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 14:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from King County, Washington to Category:People from Seattle

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Seattle itself is in King County so it just seems awkward. I know most Seattlites live in the suburbs of King County but it's not like King is as special as Orange County, CA. to have a people category of its own. eLLe.Le 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but make Category: People from Seattle a subcategory of this, rather than the reverse (which makes no sense). We have an article on the county at King County, Washington, which says that less than a third of the people from the county live in Seattle, so it's not like San Francisco County (which redirects to San Francisco, California because the city and county are identical). Counties don't need to be as "special as Orange County" (whatever that means) to have articles and people categories. Xtifr _tälk 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete - Same as above. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 00:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Overall, I think the boundaries of municipalities have changed meanings, with people shuttling between city and county all the time. For example, I say I'm from Seattle, but I live in nearby Renton (in King County). So maybe we would be better off by changing all these municipal categories to things like Category:People from the Seattle area. But till then, I agree it's inaccurate to merge.--Mike Selinker 05:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You could always listify. I tend to hate all of the people by subnational locality categories because where someone is "from" is horribly vague and tends towards trivia and vanity boostering of notable individuals as "hometown heroes." A List of people associated with King County, Washington could meaningfully group these chronologically (such as by birth date) and by the manner of association (born there, grew up there, achieved notability professionally there, lived there for a month, etc.). I took a stab at this with List of people associated with Albany County, New York, but it unfortunately hasn't caught on. Yet. Postdlf 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a test nomination of several people-by-location categories recently, and the result was a fairly strong consensus to keep. They are a bit vague, but it's still something you'd expect to see in any large collection of biographical data. Xtifr _tälk 10:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Give me a break: King County includes more than just Seattle. And yes, Category: People from Seattle needs to be a subcategory of this, not vice versa. --Yksin 16:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  1. Make Category: People from Seattle a subcat of Category:People from King County, Washington
  2. Create Category:People from Snohomish County, Washington
  3. Create Category:People from Pierce County, Washington

  If people are from Seattle, they are also from King County. The same does not apply for Pierce and Snohomish. Someone who is notable for listing in Category:People from Seattle should be directly listed there. Someone who is notable for Category: People from Seattle may also be notable for inclusion in Category:People from Snohomish County, Washington and Category:People from Pierce County, Washington.

  Category: People from Seattle should not be a catch all for the region unless Seattle is normally inclusive of all three counties. If that is the case, then we only need Category:People from Seattle and don't need any of the county categories. Someone familiar with the area and terminology will need to chime in here. This last comment supports what Mike Selinker said above. Vegaswikian 06:15, 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. Compelling OR/POV concerns have not been satisfactorily addressed by 'Keep' arguments. Furthermore, we do not categorise by opinion. --Xdamr^talk 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Homophobic organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category itself is pejorative and violates WP:NPOV. The organizations may oppose homosexuality but the term homophobia seems inappropriate. JodyB _talk 18:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - to Category:Anti-homosexuality organizations to address concerns about the POV. Or delete. Otto4711 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename; however, I would perfer a merge in lieu of a delete. — From the Homophobia article: Homophobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[3] It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.[4] — This category was made as a sub category of Category:Homophobia, which the organizations were previously listed under. The term homophobia is a valid term used in the dictionary, used in scientific reports, and used in the news media; it is not a violation of WP:NPOV and it is not "inappropriate." To claim a common word used to describe an organization is inappropriate is not following NPOV because it is denouncing the word just because it remotely sounds negative. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'd argue the WBC is the only organization listed whose primary and best-known purpose is to spread hatred of homosexuality, but it won't be long before St. Patrick's Day parade organizers, Islamic charities, the Boy Scouts of America, etc. get jumped in as well. We do not have Category:Racist organizations, Category:Misogynistic organizations, Category:Antisemitic organizations, et al for similar reasons.-choster 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "spread hatred of homosexuality," but homophobic does not have to be about spreading hate (like hate groups do). All the organizations listed in this category have "disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexual people," or advocate "discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals," which are definitions of homophobic, according to the dictionary. I see your point regarding not having other similar categories though. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 23:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Even the definition quoted above is POV. Alex Middleton 23:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Homophobia as there are no organization subcategories for similar prejudice categories i.e. Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Antisemitism, and Category:Racism (which do all contain organizations). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No precedent to group the intersection of organizations with an opinion. -Andrew c 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete obvious POV. How is this any different from Category:Racists or Category:Anti-Semitic People--Sefringle^Talk 04:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Homophobia per Gustav. Carlossuarez46 05:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's too likely to become a POV magnet. Also not enough to it, at the moment, to really need a merger.--T. Anthony 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective and contentious category that can only stir up trouble. Have they defined homophobia? It doesn't quite mean what a lot of people think it does. Doczilla 08:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subjective and prone to POV misuse to an unacceptable degree. Casperonline 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV. The definition of homophobia used by the gay lobby is extreme and intolerant. Abberley2 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Homophobia - it's so exciting to see such interest and attention being given to gay issues and concerns. Benjiboi 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to reduce fork issues. Appropriate Wikipedia use of this category may be if a Wikipedia reliable source stated that the organization identified itself as a homophobic organization.
• Merge to Category:Homophobia per Gustav von Humpelschmumpel re: no organizational subcategories for other prejudicial categories. --Yksin 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep perhaps rename if someone can think of an appropriate name. I would add that Abberley2's comment above appears to me to be itself homophobic and innappropriate. DuncanHill 10:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Homophobia. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:50, 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 keep --Kbdank71 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: This category seems inherently POV. The term itself is perjorative. It violates NPOV JodyB _talk 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as Category:Racism and Category:Antisemitism are kept. Otto4711 18:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - for same reasons stated above (#Category:Homophobic organizations). —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 18:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; contributors sometimes abuse these and other categories for POV-pushing but that does not invalidate the classification of articles about the social phenomenon itself.-choster 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Otto4711 and Choster. To avoid POV problems, it should only be used for articles on the phenomenon of homophobia, not for biographical articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete POV attack category. Alex Middleton 23:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but I don't see why we can't have biographical articles in there- the categories Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Antisemitism and Category:Racism all include biographical articles. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up per our guidelines. To place articles in this category, the subject has to be notably associated with the category to a defining degree, and we have to have sources to verify the association and notability. If it is controversial whether an article belongs in this category or not, then most likely it doesn't belong.-Andrew c 01:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 04:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto & Choster. Carlossuarez46 05:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Many of these prejudice related categories become POV magnets or ways to libel people. I fought in favor of Category:Anti-Catholicism, but it does get enough reckless entries I have occasionally doubted its usefulness. I am not voting either way, but I am saying if it's kept please use it responsibly. Ideally I'd suggest that you don't use it on living people unless they self-identify as homophobic or as a scholar of homophobia.--T. Anthony 05:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like this category is being systematically misused in a biased politicised manner, and it could hardly be otherwise. Casperonline 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV. The definition of homophobia used by the gay lobby is extreme and intolerant. Abberley2 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no rule that the WP definition of homophobia conform to that used by the gay lobby, and thus no need to include extreme and intolerant cases.-choster 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Otto4711 -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you delete this category, all its entries may end up in the patent category, Category:Prejudices, which doesn't really work well for just one type of prejudice. Also keep per Otto4711, but to clarify it's use, either it should be renamed Category:Homophobic (the adjective form of homophobia used to describe the qualities of these characteristics - see Homophobia) to distinguish it from including items that could be placed in Category:Homophobe (the noun form of homophobia given as a title to individuals with "homophobic" characteristics - see Homophobia) or should include a clearer statement of use at the top of Category:Homophobia. Right now, with the category entitled Homophobia and the meaning of Homophobia including the noun form of homophobia given as a title to individuals with "homophobic" characteristics, it does not seem incorrect usage to add biographies of individuals with sourced "homophobic" characteristics. The present set up would seem to draw WP:BLP problems that could be avoided. The BLP problems in Category:Homophobia can be addressed as they come up, but a better approach would be to lessen the potential for these problems. Comment: Category:Homophobia probably should be located under Category:Sexual and gender prejudices, not under Category:Prejudices. Comment#2: Appropriate Wikipedia use of this category may be if a Wikipedia reliable source established that the entity in question in fact had irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals. If a Wikipedia reliable source or sources have an opinion that the entity question has an irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals, then such use of this category might raise concerns. Someone just needs to take the time to see how Category:Prejudices and its subcategories are properly used and provide a statement of use at the top of Category:Homophobia to keep things consistent. Comment #3: If you are looking for subcategories, try this for ideas. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep also individuals and organizations can be added and taken out as appropriate. Many groups and their founders/leaders are seen as intertwined. Jerry Falwell seems to be a good example of this. Suggest broaden the category definition if possible Benjiboi 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid category describing a particular form of prejudice -- can't actually think of an alternative term that doesn't have worse problems. However, category should be monitored to ensure articles aren't being added to it inappropriately -- as is also the case for other "prejudice" categories like those for anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, etc. --Yksin 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Otto4711. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was just looking at this CFD discussion, where one of the arguments made for deletion was 'If we don't have a category for Category:Homophobia, then this category is certainly blatantly off-limits'. Since we now do have a Category:Homophobia, I wonder if that means Category:Islamophobia should be brought back? I'm fairly neutral on whether or not these categories should actually exist - the phenomena themselves clearly exist, but on the other hand the categories can easily become filled with POV material (and thus, if kept, should be policed closely). All I'm saying is that we should be consistent. Terraxos 03:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That discussion ended in no consensus to delete so I'm not sure why it was deleted? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:28, 25 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:Birds of Samoa, per convention. Suggest renomination if editors wish to challenge existing Category:Birds by country structure. --Xdamr^talk 14:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this category is exactly the same as Category:Birds of Samoa. I don't know much about that area of the world but I am pretty sure that these categories are referring to the same place. Dixonsej 17:52 18 June 2007.

• Merge both into Category:Endemic birds of the Samoan Islands - The two categories could be referring to slightly different things. "Samoa" could refer to the country of Samoa, whereas "Samoan Islands" could refer to both political divisions of the archipelago. However, political divisions are not useful when discussing flora and fauna, whereas geographical divisions are. I suggest merging both categories into a "Samoan Islands" category. I also suggest using the word "endemic" to limit the category to birds found exclusively within the islands; categories for every single place where an animal is found leads to an illegible mess, as can be seen with Bronze Mannikin. Dr. Submillimeter 17:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As per convention at Category:Birds by country. The endemic name above is against convention. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, see Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii and Category:Endemic fauna of the Galápagos Islands. "Endemic" is used for categories of fauna from islands. Dr. Submillimeter 07:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:Endemic birds of the Samoan Islands per Dr. Submillimeter. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:36, 25 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 --Kbdank71 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and also, Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court

Deleted in february, but recently an "overturn and relist" was suggested on deletion review. This is precisely what lists are for. A list can give all nominees, with links, circumstances, and whether they made it, withdrew, were unsuccesful, or whatever. As categories, they are not nearly as useful; in fact they are similar to "people who started their own political party and got zero votes". >Radiant< 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify both - per the excellent reasoning of the nom. Otto4711 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify - The circumstances under which nominees fail to reach the Supreme Court vary from person to person. For example, Harriet Myers's situation was very different from Robert Bork's. Having categories for all of these different scenarios seems unwieldy. The list seems like a better option. Dr. Submillimeter 15:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:CLS, categories and lists are not in competition. Categories provide superior exploratory browsing that just isn't possible with lists. For example, the unsuccessful category is a prominent subcategory of Category:Supreme Court of the United States (the other I just added). But more importantly, compare how easy it is to find withdrawn all withdrawn nominees in the category to how difficult it is to pick them out of this list of unsuccessful nominations. True, we could create separate lists for withdrawn and unsuccessful nominations, but having this separation in categories is less obnoxious than having two separate lists for such closely related groups of people. The comparison to political parties who get no votes doesn't hold, because they get little media attention. Two years ago, Harriet Miers was a high-profile news item for months in a way a minor political party could never be. Other failed nominees enjoy similar status. ("Bork" is now a verb; many educated Americans remember that Ginsberg failed because he smoked pot with his students, etc.)--Chaser - T 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several people have commented that WP:CLS needs to be updated, as it does not appear to match the consensus at WP:CFD. Dr. Submillimeter 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I take that back; WP:CLS looks up-to-date. However, the annotations needed to discuss the individual people and the references needed for this information would imply that lists would be better (as suggested by WP:CLS). Dr. Submillimeter 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a matter of one being better. Both have advantages, and we can and should have both in this case.--Chaser - T 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both lists are important and encyclopedic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think deletion of the lists is being discussed here, just a category. Is there a reason why the lists can not be in Category:Supreme Court of the United States? Vegaswikian 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he meant categories. There's only one lists, which is already categorized there, but subcategories are higher profile in that cat than the list, because there are more articles.--Chaser - T 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, to my surprise (on first glance, I thought this would be a delete). This is not huge category, but the very fact that the article Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States is so detailed makes it less useful for finding individual entries; furthermore, being the subject of a failed supreme court nomination is a defining characteristic of the people involved, just as being a failed presidential candidate is a defining characteristic of people such as John Kerry, George McGovern and Bob Dole. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete While being a failed supreme court nomination may be defining; how one got defeated seems more of a did he resign or was he pushed out sort of scenario; I guess from reading through the articles your nomination can fail any number of ways: withdrawal being only one (and whether the nominee withdrew or the President withdrew the nomination further splits hairs), others including getting voted down in the Senate floor, or just never getting out of committee, or even just being held up in limbo which apparently senators can hold nominations for long periods without being called to account for themselves. Perhaps Category:Unconfirmed nominees to the United States Supreme Court is the better formulation. Carlossuarez46 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would also support a more general Category:Unconfirmed nominees to the United States Supreme Court or something with a similar title. Does one already exist? Dr. Submillimeter 14:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty confident such a category doesn't yet exist.--Chaser - T 15:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chaser and BHG. The list is useful for some purposes, but it is arranged by President rather than by name of nominee, making it less easier to navigate than a category for the individual nominees. Both have their uses. I would also support a merger of the two categories to Dr S's suggestion or something similar. Bencherlite 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chaser and BHG. We do have Category:Presidents of the United States despite the List of Presidents of the United States, so obviously the existence of a list cannot alone preclude a category. Instead, categories and lists should coexist when they each perform separate functions. These categories perform the function of classifying the articles by a defining characteristic of its subjects' notability (perhaps the defining characteristic), and provide for direct navigation among subjects that share that defining characteristic—this isn't a trivial fact for any of them. The list cannot apply those functions to the articles, but obviously provides historical ordering and explanation that the category cannot, so both perform separate useful functions. However, I would also support the merger of the two per Dr. S., however, because I've never seen much utility in splitting out in the category structure why they were never confirmed. Postdlf 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chaser and Postdlf. --MZMcBride 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have to say that this is a defining feature. Doczilla 08:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Likely to represent one of the highest and most defining points of the subjects' careers. Abberley2 01:23, 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 --Kbdank71 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:K Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - container category holding album and artist subcats. The subcats are housed in well-established category structures and housing them in a company-specific category with no other material is overcategorization. Otto4711 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Record label is notable but I think a list or article or series of articles might actually be more useful for folks looking for this information. I would expect to see some of the artists and/or albums categorized in different music genres but agree that current category far from ideal. Benjiboi 09:36, 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/merge as nominated, per parent cat --Kbdank71 13:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with other sub-categories of Category:British politicians by party, which are of the format "Foo Party politicians (UK)". Adding the word party also helps to clarify that that the category is for politicians who are members of the Green Party (UK) and its successors, and not for politicians from other parties who identify as "green". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 16:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - to be consistent. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 19:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Green 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 16:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Green Party (UK) politicians per above. Abberley2 01:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - please note that if we rename this to Category:Green Party (UK) politicians then we must remove the subcats for post 1990 politicians, as the party no longer existed after that date. --Mais oui! 09:06, 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 --Kbdank71 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Part of a project to create lusitanic categories and articles in analogy to hispanic. However, there is no Category:Hispanic either. The category has no 'parent' and contains after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro Lusitanic American only Lusitanic itself. Tikiwont 08:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This category has far too much overlap with Category:Brazilian people to be anything but category clutter. Osomec 10:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alex Middleton 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casperonline 21:50, 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Four Seasons members to Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Redundant subcategory - virtually all current or former members of the group will not merit main articles on their own. Also nominating above for merging into the parent category as redundant as virtually all of the group's hit records art already there. Separating these from the parent category leaves only three or four articles, once duplication is removed.B.Wind 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per convention of Category:Musicians by band. Immediately after I put these articles into the members category, User:B.Wind reinserted the members into the main category, which is not what we do for band members. These should be removed from the main category.--Mike Selinker 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:B.Wind (that's me, folks) returned them to the original category as they were moved by someone else to populate a newly-created category. The new category was created after-the-fact. Please don't make it sound as if I were trying to depopulate an older category. The fact was the subcategory in question was created after Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons, not the other way around. Secondly, the subcategory also ignores the concept that the histories of Frankie Valli and of The Four Seasons are, in fact, one and the same. B.Wind 01:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Mike is exactly correct. The current standard is to have separate member categories, album categories and song categories. It is the top level category (and suggested merge target) that should be deleted, if anything. Xtifr _tälk 09:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a category that can only consist of seven articles (perhaps eight if one wishes to include Jerry Corbetta, who was with them for one tour) as only two performers in any of the post-1960s lineups seem even worthy of their own stand-alone articles (and neither of the two has an article at present and possibly in the near future). A category with only six articles (and is not expected to increase its membership) is a redundancy. B.Wind 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per convention. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these can all be navigated (or should all be navigated by links or a template) at the main article. Carlossuarez46 05:26, 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 keep --Kbdank71 13:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Four Seasons songs to Category:Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Redundant subcategory - virtually all of the group's hit records are already there. Removing articles into this and abovementioned "Members" category nearly vacates parent category. B.Wind 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per convention of Category:Songs by artist. I removed all the songs from the main category, and put them into the nominated category and Category:Frankie Valli songs, as appropriate.--Mike Selinker 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that you'd mentioned Category:Frankie Valli songs as it is redundant as well (except of "My Mother's Eyes" in 1953 and his post-1975 solo records), all of Frankie Valli's "solo" hits and other commercial recordings with his name on them were with the Four Seasons or their predecessors, The Four Lovers). This includes "My Eyes Adored You", which was recorded by The Four Seasons as a Four Seasons song and was released as a Valli "solo" song only at the insistence of the owner of Private Stock Records. Second, as it stands, the category will not be growing as all the Four Seasons hits have articles (several as stubs) here already - unless there is a merger with the Frankie Valli "solo" hits category. It was subcategorizing for the sake of subcategorizing, rather than a useful move. B.Wind 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Mike is exactly correct. The current standard is to have separate member categories, album categories and song categories. It is the top level category (and suggested merge target) that should be deleted, if anything. Xtifr _tälk 09:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my response below. The fact is that it ignores the fact that Frankie Valli is the Four Seasons, in terms of musical history. His "solo" career prior to 1975 consisted of Four Seasons recordings that were relabeled as "solo" records, often with the blessing of his partners. Are you also saying that the same should be done with The Four Lovers, The Wonder Who? and others - well, they're all the same assemblage. This is one case that the "standard" does not truly apply in light of all the convolutions... but it's still Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons. B.Wind 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per conventions of Category:Songs by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which precedent is similar to this? Which precedents are you going to cite has parallels to that of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons (one act that in fact had chart records under no fewer than four names)? Which precedent do you have that parallels two "acts" with exactly the same personnel and differ only in marketing? "Keep for the sake of we're doing it this way because... well, because" is not a persuasive argument here. B.Wind 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you're suggesting is that we ignore all the conventions of two established categories (Category:Songs by artist and Category:Musicians by band) because you want The Four Seasons to be categorized differently. That's a position that's unlikely to hold here. As for the Valli category, songs like Grease (song) don't feature other members of the Four Seasons, so they seem to warrant a separate category in the same way that Category:Paul McCartney songs isn't folded into Category:The Beatles songs. A couple of the songs are less clear, though, and there might be an argument for recategorizing them. If we want to just dump all the songs into something like Category:Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons songs, we probably could get by with that. (In regards B.Wind's question about precedent, Category:U2 songs contains material by U2's alter ego Passengers, and Category:XTC albums contains albums by XTC's side project The Dukes of Stratosphear. So we've certainly dealt with this issue before.)--Mike Selinker 07:43, 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 speedy delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mack G albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Hoax, as are all articles created by this editor. Corvus cornix 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an obvious hoax. Resolute 04:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, the articles have been speedied, so why can't the cat be speedied as well? -Andrew c 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect --Kbdank71 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Old Warminsters

Nominator's rationale: Delete - mis-named, Category:Old Verlucians serves the intended purpose. Xn4 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Since the school website uses the name "Old Verlucians" for its alumni, that should be the category name; but since "Old Warminsters" is more obvious, keep it as a category redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per BrownHairedGirl. Osomec 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per BrownHairedGirl - makes sense to me. Xn4 00:06, 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 keep --Kbdank71 13:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Socialist Labour Party (UK) members to Category:Category:Socialist Labour Party politicians (UK)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with format for other subcats of Category:British politicians by party, and because we do not categorise people merely by membership of a political party. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per Category:Socialist Party of Great Britain members for smaller sects membership alone is significant - and esp. with sects given that they don't necessarilly achieve office membership might be the only notable aspect of the relationship.--Red Deathy 07:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - agree with Red Deathy, membership of a small political group is often notable. Warofdreams talk 16:54, 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:Social Democratic Party politicians (UK) --Kbdank71 13:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Social Democratic Party (SDP) politicians to Category:Social Democratic Party (SDP) politicians (UK) Category:Social Democratic Party politicians (UK)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to remove "UK" prefix and replace with a suffix as with other other subcats of Category:British politicians by party. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nomination amended after Xtifr's comment below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: why not just Category:Social Democratic Party politicians (UK)? Is the abbreviation really necessary? It seems a bit redundant, but I'm not an expert on UK politics. Xtifr _tälk 12:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The party was generally known as the SDP, rather than by its full name, and there were no less than three other parties with similar names (see Social Democratic Party (UK)). I think that it's probably OK to dispense with the parenthesised "SDP" and go for Category:Social Democratic Party politicians (UK), and I think I'd prefer that unless there are objections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Rename to Category:Social Democratic Party politicians (UK) I know there are other categories using both name and acronym but I think all articles and categories relating to a party should use the same form as the main article. Virtually all the Social Democratic Parties were often known as "SDP" and it's not something that disambiguates between them (and if disambiguation is needed it should be in the party article title as well). Timrollpickering 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Social Democratic Party politicians (UK) per the revised nomination and Timrollpickering. I'm still not an expert on UK politics, but I do feel that category names should match the lead article unless there are overwhelming reasons not to do so. Xtifr _tälk 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Social Democratic 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 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply' the (UK) disambiguator may legitimately be applied to either the party or the politicians, the major parties already have it at the end, as do most of the categories in Category:British MPs by political party. It's much easier to have consistency of format between the politicians and MPs categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• REname per Warofdreams - or perhaps to Category:British Social Democratic Party politicians. "British is a suitable qualifier sicne the party did not operate in Northern Ireland. Peterkingiron 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Social Democratic Party politicians (UK) in keeping with similar cats.--Red Deathy 08:55, 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:Respect – The Unity Coalition politicians --Kbdank71 13:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK RESPECT party politicians to Category:RESPECT party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to remove "UK" prefix as with other other subcats of Category:British politicians by party. Note that unlike the other subcats, no "(UK)" suffix is needed, since there appears to be no "Respect" parties in other countries. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Respect – The Unity Coalition politicians. The article is at Respect – The Unity Coalition without "party" in it. Timrollpickering 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops - yes I do mean the plural. Timrollpickering 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Respect - The Unity Coalition politicians - per Timrollpickering but pluralised (as I assume was intended). In line with name of article; as BrownHairedGirl says, there is no need to disambiguate with "UK". Warofdreams talk 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Respect - The Unity Coalition politicians - as per Timrollpickering. --JK the unwise 16:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)--JK the unwise 16:37, 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Murdered Russian royalty members to Category:Murdered Russian royalty

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The word "members" is superfluous, and is not to be found in Category:Russian royalty or the royalty categories for other countries. Brandon97 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Simplify category names whenever possible while retaining clarity and meaning. Doczilla 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Shorter and clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert into a (very incomplete) list sorted by the time of death. Pavel Vozenilek 00:12, 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.