< June 16	June 18 >

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 to Category:Common Wealth Party politicians. --Xdamr^talk 14:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Common Wealth Party politicians to Category:Common Wealth Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to remove "UK" prefix as with other other subcats of Category:British politicians by party. Note tht unlike the other subcats, no "(UK)" suffix is needed, since there appears not have been "Common Wealth" parties in other countries. Note that although the category is currently small, this was historically significant party and should be more heavily populated with existing articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - entirely agree with BrownHairedGirl's reasoning. Warofdreams talk 17:08, 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 to Category:Liberal-Labour politicians (UK). --Xdamr^talk 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Liberal-Labour politicians to Category:Liberal-Labour politicians (UK)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with other subcats of Category:British politicians by party and with main article Liberal-Labour (UK). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Liberal-Labour (UK) politicians - the (UK) disambiguator is specific to the grouping, and is not needed for the politicians element. This format is used for many (but not all) similar categories. Warofdreams talk 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I can see only three subcategories of Category:British politicians by party named that way, all for minor parties; all the major parties have (UK) at the end. The (UK) disambiguator can legitimately be applied either to the party or the politicians, and having it at the end is consistent with the subcats of Category:British MPs by political party, where the (UK) is always at the end. It's helpful to adopt the same approach for both the politicians and the MPs, and changing Category:Labour MPs (UK) to Category:Labour (UK) MPs looks very ugly and unfamiliar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • Reply - I make it five, plus the Nationalist Party (Ireland), but the exact number isn't really consequential. While your proposal would certainly be an improvement over the current situation, and you make a good point about the MP categories, I don't think it would work well for groups disambiguated along the lines of Category:Socialist League (UK, 1885) members, which would presumably become Category:Socialist League members (UK, 1885), not only opening the possibility I mention above, but also suggesting that only members as of 1885 are listed. Can you see a way around this? Warofdreams talk 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if I sounded dismissive of your point, and I see the problem with the disambiguated eponymous groups, but I am inclined to think that it is probably easier overall to keep those at "Foo party (UK, yyyy) politicians" an exception to the rule, since they are exceptional cases (the major party names are not ambiguous in a UK context). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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 to Category:Liberal Democrat politicians (UK). --Xdamr^talk 14:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Liberal Democrat politicians to Category:Liberal Democrat politicians (UK)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with other subcats of Category:British politicians by party and with Category:Liberal Democrat MPs (UK). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Liberal Democrat politicians - looks like we could avoid the (UK) disambiguator, as this is the only group named the Liberal Democrats, and the other entries at Liberal Democrat are unlikely to cause confusion. Warofdreams talk 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: There is also the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). I'm sure that anyone looking at an article on a British LibDem will not assume that the categ might have anything to do with Japan, but without the disambiguator, the category may be mistakenly applied to Japanese politicians. It is also easier or editors to use these categories if they have a consistent naming structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I didn't think it would be a significant danger, but as two people have raised the possibility of confusion, I'd be happy enough with including it. Warofdreams talk 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• REname to Category:British Liberal Democrat politicians - Since Northern Ireland has its own political parties, using British rather than UK should be safe. The question of pre-1920 politicians does not arise, sicne the party was only formed in the 1980s. A national qualifier is necessary, as they may be other parties with a similar name elsewher in the world (for example Russia). Peterkingiron 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as I stated above, there are no other parties with the same name. Parties with similar but different names do not need disambiguation in this manner. Warofdreams talk 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, there is also the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Liberal Democrat (UK) politicians, per reasoning above. Warofdreams talk 16:26, 22 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 to Category:Liberal Party politicians (UK). --Xdamr^talk 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Liberal Party politicians to Category:Liberal Party politicians (UK)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with the main article Liberal Party (UK) and with other similar categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Liberal Party (UK) politicians - the (UK) disambiguator is specific to the party, and is not needed for the politicians element. This format is used for many (but not all) similar categories. Warofdreams talk 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename eitehr as Warofdreams, or to British Liberal Party politicians. "British" is a suiable adjective, sicne Northern Ireland has its own political parties. Some natioanl adjective is needed, sicne there are Liberal Parties elsewhere. My suggestion will however give rise to a problem in relation to pre-1920 Irish liberals, but perhpas they desrve theri own category. Peterkingiron 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to avoid having to divide the 19th century Liberals, it's better to use UK rather than British. I think it's a bad idea to put the (UK) disambiguator in the middle of the name, unless we do the same for the MP categories, which would lead to ugly constructs such as Category:Liberal (UK) MPs. I can see the case for the semantic perfection of having the "(UK)" in the middle, but I think that having it at the end is also accurate, and is easier to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've responded to the second point under the #Category:UK Liberal-Labour politicians header above. Warofdreams talk 16:30, 22 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kyle XY (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It seems to be regular practice to delete categories for shows, where there is a navigation template which provides all the necessary links, as here. Fayenatic london (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep -- Nominator gives no rationale, already had a CfD. Matthew 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - category contains nothing but the ep and character subcats and the show article which countless CFDs have indicated is insufficient to warrant a category. The previous CFD was for renaming, not deletion, and the nomination was withdrawn (by me) when it became clear that it was going to fail. That previous CFD does not stand as a bar to this one. Otto4711 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per many, many precedents. Doczilla 06:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious question - Actually, I believe I gave more rationale (the category duplicates connections that already exist in the navtemplate) than the others. Personally, I'd keep all such categories; I like it when any reference work, including an encyclopedia, has more than one way to navigate. I made this proposal to explore the reasons for such deletions. What was the actual rationale for the uncounted precedents? Please give me something better than "we've always done it this way"! Doc? anyone? - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each tv show should have a navigation template that allows you to go to these other "categorized" articles directly from the main article about the show; hence, the category is unneeded. That's just the way I look at it. Doc or Otto may see it differently, but we seem to generally agree on the result. Carlossuarez46 00:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 00:09, 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 Listify & Delete. Most 'Keep' arguments seem to boil down to an argument for special treatment, however, the importance of Shakespeare aside, in the absence of compelling arguments to the contrary general categorisation guidelines should be applied. --Xdamr^talk 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Listify - Generally, WP:CFD would probably delete categories for real people who have been the subject of fictional works by a specific author. In this case, however, the author is Shakespeare. Nonetheless, I would argue that this category should still be deleted, mainly because the people in this category (especially very famous people such as Julius Caesar) are not famous because they were the subjects of Shakespeare's plays. Moreover, some of these people (Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc) have been the subjects of multiple playwrights and authors; categories for all of the authors who have featured these people would be unweildly. Therefore, I suggest deleting this category. Note that the list is probably of interest to people studying Shakespeare's historical plays, so the category should be listified. (If kept, the category should be renamed without using "historical", as the term is vague.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining of the historical personages included in a Shakespeare play. List of Shakespearean characters is annotated with links to the biography articles of historical characters so no further listification is required. Otto4711 20:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would argue that a separate list for "historical" people may still be warranted. List of Shakespearean characters combines real, mythological, and original fictional characters. Dr. Submillimeter 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep although note that I created this category. I'll watch the conversation for a day or so: at this moment I cannot understand the delete rationale. AndyJones 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment - For example, Joan of Arc has been the subject of a poem by Voltaire, an opera by Tchaikovsky, a novel by Mark Twain, a play by George Bernard Shaw, and a lot of films (see cultural depictions of Joan of Arc) Imagine categories for all of those depictions; the lengthy category list would be unreadable and unusable. Moreover, Joan of Arc is known for much more than being the subject of a play by Shakespeare; she is more famous as a Christian saint and a French military leader. Hence, categories for her actual activities are important; categories for her depiction in literature and films are not necessarily as useful. Dr. Submillimeter 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fairly strong Keep though as an exception from the norm. If not certainly deserves a list of its own. I note in particular that most of the articles do not mention the depction of their subject by Shakespeare. The existing list (and any new one) will enable navigation if Shakespeare is the starting point, but until the articles are updated only the category shows the connection the other way. Johnbod 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The articles on Julius Caesar and Joan of Arc apparently became overwhelmed with cultural references; see cultural depictions of Julius Caesar and cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Maybe the same is true for other articles where Shakespeare is not mentioned (or maybe the people's appearance in Shakespeare is not noteworthy enough). Dr. Submillimeter 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were just written by historians. Most of them were not overwhelmed with any sort of information. Johnbod 21:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an exception. I don't want to set a precedent of "Historical figures portrayed by X" categories, but Shakespeare's plays are so significant to English-language culture that this is a defining characteristic of the people involved. However, I would recommend a "strong delete" for any other similar categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if this is kept then it should be renamed to something like Category:Historical figures who appeared as Shakespeare characters. When I saw the category my thought was that it was for roles that Shakespeare had acted, not for people he'd written about. Otto4711 21:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I take your point, but that could suggest the historical figure had acted in Shakespeare, like George III. Perhaps: Category:Historical figures who are characters in Shakespeare. Johnbod 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about Category:Historical characters in Shakespeare plays? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's best. I'd support a rename to that. Johnbod 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reiterate that my suggesting a possible new name should in no way be taken as support for this category. I remain very strongly opposed. Otto4711 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete very bad precedent; we go down a slippery slope by allowing cultural references which are by-no-means defining for the subject of the biography: is being in Spakespeare defining for Caesar? Brutus? various kings of England? No. And if this is OK for Shakespeare, what NPOV reason can we come up with to rid ourselves of Category:Historical figures portrayed in Star Trek, etc. Nip this in the bud. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply actually, in the English-speaking world, Caesar and Brutus and a raft of English kings are best known for their portrayals in Shakespeare's plays. Who thinks of Brutus without thinking "et tu, Brute"? If it wasn't for Shakespeare that boy would be an obscure footnote to history rather than the target of one the language's great one-liners. Without Shakespeare, Hamlet would just be brand of cigar or a small village. I hope that we can see the merits in drawing a clear line between Shakespeare are Star Trek .... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are always going to be exceptions for particular characters, but do you honestly believe that any king of England is best known today because he appeared in a Shakespeare play? It could just as easily be argued that Julius Caesar is best known because he appeared in a Shaw play or that Hamlet is best known to people of a certain age because a particularly dreary version was an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. How does one decide that cultural representation X is important enough to be considered an exception while that cultural depiction Y isn't without resorting to blatant POV? Otto4711 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly - Richard III reigned for three years & would be highly obscure without Shakespeare. So probably would Henry V and Richard II - none of them very successful or long on the throne. I think the UK was spared Mystery Science Theater 3000. Johnbod 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Otto, when any of the other cultural representations achieve the renown set out with references in the article William Shakespeare, we will have a POV problem. But until then, we can handle one exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to BHG, Dante - also available in English - placed Brutus and Cassius in the lowest level of The Inferno with Judas Iscariot and Satan himself - it seems that Brutus' and Cassius' infamy long outlived them. Oh, by the way, Dante wrote in the 1300s well before young William was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Carlossuarez46 00:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete per nom. List is a far better option for something like this. After the term "listcruft" was invented, we seem to have swung too far in the direction of using categories for topics that should be covered by lists. Perhaps if we start using the term "catcruft", we can start to counteract this (although I would wouldn't actually accuse the current category). Xtifr _tälk 23:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But a list only refers in one direction, as explained above. Johnbod 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's just one of their benefits! :) Anyway, adding "See also: List of foo" is no harder than adding Category:foo, so I find the argument remarkably unpersuasive. Xtifr _tälk 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've lost me completely there? Johnbod 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#Performers_by_performance. Doczilla 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A joke, I hope? Johnbod 06:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-defining. The articles aren't about Shakespeare's work. Osomec 10:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: I find the whole discussion quite bizarre. I suppose I'm rather too close to this, having been the poor sap who did the hard work of getting this category onto Wikipedia in the first place. Clearly, being in Shakespeare is an important defining characteristic of people like Brutus and Richard III and Julius Caesar and so forth since their significance today would be a hundredth of what it is without being imortalised by the Bard. Think of Julius Caesar and you think of beware the ides of March and Et tu, Brute! and Friends, Romans, Countrymen before you think of anything derived solely from the historical record. I'm thoroughly offended by the fact that the word "cruft" even came up in this conversation. As for the idea that the category should be repalced by a list which could then be cross-referenced from all the articles to make a quasi-category, well, honestly: we've already got a category. And yes, I am intending to create the list of historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare. I did put a lot of thought into the name: none of the suggestions above are better - the compromise people seemed to arrive on, "Category:Historical characters in Shakespeare plays," would be a category containing articles about characters (e.g. Falstaff), not articles about historical figures. I honestly think the number of readers who will make Otto's mistake will be countable in single digits: Shakespeare's enduring fame is as a playwright, not as an actor (although of course he was one). AndyJones 13:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe this is because I spend more time reading history books instead of Shakespeare, but in my mind, Julius Caesar and Mark Antony (and possibly other Roman people in this category) are best known for being Roman generals and politicans, which has had a profoundly greater historical impact than their appearance in Shakespeare. These people permanently changed the geopolitical landscape of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East through their historical actions, affecting many peoples and cultures well before Shakespeare's time. Moreover, Europeans from the Middle Ages and Renaissance (and possibly Islamic historians before them) were reading about Caesar and Antony well before Shakespeare wrote his plays. While I could accept that some lesser English kings are better known because of Shakespeare's plays, some of the comments about how Caesar and other Romans are primarily known to English-speaking people through Shakespeare are gross overstatements. Dr. Submillimeter 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Dr. S. on this one. When I think of Julius, the first thing that springs to mind is the battle with Vercingetorix, and the second is the crossing of the Rubicon. Shakespeare's contributions to this man's notability are quite minor, IMO. As for Richard III, it could be argued that people actually know less about this beneficent king then they would if Shakespeare hadn't written his slanderous play. Like Dr. S., I admit that Shakespeare has probably contributed quite a bit to the notability of some more minor historical figures, e.g. Mac Bethad mac Findláich. On the other hand, that article says very little about about Shakespeare's almost-entirely fictional version of the story. I think there may be a disjoint here between the perceptions of student of literature and the perceptions of students of history. And since these are historical articles, I tend to think the view of historians is the more appropriate one to follow. Xtifr _tälk 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also approach this from a history perspective. Caesar was well known from his own times forward; he was a prodigious author (by ancient standards) and shameless self-promoter. Other ancient authors made him the subject of their works as well, Suetonius, Plutarch, Dio Cassius come to mind. Then Dante immortalized the infamy of his assassins. Indeed, Shakespeare had to have heard of Caesar somehow, so that his name was current among historians and readers during that period as well. Regardless of how we come to known Caesar, the most important medium by which we learn about certain people or places seems (a) speculative; and (b) hardly worthy of categorization. What's next Category:People we know about from CNN or Category:Places mentioned by Ptolemy?Carlossuarez46 05:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not surprising that deleters keep referring to Caesar. There are 129 articles in the category. Perhaps Dr S or Xtifr grew up hearing tales of Edmund Beaufort, 4th Duke of Somerset or John VI, Duke of Brittany on their respective mothers knees, but few others will have done. For the great majority of these characters, being in a Shakespeare play is a defining characteristic for a modern readership, and is also not mentioned in their articles (please don't try and tell me this is anything other than a sign of stubbiness). Johnbod 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is a disadvantage of Categories that they only allow bidirectional linking. In a case like this, I think a triangular set of links makes more sense. Someone reading about Caesar is more likely to be interested in reading about Shakespeare's play than a list of unrelated historical figures. On the other hand, someone reading about Shakespeare's play is much more likely to be interested in reading about other historical figures in Shakespeare's other plays. So the most sensible way of linking is: Caesar -> Shakespeare's Caesar -> List of Shakespeare's characters. A category doesn't give you that flexibility. On top of that, a list could also contain links to the plays, and can be sorted by play! I think the plain advantages of lists far outweigh any dubious "Shakespeare deserves a category" arguments. If you think of categories as a disadvantage (as I do in this case), it almost sounds like you're trying to punish Shakespeare for his fame! Xtifr _tälk 05:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand this at all. All I know if that for a majority of the 129 articles in this category, the category is the only thing that tells a reader they were in a Shakespeare play. Given how stubby and boring most of the articles are, this is in my view likely to be information of interest to the reader, which this nomination intends to deprive him or her of. Johnbod 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the play where the person (or some vaguely recognizable caricature of the person) appears will serve just as well (or better, IMO) to inform a reader that the person appeared (sort of) in a play, and is every bit as easy to add. (Easier, IMO, because categories are tricky until you get the hang of them, whereas a link to a separate article is something that even the most novice wiki editors are familiar with.) A person reading about the play with historical figures is much more likely to be interested in other historical persons in the plays than someone reading about a random historical figure for whatever reason (most probably unconnected to the play). Xtifr _tälk 01:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because many of these figures are known mainly b/c Shakespeare wrote about them; while the others are known b/c of both their historic deeds and for being in Shakespeare. For example, most people upon hearing of Brutus and Caesar would say, "Et tu, Brute?" Who popularized that? There is a difference between Category:Historical figures portrayed in Star Trek and a list of the same in Shakespeare's plays. One of these has greatly influenced the history of literature and the public's view of these figures, while the other is merely a recent pop culture addition to the world. It is easy to articulate the difference between a valid and non valid category in a situation like this.--Alabamaboy 10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This approach could still lead into major problems. For example, using the same logic, Jesus Christ could be categorized in Category:People depicted by Leonardo da Vinci because one of the most famous paintings of him (The Last Supper) is by da Vinci. Similar categories could be created for Michaelangelo and other popular artists from a few hundred years ago. However, the defining characteristic of Jesus and other Biblical and historical figures are not their depictions by da Vinci, Michaelangelo, or other artists but instead their actions when they were alive. Dr. Submillimeter 10:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously be suggesting that Category:People depicted by Leonardo da Vinci would have any chance of existing? Apart from religious figures, himself, the Mona Lisa & a couple of young friends, I don't think he did any portraits anyway; nor did Michelangelo. Johnbod 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Given the arguments above, I think Category:People depicted by Leonardo da Vinci and Category:People depicted by Michaelangelo are as equally valid as Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare. The modern world's view of Jesus Christ, the biblical David, Adam, Eve, and others is as influenced by da Vinci's and Michaelangelo's works as views of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony are influenced by Shakespeare. Note, however, that I am still advocating the deletion of Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare, although I am certain that other people will see the Shakespeare category and this discussion to advocate categories for da Vinci, Michaelangelo, and other people. Dr. Submillimeter 07:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! Johnbod 10:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr. Submillimeter drew my attention to a decision to list (not categorise) TV show performers and presenters. The issue arising here is similar. WP articles have a habit of accruing large appedices on references in "popular culture" or "literature". Much of this is of little value, but we cannot prevent it beign added. Nevertheless, this kind of excrescence is to be discouraged. I am generally not in favour of lists, since they are less easy to use than categories, but I am inclimed to agree with nominator. The work done by the category creator will not be lost, since it will appear in the list; without his work, we could not ahve such a list. Peterkingiron 21:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As others have pointed out, the difference between this category and another for a different author is that Shakespeare has defined our view of these historical figures in fundamental ways. This is a very notable and important categorization, therefore keep. Wrad 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, distorted our views with his highly inaccurate depictions might be closer to the truth. And as others have pointed out, this is not true in several significant cases anyway. Further, why is a link to a list of (mostly) unrelated historical figures more useful than (say) a link to the actual play where the character appears? Wikipedia's so-called "categories" are really more of a linking scheme than a classification scheme, although they are occasionally used for the latter. As I ask above, why should Shakespeare be punished by being forced to use the limited and restrictive category system, while other writers gain the benefits of far-more-flexible lists? Xtifr _tälk 19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same arguments to keep would work for CNN, Dante, Suetonius, Plutarch, and frevvins' sake even You Are There (Radio/TV series), and because not many would have heard of Oskar Schindler otherwise, we can start a Spielberg category too. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still completely bemused. Category:People we heard about on CNN is never going to exist, so discussing it here is a reductio-ad-way-too-much-absurdium-to-be-relevant. The argument that this would make a good list is no doubt true: I intend to make it a great list. It will be a featured list. But the argument that that fact makes the proposed list redundant with this category or vice-versa is quite wrong. I set very little store by slippery slope arguments. The category existed for over a year without anyone creating Category:Historical figures from bizarre pop-culture source and if anyone ever does, we can come and discuss it here. FWIW, I think the argument that biographical pages should be looked at from a purely historical perspective is wrong, also: Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and its joined-up-ness (I'll think of a better word for that later, perhaps) is one of its strengths. His appearance in Shakespeare is one of the few truly significant facts about Edmund Beaufort, 4th Duke of Somerset and I was quite proud of being able to add that information to his page. AndyJones 06:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: just in case, I've created a list at User:Xtifr/List of Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare. This is a straightforward conversion of the category, not organized by play (although I think that might make more sense). I basically created it just in case we turn out to need or want it. Xtifr _tälk 01:42, 23 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 to Category:Defunct gangs of New York City. --Xdamr^talk 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical gangs of New York City to Category:Defunct gangs of New York City

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "defunct" is generally used for organizations that no longer exist. Moreover, the term "historical" has vague interpretations, making it less-than-useful for categorization. "Historical" could be used to refer to existing gangs that have been around for a long time (maybe 50 or 100 years); defunct gangs; or gangs that existed 50 or 100 years ago or more. "Defunct" suffers from no such ambiguity, so the category should be renamed using "defunct". Dr. Submillimeter 20:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom's well-reasoned argument. "Historical" is too ambiguous. Xtifr _tälk 03:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming I don't like the sound of "Defunct gangs of New York City" for this category. The origional title is much better.--Sefringle^Talk 04:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - avoiding ambiguity is a worthy goal in category names and "defunct" is in line with how other categories for no-longer-existing organizations are named. Otto4711 22:10, 21 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 per nom. --Xdamr^talk 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical criminals of New York City to Category:Criminals of New York City

Suggest merging Category:Historical gang members of New York City to Category:Gang members of New York City

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Generally, no distinction is made between "historical" people and contemporary people in categorization. The distinction is usually not useful anyway, as anyone who is dead could be considered "historical". These categories should therefore be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Historical gang members of New York City to Category:Gang members and Category:Criminals of New York City (if created) - there are currently 14 articles in the parent gang members category, too few to necessitate contemplating an apparently unprecedented splitup by city, and the category would hardly be overwhelmed by the addition of the 20-some articles.
• Merge Category:Historical criminals of New York City to Category:American criminals. I'm unconvinced of the utility of splitting up anything in the criminals by nationality tree along any lower geographical lines since criminals, like anyone else and more than many, are mobile. Bonnie and Clyde for example could be categorized in many different such categories based on their crime spree. This would apparently be the only such category on the city level for the United States, with Category:Kentucky criminals being the only state division currently. For purposes of dealing with the "historical" issue, though, the rename of the category to "Criminals of NYC" is acceptable for the moment although the merge is IMHO preferable. Otto4711 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:41, 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 Merge to Category:Famous cats. --Xdamr^talk 00:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical cats to Category:Famous cats

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Generally, no distinction is made between "historical" people and contemporary people in categorization, although someone has made the distinction for cats. The distinction is usually not useful anyway, as any cat who is dead could be considered "historical". These categories should therefore be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 20:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I dislike the term "famous" in categories. It implies that some other type of cat might have an article. How about Category:Individual cats instead? Xtifr _tälk 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, I see there's a parent at Category:Famous animals. I'd like to see the tree renamed, but for now, might as well Merge per nom for consistency. Xtifr _tälk 23:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The entire Category:Famous animals hierarchy was nominated for renaming a while ago with no consensus on how to rename the categories. "Famous" is currently the adjective to use for categories that contain articles on specific animals. Dr. Submillimeter 07:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a category for cool cats? TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seriously per nom. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: per nom, and this discussion. IvoShandor 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Cats; I don't like categories with "famous" because if they weren't famous or notable, they wouldn't be here to be categorized. Otherwise, perhaps Category:Cats by name. Carlossuarez46 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please see this discussion regarding the use of the word "famous". I would suggest nominating the whole Category:Famous animals category tree if you want to use a word other than "famous". Regardless of this, merging to a category about cats in general would be a bad idea. Dr. Submillimeter 08:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Bulldog123 06:02, 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 to Category:Former buildings and structures of the British Virgin Islands. --Xdamr^talk 01:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical buildings in the British Virgin Islands to Category:Forber buildings and structures of the British Virgin Islands Category:Former buildings and structures of the British Virgin Islands

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The term "historical" is vague; it could refer to buildings from 50, 100, or 200 years ago, buildings where important events took place, or buildings that no longer exist. In this case, it appears to refer to buildings that are now in ruins. It should be renamed using "former" to follow the convention of other categories for such buildings. Dr. Submillimeter 20:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Historical" is no more vague than History, but we manage to create "History of" pages for each country in the world. Each building appearing in the category is actually abandoned and in ruins. I am not quite sure what "Forber" means - is it meant to be "Former"? --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I corrected the nomination to use "former". The rest of the argument presented by Legis detracts from the issue, as it confuses articles about history (which should be in history categories) with articles about things that could be called "historical" (which do not belong in "historical" categories). Someone else could easily interpret the adjective "historical" for buildings in strange ways or in ways that are different from Legis's interpretation. For example, I would consider the Earl's Court tube station to be a historical structure, even though the average Londoner would not. (Someone else did place a currently-operational London railroad station in Category:History of London, which I removed earlier today.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks, although I still think there is a distinction between a building that form's part of a nation's history, and something that is just a "former" building. I couldn't agree that any building that was built yesterday is immediately historical. And as much of my life as I have spent sitting in Earl's Court station (which seems long enough to be part of history), I would have difficulty as describing it as a building that played any significant part in English history. The other worry I would have about the "former" tag is it would necessarily include things that have now been completely destroyed, which currently would fall outside a category of historical buildings. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - But the Earl's Court Underground Station is indeed a historical structure in my mind and quite possibly in the minds of other people. The original station was built in the 1870s during the westward extension of the District Line, and both this station and the railway greatly influenced the growth of locations in Southwest London. This in turn has had long-term consequences in the diffusion of both people and commerce from Inner London to Outer London. Moreover, the Underground itself, including the construction of the District Line and the pivotal role played by Earl's Court on the District Line, was pioneering in terms of the development of urbal mass transit. Furthermore, the architecture of the Earl's Court Underground Station itself dates from the Victorian era, and it remains relatively unchanged (particularly the Earl's Court Road facade and the District Line platforms), so it may be considered exemplary of such rail architecture from the era. (Most of this can be found in C. Wolmar's The Subterranean Railway.) Moreover, may I point out that many parts of the world (including Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, the Western United States and Canada), any building that dates from the nineteenth century would indeed be considered a historic landmark and would probably be registered on government-maintained lists of historic buildings? Indeed, the Earl's Court Underground Station should be considered historic. However, as demonstrated by Legis's comments, my perspective on what is historic is purely subjective, but so is his. Now, does everybody understand what is wrong with using the term "historic" to categorize buildings? Dr. Submillimeter 20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All buildings that were built yesterday or earlier are historical. Perebourne 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and per convention of Category:Former buildings and structures of the United Kingdom and its parent and sibling categories. Xtifr _tälk 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:buildings and structures in the British Virgin Islands as some of these are still at least partially extent. But as a minimum rename it, though it will then need clearing out. Whatever happens, do not leave it where it is. Casperonline 21:53, 21 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 13:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historical astronomical instruments to Category:Astronomical instruments

Nominator's rationale: Rename - Generally, no distinction is made between "historical" and "modern" objects in categorization. Therefore, the category should be renamed. (Category:Astronomical instruments should exist anyway.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (or merge, depending on how you view it) per nom. An excellent suggestion and a much better category. Xtifr _tälk 03:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and listify astronomical instruments that are no longer used in any practice (unlike astrolabes, which are still used by sailors) such as the armillary sphere, or henges. 132.205.44.134 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: per nom, and this discussion. IvoShandor 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename — I'm guilty of establishing this category as an expediency during the cleanup of Category:Astronomy. Probably a name like "Antiquarian astronomical instruments" would have been slight better, but I have no issue with merging this into a broader category. An article on this topic of pre-telescopic instruments (rather than just a list) would also be welcome. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:37, 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 Merge to Category:Quebec MNAs. --Xdamr^talk 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical Quebec MNAs to Category:Quebec MNAs

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Generally, no distinction is made between "historical" people and contemporary people in categorization. The distnction is usually not useful anyway, as anyone who is dead could be considered "historical". These categories should therefore be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, although you don't actually have to be dead to be considered historical. Sometimes being retired is enough.  :) Xtifr _tälk 03:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (New opinion) Delete in light of Bearcat's revelation that these people are already in subcategories of the proposed merge target. We don't generally categorize people as "historical" or "former X". As for Bearcat's suggestion that this is useful information, I think that a list of current members would be very useful, but I don't see much use in a list of former members. But in any case, it should be a list, not a category, for ease of maintenance. (Note: this list may already exist. I haven't checked.) Xtifr _tälk 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 38th National Assembly of Quebec. They don't all exist yet, but each historical assembly will eventually have its own article listing all MPPs and significant events within that assembly. Bearcat 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• resort to become a category of the dead? and create a current MNA category? (all non-current non-dead MNAs... say former MNAs... situated at the parent? ) 132.205.44.134 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The idea here was to have a way to separate people who currently sit in the legislature from people who, whether dead or alive, previously served as MNAs but aren't sitting as MNAs now. This is a useful and helpful distinction to make, but I'm not sure how the best way would be to handle it — have a "current MNAs" category instead? Use a list instead of the category system to provide this information? No opinion, just food for thought. However: if the historical category is deleted, then do not upmerge articles into the parent, as each should already also be in a subcategory of Category:Quebec MNAs by political party — and thus adding Category:Quebec MNAs to these articles would represent an unnecessary duplication that people would have to put work into fixing. Bearcat 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I prefer to keep the two list split so to show who is currently serving as the current Member of National Assembly versus others who have served as MNA or MLA in the past. Keeping the two list separate would be more user friendly I believe. The list of Historical Quebec MNAs will continue to grow over the coming weeks and months as I will continue to add new articles on former MNAs or MLAs as provincial members of Parliament, regardless of the duration of their term in office all satisfify WP:BIO, so the possibility of a very long category list is there.--JForget 01:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Generally, categories are not used to show status, such as who is currently serving within a legislative body (or who is currently part of an athletic team or who is currently working for a company). However, a list for current Quebec MNAs (who are all probably members of a specific session of the legislative body) would be highly appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 10:33, 21 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 to Category:People from Assam. --Xdamr^talk 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical People of Assam to Category:People from Assam

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Generally, no distinction is made between "historical" people and contemporary people in categorization. The distnction is usually not useful anyway, as anyone who is dead could be considered "historical". These categories should therefore be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 19:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Æthelwold 16:03, 22 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 to Category:Ontario MPPs. --Xdamr^talk 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical Ontario MPPs to Category:Ontario MPPs

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Generally, no distinction is made between "historical" people and contemporary people in categorization. The distnction is usually not useful anyway, as anyone who is dead could be considered "historical". These categories should therefore be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The idea here was to have a way to separate people who currently sit in the legislature from people who, whether dead or alive, previously served as MPPs but aren't sitting as MPPs now. This is a useful and helpful distinction to make, but I'm not sure how the best way would be to handle it — have a "current MPPs" category instead? Use a list instead of the category system to provide this information? No opinion, just food for thought. However: if the historical category is deleted, then do not upmerge articles into the parent, as each should already also be in a subcategory of Category:Ontario MPPs by political party — and thus adding Category:Ontario MPPs to these articles would represent an unnecessary duplication that people would have to put work into fixing. Bearcat 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in light of Bearcat's revelation that these people are already in subcategories of the proposed merge target. We don't generally categorize people as "historical" or "former X". As for Bearcat's suggestion that this is useful information, I think that a list of current members would be very useful, but I don't see much use in a list of former members. But in any case, it should be a list, not a category, for ease of maintenance. (Note: this list may already exist. I haven't checked.) Xtifr _tälk 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38th Legislative Assembly of Ontario. They don't all exist yet, but each historical assembly will eventually have its own article listing all MPPs and significant events within that assembly. Bearcat 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds ideal. Xtifr _tälk 00:57, 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 Merge to Category:New Brunswick MLAs. --Xdamr^talk 00:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Historical New Brunswick MLAs to Category:New Brunswick MLAs

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Generally, no distinction is made between "historical" people and contemporary people in categorization. The distnction is usually not useful anyway, as anyone who is dead could be considered "historical". These categories should therefore be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The idea here was to have a way to separate people who currently sit in the legislature from people who, whether dead or alive, previously served as MLAs but aren't sitting as MLAs now. This is a useful and helpful distinction to make, but I'm not sure how the best way would be to handle it — have a "current MLAs" category instead? Use a list instead of the category system to provide this information? No opinion, just food for thought. Bearcat 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: are these people already in the existing category or its subcategories (as with the categories above)? You didn't say "do not upmerge" like you did with the other two. My opinion, as with those others, is that current members should be documented with a list (not a category), and this category should either be merged or simply deleted if a merge would be redundant. Xtifr _tälk 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grouped-by-party subcategories haven't been created yet in this case. At present, there's only the parent category and this one. Bearcat 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. In light of Bearcat's information, the category should not simply be deleted (unlike various similar categories). And thanks to Bearcat for checking. Xtifr _tälk 19:41, 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. --Xdamr^talk 01:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:10-Year AFL players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: *Delete - This category is for players who played in the American Football League during all ten years of its existence. This seems like trivia, which is why I nominated it for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not defining for the players. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. non-defining characteristic. Resolute 04:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Kind of interesting but trivia. Doczilla 08:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - players who played for the entire history of a non-trivial league seems somewhat defining, at least as defining as categorizing players by every team they ever played a game for. Otto4711 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More of a coincidence than a mark of greatness. Casperonline 21:54, 21 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. --Xdamr^talk 15:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gwen Stefani albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. The category is only populated by two albums, and it doesn't appear that she is in the process of coming out with another one any time soon. Even if she was, that would only make three. There is ample linkage between the two albums anyway. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Categories. PC78 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the well established Category:Albums by artist structure. When a small category is part of this sort of extensive category tree it is acceptable despite its size. See WP:OC#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth which cites this exact structure as an example of when to retain small non-growth potential categories. Otto4711 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it cites Category:Songs by artist, not Category:Albums by artist, but close. :) Xtifr _tälk 03:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is part of a hierarchy of categories and should be kept. (Where else would Gwen Stefani's albums be categorized.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't understand what you're trying to tell me. This category does fall under WP:OC#Small with no potential for growth, which means that it should be deleted. As well, there is no policy that says that there should be a hierarchy of categories for albums. That's just what WP:ALBUM says. If a category has two articles in it, though, and it doesn't look like there is a chance for it to grow, then why keep it? It would go against anything I've ever learned here! In response to "where would her albums go?", they are already in several other categories. Bump them up a level if you feel they should remain in the hierarchy. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no policy that says there should be an article on William Shakespeare, but there is such an article, and you'd find a lot of people opposed to deleting it. Same with the albums by artist structure.--Mike Selinker 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto and Dr S. What you're being told is that there is an established exception to small categories with no potential for growth when "such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", in this case Category:Albums by artist, which has hundreds of sub-categories (if you've not seen it before, take a look!) This is an established level in the hierarchy and so should be kept. Bencherlite 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per conventions of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of the most well-established exceptions to the general guideline. Sometimes consistency is more important than other considerations. Xtifr _tälk 03:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per all the reasons given above. Speedy close on this, anyone?Lugnuts 07:36, 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 Merge to Category:LGBT-related films. --Xdamr^talk 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest mergeing Category:Asian LGBT films to Category:LGBT-related films

Nominator's rationale: Merge - categorization at the continent level is inappropriate. The category is also too broad as it encompasses not only films originating in Asia but also non-Asian films that happen to have Asian characters. Otto4711 17:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And if someone who reads this knows how to muck with the templates, can you go in and correct the spelling of "merging"? There's no "e." Otto4711 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Think I've fixed it; we'll see what happens next time. Bencherlite 17:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as creator of the category, it seemed appropriate to have it as film articles were getting dumped into Category:LGBT in Asia, which this is also a subcategory of. Not sure I agree that the category is too broad, LGBT films from Asia and by Asian filmmakers seems specific enough to me. Perhaps as a compromise it might be prudent to split it into several categories for LGBT films by country? As a side note, there is also a category for Asian horror films - do you consider this to be equally problematic? PC78 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't specifically considered the Asian horror films category but in general my feeling is that categorization on the continent level when it comes to cultural subjects is a poor idea. I am not a subject matter expert but I imagine that films from India are so substantially different from films from China or Japan or North Korea, and that these are so different from each other, that lumping them under "Asian" is potentially misleading. Otto4711 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you mean by "misleading" - they're all Asian regardless of which country they come from, and any two films can be substantially different. I do appreciate your concerns, but I still feel that this category serves a purpose, though it might need some refinement. How do you feel about categorizing these films by country, for example? PC78 18:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection whatsoever to categorizing by country, assuming the resulting categories would be substantive. Otto4711 19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know then, it depends what you mean by "substantive". At present I don't think any such category would have more than 8 articles in it. I'll leave it for others to decide the fate of this category, but perhaps a "List of LGBT-related films by country" would be of greater benefit? PC78 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom given the ambiguity in the name and in the collecting and categorizing here. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 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 to Category:American television producers. ---Xdamr^talk 14:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest mergeing Category:African-American television producers to Category:American television producers

Nominator's rationale: Merge - the standalone category is overcategorization by race. Otto4711 16:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Ethnicity is irrelevant here. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Perebourne 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge concur Bulldog123 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Casperonline 21:54, 21 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. --Xdamr^talk 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of cover songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - strong consensus has emerged over the last few weeks at AFD that lists of cover songs by individual artist are not encyclopedic. Over a dozen have been deleted and the last three, for ABBA, Dream Theater and New Order, are looking to close in the next day or so as delete. The one remaining article is already in the parent list of songs category. Given that basically the entire contents of the category have been deleted and future similar articles are strongly opposed, the category won't be needed. Otto4711 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete great nom. Gone unnoticed but worthy of delete. Bulldog123 05:00, 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 No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 01:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Civil Parishes in Kent to Category:Parishes of Kent

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Parishes of England. Beorhtric 16:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Which turns out to exist already, so merge. Beorhtric 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The convention actually appears to be the other way, at least as far as lists are concerned. Johnbod 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to be difft conventions for the lists and categories. There may be a case for a bulk renaming of the list or of the categories, but for now let's keep the categories consistent with each other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Parishes of Kent per convention of subcats of of Category:Parishes of England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The term "Parish" is ambiguous as used in this sense, and, as such, it is the "Parishes of England" which should be renamed, given that it seems only to cover civil parishes. The two kinds of parishes are the civil parish and the ecclesiastical parish. In the absence of the qualifier "civil" or "ecclesiastical" only context can help in deciding which one is meant, and this is not always guaranteed. To change them all into "parishes of X" would remove useful information, making the ambiguity more widespread. I recommend the use conforms more to the "lists of" entries in the category "Parishes of England".  DDStretch  (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having now looked through many of the entries under "Parishes of England" and the subcategories, I think a much stronger case can be made for renaming all the "Parishes of ..." to "Civil Parishes of ..." (at least), given that I know some work is currently being done which might result in categories and lists being created along the lines of "Ecclesiastical Parishes of ..." In every case that I looked at in the subcategories named "Parishes of X", the articles themselves categorized as instances of "parishes of X" were described in the text as "civil parishes", and, for the reasons I mentioned before about ambiguity, I think it much more consistent, less ambiguous, and useful to rename the categories so that they conform to the "Civil Parishes in Kent" model. There would then remain the issue of whether to use "Civil Parishes in X" or "Civil Parishes of X", and I would tend to argue in favour of conformance with the "list of..." entries, thus making them all "Civil Parishes in X". I think the particular proposal should be withdrawn and this larger issue be put instead, though I do not know of the mechanism for doing this, or even if it is allowed.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per DDS above Johnbod 21:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per DDS above (chnaging my !vote). I suggest a group nomination for Category:Parishes of England and its subcats to make "civil parishes" the norm. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Thousands of civil and administrative parishes have the same names, and most of the articles are really about villages anyway. There is no need to have more than one hierarchy because frankly parishes are not important in modern England. Perebourne 23:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please forgive this comment on the above message, but the opinions expressed within it give, at best, a misleading point of view, and, as they may influence later views, it is a good idea to correct them. First, "villages" and "civil parishes" are best thought of as referring to things belonging to different conceptual categories. The civil parish is the area covered by an instance of the bottom-most tier of Local Government in England, whereas a village is just a settlement. It is similar to the distinction between, say, Leeds (the city) and City of Leeds (the Metropolitan Borough) which is a Local Goverment second tier case, parallel to the civil parishes one. Indeed, although there are a lot of civil parishes which contain and are named after just one settlement, there are significant number of civil parishes that contain more than one village or settlement, or which are named after no village contained within it. Within Cheshire, to give one such example, Haslington contains two or three villages within it, as does Newhall, Cheshire (see Aston by Wrenbury as the civil parish article is yet to be written), Betchton, Sandbach, Anderton with Marbury, and I have only checked a few. Many more cases exist purely within Cheshire for civil parishes for which articles have yet to be written. The case of the name of the civil parish not effectively being the same as any village contained within it can be seen by the case of Odd Rode (article yet to be written), which contains the villages of Mow Cop, Scholar Green, and Rode Heath, where either Scholar Green or Mow Cop, but definitely not Rode Heath could be counted as the largest and principal settlement within it. Secondly, the assertion that parishes are not important in England today is clearly not true if one looks at any information emanating from District and Central government. For examaple [ http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/YourlocalcouncilandCouncilTax/YourCommunity/DG_4001648 this central government webpage], and this more relevant set of webpages show that civil parishes are still key entities in local government within the UK. A perusal of various wikipedia articles about Local Government within the UK also provide further citations. I must apologise for this lengthy comment, but I felt it important to counter the misleading impression given by the message by use of appropriate citations to back up this rebuttal.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with this area, and do not consider my comments to be misleading. The vast majority of the articles (which are what we are categorising) are about places which are primarily known as villages. English people think in terms of villages, not in terms of civil parishes (on all those television programmes about moving to the country, no-one ever says, "I dream of moving to a rural civil parish"). Civil parishes are not one of the major tiers of local government in England. Parish councils have only the most trivial powers. They are more like neighbourhood communities in other countries, and neighbourhood committees with unusually few powers at that. Perebourne 10:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following point just made is misleading: "Parish councils have only the most trivial powers." If one considers the official list of powers of a parish council, given here, I think it will be seen that some significant powers are given to them. I will not list them here, but people can go and see for themselves, independently of me telling them with no backing. As for people thinking more about villages than civil parishes, that may be true, but it does not detract from the need to describe parish councils accurately. Indeed, if the point is that wikipedia need not bother too much with parishes or parish councils, then the opinion perhaps ought to have been that the categories should be deleted all together, rather than the naming being tinkered around with. If you are very familiar with this area, it is surprising why you omitted to mention the issues I have raised. I do not think many people could consider them at all "trivial".  DDStretch  (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a parish councillor, I am aware of the power of a Parish Council. The problem with Cheshire parishes is that they are so numerous that some areas have a parish council covering several of them, I believe - it is not my area. Many parishes take their name from the principal village. It does no harm if the article is about that village. Where a parish has several villages, the case is more diffciult, but it is still useful to have the "parish" category, where necessary, a "parish" article can provide a link to separate articles on constituent villages. Parishes are entities of a defined extent, so that the number is finite. It is debateable what place is a village and what a hamlet, so that definition is liable to be a problem. Peterkingiron 22:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: You are correct about Cheshire parish councils. I do think it is important to distinguish between the individual civil parishes and the means by which they are administered, which is why the categories need to be "civil parishes in..." rather than "civil parish councils in ..." We have ways of dealing with the "joint parish council" situation that we will be implementing in Cheshire. I made a slight error in my last post when I should not have mentuoned parish councils, but civil parishes. I agree with the rest of your post, and have worked on some of the complications writing about civil parishes and villages/hamlets bring about. The point is, however, should the original proposed renaming go ahead? I still strongly disagree that it should for all the reasons I have given.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Changing from 'Parishes of' to '(Civil) Parishes in' would cause problems where 'in' is gramatically incorrect, i.e. 'Civil Parishes in the Isle of Wight' should be 'Civil Parishes on the Isle of Wight'. Using 'of' avoids this issue. Mauls 03:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct! I had not considered cases like that. Thanks for pointing that out to me. In which case, I agree, using "of" is to be preferred.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:52, 23 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. --Xdamr^talk 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unsure - we recently deleted categories for films which depict rape, largely on the basis that the categories were created with inclusion criteria which required POV to decide whether a film should be included (films with "graphic" rape scenes and films which depict the "degradation" of "female rape"). Before deciding to nominate this category I removed several films for not being "about" rape (the removed films are Bandit Queen, Cool Devices, Hounddog (2007 film), The Crow (film), Big Bang Love, Juvenile A and Boys Don't Cry (film), all of which contain rape scenes of greater or lesser graphicness and importance to the plot but none of which, based on a reading of the articles, appear to be "about" rape as a central theme in the way that, for instance, The Accused is). Given the previous deletion of similar categories and given the POV that seems to be required in most cases to determine if a film is "about" rape or not, I'm not sure that this is a workable categorization scheme or, if it is, that the category itself is likely to be anything but small with little likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 16:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It doesn't seem that this will be a quickly populating category, and there are only a few in the category to begin with. As well, there is minimal precedent to order movies under a category of "rape film." _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  18:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps rename to Category:Rape in film in an effort to make it less POV? I don't know, I do think that categories such as this are useful, but maybe replacing it with a list would be the way to go? PC78 19:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems like a very tricky way to categorize films. Would any film with a rape scene get placed here? Do we really need to categorize films by the contents of their scenes? Maybe an article named rape in film with citations to specific examples would be more appropriate. This category seems like it would be messy. Dr. Submillimeter 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - This is the recreation of deleted content; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 23#Category:Films with a rape theme. Dr. Submillimeter 10:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inherently POV; how much "rape" does a film need to be "about" it. I was surprised that no one dumped Deliverance or Rosemary's Baby into the category, though their rape scenes are among the more talked about part of the movies. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: this is notably different from the earlier deletions, as those were movies-by-scene (which is a really bad way to categorize), while this is, at least, movie-by-subject-matter, which is not unreasonable. I would have been inclined to say delete if nom hadn't reminded me of The Accused, which is definitely about rape and its consequences and aftermath. I say "weak keep" because it's obvious that this category is having problems, and it's sparsely populated after the removal of inappropriate content. Maybe a rename would help if anyone can think of a better name. (Not "Rape in film", as that would encourage the readdition of films featuring—not about—rape.) Xtifr _tälk 03:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because any inclusion criteria would be either subjective or arbitrary, either of which violates WP:OC. Is Gone with the Wind "about" rape? It's part of the plot. Doczilla 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 'Films about XYZ' would became very quickly unmanageable and would set bad precedent. Pavel Vozenilek 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Pavel Bulldog123 04:09, 24 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 nom & by practice of convention.--cjllw ʘ TALK 13:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chekhov's short stories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Short stories by Anton Chekhov, convention of Category:Short stories by author. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Doczilla 06:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Æthelwold 16:02, 22 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 to Category:Honorary British knighthoods. --Xdamr^talk 01:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honorary Knighthoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Honorary British knighthoods, or Delete in favor of list of honorary British Knights. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename this is a higher honour than many others that are categorized, so it should not be singled out for deletion, as that would create inconsistency. Mowsbury 16:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - There is no reason to listify. Such knighthoods are (I think) granted to distingusihed foreigners. Peterkingiron 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity, but keep as a relatively rare and notable award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - category hasn't been populated very well. Every U.S. president receives an honorary knighthood, but I don't see any on there. Bill Gates was the most recent American (that I can recall) that got one, but he is not on. If the category is not going to be properly populated, maybe it should just be removed. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename & Keep per those above. I don't think it is true that every US President gets one - Bush has not I think. Johnbod 21:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename & Keep for the reasons BHG gave. Underpopulation, where proper population is possible, is not a ground for deletion. Bencherlite 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity but keep as notable and defining. Doczilla 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename and sort then reparent with cat:honorary knighthoods to deal with those of non-British knighting. 132.205.44.134 21:27, 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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have airports named after them (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, not every list should become a category ... the list of eponyms of airports should be good enough. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic of the people involved. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per BHG. older ≠ wiser 14:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is the categorization of people by honor, a form of overcategorization. Categories for all the things named after these people would be impractical. Dr. Submillimeter 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Mowsbury 16:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Æthelwold 16:02, 22 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. --Xdamr^talk 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of fictional characters with blue hair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_11#Category:Fictional_characters_with_black_hair
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_12#Category:Fictional_blondes
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_13#Fictional_characters_by_hair_color
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_9#Category:Fictional_Bald_Characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_18#Category:Fictional_bald_characters
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_13#Category:Fictional_gingers

Delete, or at least Listify. We don't categorize fictional characters by hair. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per precedent. Can't see lists of blonde/bald/ginger etc in any of the subcategories of Category:Lists of fictional characters, although this category in fact seems to be an attempt to have a list in category space. No strong feelings either way if someone thinks it merits a proper list. Bencherlite 13:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as trivia. No objections to listification if someone wants to bother, though where such a list would survive an AfD is another matter-BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#Trivial_intersection. This one's clearcut. We don't break down fictional characters or any other category by hair color. Doczilla 08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep its nice to know who has blue hair by looking at the list! besides there is no article to add trivia and say that a character from whatever has blue hair.-hotspot
• Delete - per nom, per strong precedent and per triviality. Otto4711 19:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill it with fire. --Guess Who 19:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Pretty weak for a category topic and not really necessary, besides I already figured it be put up for deletion which I agree with. -Adv193 06:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You guys are so mean and evil-hotspot

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 to Category:Settlements in Lebanon. These articles don't need to be farmed out to subcategories when the parent category contains only two members. --Xdamr^talk 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cities and villages in Lebanon to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Lebanon

Nominator's rationale: Rename, quite a few of the places are described as towns in their articles. Sarsdran 12:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Settlements in Lebanon? Digwuren 13:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• upmerge to Category:Settlements in Lebanon (exists for all countries) where Category:Cities and villages in Lebanon is the only subcategory. Hmains 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to fit into the system of separate categories for cities, towns and villages. The settlement categories also contain neighbourhoods, townships, hamlets etc. If anything should be deleted, it is the settlements categories which are a redundant intermediate tier (and one largely created by Hmains, who forgot to declare his interest). Mowsbury 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I would favour Upmerge unless it is possible to find a rational means of distingishing cities, towns, villages, etc. but my guess is that ststus will in some cases be a matter of opinion. Peterkingiron 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The compound names are used precisely for those countries where there is no distinction, as such distinctions can only be unambiguous where they are official. Piccadilly 01:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to comply with similar categories for several other countries. Perebourne 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Cities, towns and villages" is not the same thing as "Settlements". The settlements categories are a recent intrusion into a category system that was more satisfactory without them. Osomec 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and my comments above. Piccadilly 01:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the category should be renamed only if there's an official or historical distinction between cities and towns. That articles use both terms is not a clear indicator of such difference, it may a shorthand for "large city" and "small city". Pavel Vozenilek 01:30, 23 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. Vassyana 10:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates in Massachusetts elections, 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category appears to be the only one of its kind, at least for Massachusetts and it is a bad precedent. The articles about long serving politicians would not be enhanced by the addition of 10 to 20 such categories to each of them. Alex Middleton 11:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom's excellent reasoning and to avoid the precedent. Otto4711 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Perebourne 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's tightly argued case. — Turgidson 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 10:27, 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 Keep. Vassyana 10:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soviet occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Classic WP:POV pushing, WP:POVFORK of Category:Allied occupation of Europe. (See next entry.) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe -- Petri Krohn 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this seems to be a recreation of the deleted Category:Soviet crimes. (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 25#Category:Soviet crimes) -- Petri Krohn 16:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the creator wants to include in this category all Republics of the Soviet Union. How will this category differ from Category:Soviet Union? -- Petri Krohn 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bad faith nomination after thounsands of diffs of obviously wrong info. Obviously this person is on agenda of changing history of Estonia and Europe. Soviet Occupation denial. Suva 11:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — this is a well-populated category, based on a well-established, well-known criterion (the two words, Soviet and occupation, practically go hand in hand!). The other category "Allied occupation of Europe", on the other hand, should be deleted — it's not at all a standard concept, and it's poorly populated. The nomination is misguided, and got it all wrong. Turgidson 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is nothing but petty POINTy revanchism on part of nominator, whose pet (also WP:POINTy) category was nominated -- rightfully, as pointed out by Turgidson above -- for deletion a few minutes earlier. Digwuren 12:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All articles should go to the Allied occupation of Europe category (which was really well populated before Digwuren removed more than 80 articles from it)Anonimu 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, it was very well populated indeed, by PK by moving together german and soviet articles into one category. Suva 13:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. An POV fork forcibly populated by Digwuren by removing articles from Category:Allied occupation of Europe. Fails WP:POV, WP:POINT and possibly other policies too. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic deserves special category.--Staberinde 15:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename Soviet occupation in Europe following World War II and make into a subcategory of Allied occupation in Europe following World War II (see next item). This will ensure this group of articles is in a category that is a NPOV description of the subject. Hmains 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. Allied occupation describes activities taken in concert with the Four Powers, most importantly, the post-war occupation of Germany. Soviet occupation, for the most part, describes actions of Soviet Union alone, not a part of the Allied Powers. It would be misleading to consider these actions among Allied occupation. Digwuren 16:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - standard concept in established history. --Latebird 16:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It makes sense to have a category dealing with articles about aftermath of WWII involving Soviet forces outside their country, some of which stayed there until 1990s.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, cleanup from all POV pushing, since it was mechanically populated by all bads of Soviet Union. We don't put California into category:United States occupation. `'юзырь:mikka 16:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After careful looking into the category I see the intention of putting histories of half Soviet republics and of East Europe into this category. There indeeed makes sense a category:Occupation by the Soviet Union, because there are several artcies named so. But to put whole histories of East European puppet governments or soviet repubilcs into "occupation" is highly disputable. `'юзырь:mikka 04:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Soviet occupation seems to be an preposition given to article titles by POV pushers to make the title hopelessly POV, and prevent a NPOV presentation of the subject. This category aims only to be the mother of all POV. -- Petri Krohn 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it seems that the category will survive. The only way to handle it is to keep it reasonable. If Baltic states insist on the classification of being occupied, let them have it. But to iclude COMECON countries is absurd. BTW, did you see the new article Soviet occupation? `'юзырь:mikka 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to express your concerns on the related talk page. I fully admit that my criteria for inclusion were slightly fuzzy; in tagging countries for inclusion, I mainly checked that the countries in question wouldn't be founding members of USSR, or annexed into Russia before the October Revolution. Thus, it's likely that some of the items I originally included may merit recategorisation. Digwuren 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the category is certainly needed. There may be disputes over content or POV articles, but they can be dealt with by tagging them accordingly or the AFD procedure. Peterkingiron 17:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep category is valid and needed to group the many articles related to Soviet Occupation. Martintg 07:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mikka. KissL 10:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a defining category for the articles it contains. Osomec 10:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --E.J. 15:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as there were several verifiable occupations by the USSR for which we have articles. Biruitorul 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Broad supercategory w/o clean boundary, currently mixes WW1 aftermath, pre-WW2, WW2 and the 40 years later under common umbrella. Which is fine for a tabloid but WP should stand a bit above this level. Waiting when someone puts Bornholm here. Pavel Vozenilek 00:45, 23 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. Vassyana 10:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allied occupation of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category is devoid of content, and can not reasonably contain any articles, as the synthetic concept is fictional. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe. Digwuren 10:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bad faith nomination after removal by nominator of 50+ articles from the category. Some have been moved to the POV category Category:Soviet occupation, see above. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe. -- Petri Krohn 10:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bad faith nomination.Anonimu 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per nom, which I find in good faith, despite assertions to the contrary. Unlike Category:Soviet occupation, which is perfectly sensible, on a well-established concept, this category makes no sense, it's all made up to prove a point, or something. Turgidson 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category is a part of an attempt to blur the history and hide the Soviet occupation, and crimes. Wikipedia is not place of Original Research, the term Soviet Occupation has been used long time in history books, unlike the new "Allied occupation of Europe", which probably comes from some Leninist history book for second grade, the same book that categorizes Katyn Massacre under Nazi crimes. Suva 13:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination after Digwuren removed a lot of articles from it (example). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Attempt to artificially equalize Soviet occupation in Eastern-Europe and Allied occupation at west. Its totally ridiculous then articles like Prague Spring are categorized like that.--Staberinde 15:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now lets look on some articles in that category for a moment. Can anyone here give me reasonable argument how Brezhnev Doctrine is connected to Allies of World War II? For those who don't know, by that time more than 20 years had passed since end of WW II. Or another good one is Southern Group of Forces, can anyone give short overview of Western Allies participaton in supressing Hungarian Revolution of 1956? Category previously included also Prague Spring, anyone knows which British or American units participated there? Trying to arbitarily connect nations(in this case Western-Allies) to generally negatively viewed events in what those nations actualy did not participate in any way is serious POV-pushing. Concept of Allies of World War II applies after end of war only to occupation of Germany and Austria which allies did jointly(although even there cooperation was quite "problematic"), in everythere else they acted independently and trying to make some arbitary connections is breaking WP:OR and WP:NPOV.--Staberinde 10:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, one more problem with category is that it includes both events during WW II and after WW II. Quite ridiculous generalization.--Staberinde 10:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right — trying to pin the tail on the donkey, by ascribing the crushing of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 or the Prague Spring in 1968 to the "Allied occupation of Europe" is downright ridiculous. For all practical purposes, the WWII alliance between the West and the Soviets crumbled with the onset of the Iron Curtain—as clearly recognized by British PM Winston Churchill on March 5, 1946, when he delivered his stirring address at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. There followed the Paris Peace Treaties, signed on February 10, 1947, as well as the joint occupation of Germany and Austria, but, as Staberinde says, the cooperation there was quite "problematic", to say the least. At any rate, after a short transition in 1945-46, the Cold War started—I think everyone agrees on that historical fact, yes? Trying to moosh together WWII and the Cold War, the Marshall Plan with the Brezhnev Doctrine, etc, in a single category is, well, problematic. :) Turgidson 03:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename to Allied occupation in Europe following World War II to include subcategories and articles on the occupation by all the World War II allies-- including both the Western countries and Soviet Union. This inclusive category would cover the historical facts without being POV. Hmains 15:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Disclosure: I'm the nominator.) Digwuren 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not an established historical concept. --Latebird 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV outside Germany and Austria. Mowsbury 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The term is used by a few articles and books, but since it would concern really only Germany and Italy I am not sure if we need a category for that phenomana, which compared to Soviet occupation was much smaller in both scope and lenght.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV attempt to suggest moral equivalence between Soviet occupation and Western liberation. Perebourne 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and your "moral equivalence" comparison is not a POV stance? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morality aside, this is a position mandated by Wikipedia's basic principle of neutral point-of-view. Both the Warsaw Pact and NATO consited of souvereign member states of the United Nations. Claiming that one half of these were under military occupation, while the other was not, is a clear violation of the basic principle. -- Petri Krohn 07:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A ludicrous POV fork. Spain, Portugal, France, Sweden, Ireland, UK, Switzerland were never occupied by the Allies, yet they are part of Europe. Martintg 07:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mowsbury. Also, how would this category be useful to the reader? KissL 10:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Soviets relied on force to impose communism against the wishes of the people of central Europe, while the Allies were only in Europe to protect it from Soviet conquest and occupation. This is fact, not opinion, just like having a Holocaust category for Hitler's Germany but not for Churchill's Britain. Where the Holocaust / occupation happened there is a category, where the Holocaust/occupation didn't happen there isn't one. Osomec 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First: bad faith nomination. Second: King Leopold III of Belgium used the word occupation, so this is a real thing in the West. Third: it is also a real thing in the East, since the USSR occupied parts of Italy, Norway and Denmark and did not try to impose communism there. Oh, and some people are forgetting about Finland and Yugoslavia. They too do not really fit entirely into that conquest category, do they? --Pan Gerwazy 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitrary pasting (as explained by Turgidson) --E.J. 15:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bad faith nomination. Further discussion is required. If some are recategorized as "Soviet Occupation" what will occupation by other nations be re-categorized as? - TheMightyQuill 17:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The category was originally a WP:POINT project of Petri Krohn, and populated with random selection of articles on Category:Soviet occupation and Category:Allied occupation of Germany. For the few remaining ones, I later added Category:American_influence_in_post-WWII_Europe. Digwuren 19:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Historical and uncontroversially documented fact. `'юзырь:mikka 20:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - grab-bag of unrelated ideas not linked by anything but the creator's probable attempt to create a forced equivalence between the Soviet and Western Allied role in Europe. Biruitorul 03:47, 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 Merge both to Category:Singaporean television series. --Xdamr^talk 14:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two different categories for the same thing, which obviously need to be merged. Per parent category convention, the category name should contain the adjective "Singaporean" rather than the noun "Singapore" — but I leave it to CFD to decide whether to merge into the existing Category:Singaporean television programmes, or to merge both into a new Category:Singaporean television series. Bearcat 04:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and rename as Category:Singaporean television series, which would follow the naming conventions of the parent categories. PC78 16:51, 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. Vassyana 09:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transportation of the United States by state to Category:Transportation in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match other cats in Category:Transportation in the United States. Vegaswikian 02:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• rename for the good reason stated Hmains 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Only plate tectonics transports the United States. Mowsbury 16:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno about that. LSD had a good try in the 1960s ;) -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Actually, the Earth is currently transporting the United States through the Solar System, the Solar System is transporting the United States through the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is transporting the United States through the intergalactic medium (as much as there is around the Local Group). Dr. Submillimeter 20:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply True, but since those things are transporting all countries, they are not defining characteristics of the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and above comments. This is a slam dunk if I ever saw one! Turgidson 23:44, 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.