, Category:Memon_people, Category:People_from_Assam, Category:Belgian Americans and Sial (tribe) - all of which are tagging individuals by ethnic identity. -- --Jklbot 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not really happy about categorizing people by ethnicity, either, especially in the case of Category:Belgian Americans. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I understand your sentiment, but this needs to be a little nuanced. It feels wrong to me, for instance, to delete List_of_Cajuns or go into Sioux and delete the listing of famous Sioux individuals. Ethnic identity is usually a crucial defining characteristic for people that come from small, cohesive groups (which the Mohyals and Cajuns are, though of course Cajuns are much bigger/6-times more numerous than the Mohyals). At the same time, I agree about the repugnance of looser general/caste/racial classifications, which a "list of latinos" or "list of brahmins" would be. I feel that if it is a smaller, tighter tribal affiliation ("Famous Brooklyn Musicians") that denotes continued recent shared tribal identity, it's okay; if it's broader, spread over a larger area, it's objectionable. How about this as a rule - if the name of every living member of a group could be listed in an average metropolitan phonebook, it's okay. Maybe a million people or less. Agree/Disagree? --Jklbot 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lists and articles have different criteria from categories, so don't mix up your arguments. Lists by ethnicity are generally far more acceptable than ethnic categories. One option here, in fact, is to "listify" this category. Xtifr _tälk 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete- changed see below. Not a caste. The main Category:Indian people by ethnic or national origin has 24 sub-categories, many with lots of sub-categories. Johnbod 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, I created a new subcategory called "Mohyal People" alongside dozens of the other categories in there. Basically, borrowed the template from Jat People. I am fine with deleting "Eminent Mohyals." I can do it myself, if we have concurrence here. --Jklbot 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are agreed. I realized that only an administrator can delete a category (correct?). Would appreciate it if someone on this discussion would do it. Thanks --Jklbot 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you are the creator of the category, you can just request that it be deleted. (CSD G7) -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:23, 18 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 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox minor churches and movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - The word "minor" has POV problems, and the phrase "churches and movements" is cumbersome. The category clearly needs a new name. However, I have no suggestions for a new name. I hope a name will develop in a discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to originally have been Category:Eastern Orthodox sects and heresies, which has the advantage of accuracy; it is also clear why it was changed. First of all, it should be Category:Russian Orthodox ''something'', since this is a subcat of Category:Christianity in Russia. I would support Category:Russian Orthodox sectarians, which several of the articles use. Category:Russian Orthodoxy not in communion with the Patriach of Moscow probably involves a Cold War schism or two, which doesn't seem to be this cat's purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a change of name - suggest category:Eastern Orthodox sectaries. Peterkingiron 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to any of the three suggested above. Category:Russian Orthodoxy not in communion with the Patriach of Moscow is longest, but probably clearest & most neutral. Johnbod 22:58, 13 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, as proposed. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Lithuania hills to Category:Hills of Lithuania

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to standard form for categories of physical features. It should be noted that even on the most generous possible interpretation there are no mountains in Lithuania. Haddiscoe 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Casperonline 21:58, 13 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 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Canadian Press Newsmakers of the Year

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is an honor that goes to people who are so famous that they win many awards and honors anyway (such as Wayne Gretsky and Pierre Trudeau). These people generally are not famous because they won this honor, so it is not a defining characteristic. Moreover, a complete list already exists at Canadian Newsmaker of the Year. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:51, 12 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Japanese buses to Category:Bus transport in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The category should be renamed to follow the convention used for subcategories of Category:Bus transport. (As it is currently named, this could be interpreted as referring to Japanese brands of buses.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:19, 12 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Bucharest bus routes to Category:Bus routes in Bucharest

Propose rename Category:Bucharest trolleybus routes to Category:Trolleybus routes in Bucharest

Propose rename Category:Japanese Highway Bus routes to Category:Highway bus routes in Japan

Propose rename Category:London bus routes to Category:Bus routes in London

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The convention for most public transport by city categories is to use "method in city" (e.g. Category:Transport in Bucharest). These categories should be renamed for uniformity. Dr. Submillimeter 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 12:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Regan123 12:46, 14 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:London buses to Category:Bus transport in London

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The names of the categories should be renamed to match the parent category, Category:Bus transport in England. Note that this category refers to bus transportation in London in general and not specifically to London Buses, the organization that manages bus services. Also note that categories on public transportation in cities are generally not named after the management organizations that operate the services. Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Category:London bus types/models probably needs splitting off as a sub-cat. Johnbod 23:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The articles on specific bus models probably should not be placed in this category, as they are used in many locations besides London. MCW Metrobus and Volvo B10M, for example, shows those specific models being used at multiple locations outside of London. Categorizing buses according to which cities use them is not feasible, as the list of categories for each locale that would be placed in each article would be very long. It would be best to remove the bus model articles from this category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Routemaster would be ridiculous; at present there is no Category:Double-decker buses, presumably as they are all here. This is probably the commonest term for them internationally, & I suspect what the category was created to contain. Probably it should return to this. Johnbod 23:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Using "London buses" to classify double-decker buses seems inappropriate and would not represent a worldwide view, as that term is probably not used for these models of buses in general (unless Johnbod can provide multiple external links that demonstrate otherwise). However, using Category:Double-decker buses to classify the double decker buses would be appropriate. Also note, however, that this category contains articles on "ordinary" municipal buses in use within London (such as Alexander ALX200, Dennis Dart, Leyland National, Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro, and Volvo B10M). The category is really being used partly to categorize the models of buses (including the boring modern models) in London's bus fleet, which is inappropriate. (Also, regarding the Routemaster, note that it is also listed under Category:AEC vehicles.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be bothered to research it, but as I said above, I think "London bus" is precisely how most of the world knows these, "double-decker" being restricted to those countries that actually use them widely. Johnbod 22:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A search for "London bus" at Google turns up mostly articles that refer to buses in London, not double-decker buses. Again, I strongly suggest using Category:Double-decker buses for double-decker buses, which, according to a Google search, is used as a term for buses outside of London. (I can cite specific pages if needed.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Johnbod and I reached an agreement on this issue. Double-decker buses are now listed in Category:Double-decker buses, and buses used in London transport are listed in buses in London. However, Category:London buses still contains some general bus transport articles that belong together, and the category should still be renamed. Dr. Submillimeter 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Regan123 12:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but (comment) whilst I broadly agree about not categorising miscellaneous bus models here, I do think the Routemaster is a special case which should be allowed in - it's a national and international icon which is virtually synonymous with "London bus". Quackdave 23:16, 18 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 upmerge to Category:Dragonlance characters --Kbdank71 13:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their sibling cats are called "Dragonlance deities" and so forth, so would suggest renaming these to "Dragonlance elves" and "Dragonlance humans" for consistency. Aside from that, I'm not convinced of the usefulness of subcatting Category:Dragonlance characters by race. >Radiant< 09:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be overly opposed, myself, to simply eliminating these categories (particularly elves) and putting all the article contained in it to the Dragonlance characters category. I would also go with renaming them as proposed by the nominator. Dooms Day349 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Dragonlance characters. This is fussy overcategorization, splitting a small parent cat into smaller cats with little or no potential for growth. Otto4711 15:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Otto suggests, and also merge the elves category to Category:Fictional elves. I don't think it's fussy, but I also don't think category:Fictional elves is overflowing.--Mike Selinker 18:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think that all of the subcats should be merged into Category:Dragonlance characters. There are about 20 characters in the whole shebang, and that is a nice size for a cat. The subcats are not necessary and actually hinder navigation. Most searches will be for "Dragonlance", not "Humans of" or whichever. Horologium t-c 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge nomination for the entire subcat structure. Can they be added to this nomination? Otto4711 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. I'd back Otto's suggestion for a broader merge too. Doczilla 08:38, 14 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, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church to Category:Metropolitans of Montenegro

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The articles in this category use "Metropolitan of Montenegro" to refer to the people in this position. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to the title by which the post is better known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to the title by which the post is better known. -- roundhouse0 13:20, 20 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, per nomination. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate of Peć (Serbia) to Category:Patriarchs of Serbia

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The articles all use "Patriarch of Serbia" to refer to this position, and the corresponding Wikipedia article is Patriarch of Serbia. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 09:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to the title by which the post is better known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 22:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to the less clumsy title by which the post is better known. -- roundhouse0 13:22, 20 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, as nominated. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Autocephalous Greek Cypriot Orthodox Church to Category:Archbishops of Cyprus

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The title "Archbishop of Cyprus" is used in all of the articles within this category as well as in the article List of Archbishops of Cyprus. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 08:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to the title by which the post is better known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 23:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to the simpler and more familiar title. -- roundhouse0 13:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; it is more correct title. --KRBN 14:49, 20 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch to Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The title used by these people is "Patriarch", not "Primate of the Patriarchate". Even the corresponding article is named List of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to the title by which the post is better known, as with dozens of similar "Primates of the Patriarchate" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 23:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to the less clumsy title by which the post is better known. -- roundhouse0 13:24, 20 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. Nothing has changed since I closed the 2006 dicussion: this category is still extremely subjective and certainly not NPOV. Who determines which characters are wealthy? You? Me? Whose standards are we using? Can you verify any of this? --Kbdank71 20:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wealthy fictional characters - This category was nominated on 2007 May 15. In looking over that discussion, I note that no one mentioned that this was previously nominated for deletion on 2006 Oct 12 with a result of Delete. Now while consensus can change, I think being aware of previous discussions is helpful in making a fair and knowledgable decision. In addition, the last nom resulted in No consensus, which doesn't preclude a renomination, and even if that were a concern, it's been nearly a month, so I don't consider this a hasty renomination.

In any case, "wealthy" is subjective, as noted in both previous discussions. See also: Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective inclusion criterion. - jc37 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not this again! Why go over the whole thing again when most people said Keep? (sigh) Angie Y. 03:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective inclusion criterion. WODUP 03:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC) I've commented below. WODUP 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Determining which characters are "wealthy" will require editors to make subjective judgments about characters. While some characters could be clearly identified as "wealthy", the identification is less clear for other characters. (Imagine doctors or lawyers being listed in this category.) Hence, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If consensus is to keep, it should probably be renamed to Category:Fictional wealthy characters, since "Fictional X" seems to be the standard. An alternative possibilty which might be feasible is Category:Fictional millionaires or Category:Fictional billionaires, since that would remove the POV element. Grutness...wha? 10:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. Seems they already exist. In which case, there's no need for this category anyway. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: We discussed this before. "Millionaire" and "billionaire" are, in addition to being an arbitrary inclusion criteria, ill-defined , vague terms. Just how many Rigellian credits or Barrayaran marks must one have to be considered a millionaire? No one has provided us with exchange rates for Middle Earth or Ferenginar. Even if you ignore fictional monetary systems, the inclusion criteria for the millionaires category is pretty vague (and not just for the fictional ones). Not just dollars vs. pounds vs. euros: does someone with a million lira or pesos qualify? There have certainly been currencies where being a "millionaire" means you might be able to feed your family for a week! Heck, even if you ignore exchange rates, someone who had a million pounds in 18th century Britain is a whole different animal from someone has a million pounds in 21st century Britain. "Millionaire" is a very slippery concept. "Wealthy", on the other hand, is a pretty straightforward concept, and being wealthy is frequently a very defining characteristic, especially for fictional characters. If this category is a bit arbitrary (and I'll admit there's some truth to that accusation), it is, nevertheless, a million times better than the "millionaires" or "billionaires" categories. Or, that is to say, it might be a million times better once you factor in the exchange rate. :) Xtifr _tälk 11:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points all. I might even be a millionaire if I lived in Japan and calculated it in yen. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Followup: I have now nominated Category:Fictional millionaires and Category:Fictional billionaires for deletion. The discussion is on this same page, above. Note that my nomination of those categories should not be taken as an endorsement of this category (as some people seem to be doing below). This category is subjective, those categories are arbitrary and ill-defined. Xtifr _tälk 08:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about merging their contents into this'un? That sounds much better. ^_^ Angie Y. 03:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very often the most fundamental defining characteristic of fictional characters. The millionaire and billionaire categories are fundamentally flawed, and are not acceptable substitutes. Indeed they should both be merged into this category. Haddiscoe 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The closure of the 12 October 2006 debate as "delete" very clearly did not reflect a consensus, indeed it wasn't even a marginal decision, but simply a bad and incorrect closure. It is to be regretted that this category is weaker now than it was then, but it can be rebuilt. Choalbaton 13:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xtifr and Haddiscoe. RegRCN 16:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wealthy is subjective: is Archie Bunker wealthy? He owned a home in Queens New York where the median home price is nearly $500k, seems wealthy to me, and all those M.D.'s on all those shows, heck M.D.'s average $200k incomes, and lawyers, not to mention the ones that may get more of us to agree (the Ewings, the Dynasty characters, the Falcon Crest set, the Jeffersons, Pipi Longstocking, the Howells from Giligan's Island, etc.), which adding to the subjectiveness is the utter uselessness of the category as too many fictional characters are "wealthy". Carlossuarez46 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the closure of the 12 October 2006 debate as "delete" very clearly did not reflect a consensus, indeed it wasn't even a marginal decision, but simply a bad and incorrect closure. And the billionaire and millionaire categories are quite confusing. Angie Y. 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xtifr and Haddiscoe. Lugnuts 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It is about time that the persecution of this perfectly good category stopped. I believe it has been deleted without consensus twice. As I said last time: "This has been around before, and the argument put forward is the opposite of the actual position. "Millionaire" and "Billionaire" are actually elastic and largely unverifiable: a million or a billion whats? And when? And who is counting? How can you equate a million Victorian British pounds with a million 2007 Zimbabwean dollars. "Millionaire" and "Billionaire" are not useful concepts before the 19th century. Furthermore, "Millionaire" is no longer a valid term for wealthy in the 21st century, but a contemporary British fictional character certainly doesn't need to be a sterling billionaire to be conspicuously rich. "Millionaire" excludes Mr Darcy, who is perhaps the character in English fiction most famous for being wealthy. He lived in an era when wealth was measured by income (he had "Ten thousand a year"), and his implied capital was less than a million pounds. On the other hand "Wealthy" is a simple concept that can be applied to all cultures and eras. Sure it's fuzzy round the edges, but so what? It's much better than the alternatives, and we are not exactly dealing with a highly contentious politicised area of the category system." Honbicot 22:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — a month seems far too short to start again. Shouldn't there be a time limit on renomination, e.g., several months at least. — Jonathan Bowen 00:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Honbicot. Casperonline 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several. Also it's too soon. Johnbod 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective, crufty, and stupid. Come on people, stop wasting out time with these painfully shitty categories. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should not use foul language in Wikipedia discussions. Haddiscoe 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt recreation. Delete vague, subjective category. Judging who is "wealthy" invokes POV. Any inclusion criteria would violate policy against arbitrary inclusion criteria. Furthermore, the name is wrong. It would have to be fictional wealthy characters, not wealthy fictional characters, because they are only fictionally wealthy. Doczilla 08:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are in favour of out of process deletions and opposed to running Wikipedia by consensus? As you cannot genuinely believe that the last deletion was legitimate, it sure looks that way. Haddiscoe 14:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the CfD guidelines clearly state, a CfD discussion is not a vote. The consensus among the handful of people who vote in a given discussion can fail to be in line with the greater consensus and precedent behind Wikipedia's project goals and guidelines. "Wealthy" is clearly a subjective term, no matter how many people like it. Doczilla 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The person who closed the debate in October 2006 did not use this argument, but just pretended there was a consensus when there wasn't. You seem to think that consensus belongs solely to people who are wise enough to share your opinions. Guidelines are subject to interpretation and are not binding, and in any case they are generally written by just a handful of people. The level of subjectivity here is very low. Haddiscoe 01:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many wealthy fictional characters. ANNAfoxlover 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It doesn't matter if you're a billionaire, millionaire, etc. Those numbers are confusing. What does matter is that you're affluent and have all the comforts and benefits of wealth. Angie Y. 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "wealthy" is subjective; millionaire is arbitrary and ill-defined. (The people writing "keep per Xtifr" seem to be misinterpreting my argument against the millionaire cat as endorsement of this one.) What we need is some categories that are neither subjective nor arbitrary for these characters. Perhaps something like Category:Fictional businesspeople, Category:Fictional magnates, Category:Fictional tycoons, Category:Fictional financiers, Category:Fictional bankers, and/or Category:Fictional investors. Xtifr _tälk 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of those categories are subjective, and the other four do not necessarily denote wealth. You are effectively admitting that the concept behind this category is sound and useful, and you haven't come up with a better option. Oliver Han 10:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-uh. I don't think that's good enough. The terms "Millionaire", "billionaire", etc. are the subjective terms, while "wealthy" emcomappasses the whole spectrum. You need to see through oters' perspectives. And besides, you just said the things I just said. ;) Angie Y. 20:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that wealth is a relative (and rather elastic) term. The poverty level in the United States is far above the median income in just about any country outside the "developed" world, and big chunks of it as well. A poor man in Belgium, for example, is quite wealthy by Congolese standards. And "wealthy" doesn't account for people who acquire or lose their fortunes; are they wealthy or poor? Horologium t-c 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Angie Y. 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making your own case by pointing that out. By saying that the other person's view is just opinion, you're illustrating the fact that the term is subjective. Wryspy 04:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are wealthy if their wealth defines them in the context in which they live. That is consistent. As for people going from rich to poor or the other way round, if that debars a category, we should delete every single occupational category, as no-one has an occupation at birth, and many people retire before they die. Oliver Han 09:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is fact. The poverty line for a single person in the US is $9800/year; for a family of four, $20000/year. I am not going to spend a lot of time looking for income levels for Africa, South America, and South Asia, but those numbers represent high incomes in those regions. I didn't voice a !vote one way or the other on this issue, for a number of reasons, so please don't lash out at me or slag me because I point out something inconvenient. Horologium t-c 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the category page to include that the characters are wealthy in the context of the works of fiction in which they appear. This makes it a little more objective; inclusion won't depend on wealth as defined by the Wikipedian who adds the category. It's not perfect (there may or may not be cases in which wealth in the context of the work is disputed), but it's better. WODUP 16:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I must point out yet again that they can be fictional wealthy characters, but they cannot be wealthy fictional characters. Regardless of the issues of subjectivity, the name does not work. Doczilla 07:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but renamed to Category:Fictional wealthy characters. This is a crucial characteristic. No one has put forward any evidence that subjectivity is a real problem, as opposed to a theoretical problem. Therefore we should trust editors to use this category appropriately, as it covers a major aspect of fictional characterization and the alternative categories are much worse. Oliver Han 09:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. How do you know that it is crucial? :) Angie Y. 12:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as impossible to maintain, there is no discrete definition of wealthy.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just speculation without facts to back it up. What evidence do you have that there have been any maintenance problems for any of the incarnations of this category? Haddiscoe 01:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the wealth article:

"Wealth" refers to some accumulation of resources, whether abundant or not. 'Richness' refers to an abundance of such resources. A wealthy (or rich) individual, community, or nation thus has more resources than a poor one. Richness can also refer at least basic needs being met with abundance widely shared. The opposite of wealth is destitution. The opposite of richness is poverty.

Case in point. Angie Y. 14:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a harmless, fun, and useful category. It should also be quite straightforward to use: fictional characters are defined by wealth if their wealth is a feature of the story. There's usually little doubt as to whether or not this applies, so this is not a subjective category. Some of the comments make it seem as though people feel that this category is making some kind of sociological statement, but what the category is really about is fictional function. Anyone who disagree with any entry can always take it out, but this is hardly a fraught, politicized category, so edit wars don't seem probable. The only drawback I can see to the category is that it will grow really large, but that can be dealt with by subdividing it. There's nothing to get worked up about here, because they are only fictional characters after all. Annandale 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! For example, Veruca Salt is from a rich family. Her parents give her whatever she wants. And Princess Morbucks, and Karin Kanzuki, and Toph, and...oh, I could go down the list forever! I also agree that the millionaire and billionaire categories should be merged into this one because some of the subjects of the articles in those categories (e.g. Mr. Salt, Veruca's father) don't specifically say how much money they have in their nest eggs. Angie Y. 04:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but renamed to Category:Fictional wealthy characters per Oliver Han. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as suggested as by Oliver Han and per usual wordorder of Category:Fictional characters. "The question is whether the author creates the character with wealth as a defining characteristic", per A Musing in the last discussion. That may cause disagreements about whether a particular entry into the category is justified, but no more so than with other editing disputes, surely, and certainly not enough to require deletion of the entire category. Bencherlite 23:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Quackdave 17:23, 19 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Mexican Executive Branch of Government to Category:Executive branch of the Mexican government

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The current name does not comply with the style guidelines. The proposal is based on the form used for similar U.S. and German categories. Perebourne 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 12:55, 12 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.

June 12

Category:Lists of Australians in sport to Category:Lists of Australian sportspeople

Category:Pejoratives and Hate Speech

Category:Persian cuisine to Category:Iranian cuisine

Category:Schools of Theatre to Category:Drama schools

Category:Theatre schools and training organizations to Category:Drama schools

More fictional wealth categories

Category:Vietnam War equipment to Category:Vietnam War military equipment

Category:Vietnam War U.S. forces to Category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Vietnam War

Category:Mississippi State Bulldogs basketball coaches

Category:Entrepreneurs

Category:Kreator

Category:Railway stations in Ross and Cromaty

Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Scotland to Category:Archbishops of St Andrews and Edinburgh

Category:Honorary Roman Catholic Primates of the United States

Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Bohemia

Category:Saturday Night Live actors

Category:Split Enz compilation albums

Category:The Apprentice episodes to Category:The Apprentice (US) seasons

Category:Arsenal F.C. fans

Category:Hollins Alumni

Category:Orthodox text editors

Category:Edward Jones Key Figures

Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Denmark

Category:Science awards to Category:Science and engineering prizes

Category:Primates of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople to Category:Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople

Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Belgium to Category:Archbishops of Mechelen-Brussel

Category:Eminent Mohyals

Category:Eastern Orthodox minor churches and movements to UNKNOWN

Category:Lithuania hills

Category:Canadian Press Newsmakers of the Year

Category:Japanese buses

Category:Bus routes subcategories

Category:London buses

Category:Elves of Dragonlance and Category:Humans of Dragonlance

Category:Primates of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church

Category:Primates of the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate of Peć (Serbia)

Category:Primates of the Autocephalous Greek Cypriot Orthodox Church

Category:Primates of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch

Category:Wealthy fictional characters

Category:Mexican Executive Branch of Government