< June 29	July 1 >

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Three articles (two of which are probably content forks) and a picture do not a category make. Presidents of Spain already exists, and as a comparison, George W. Bush has 58 articles and 6 subcats in his category. MSJapan 20:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact nominator thinks Spain has a President does not inspire confidence in his knowledge of the area. Zapatero is still in office, so keep for now. How many of Bush's articles are content forks, I wonder? Johnbod 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zapatero does not need an eponymous category, per ample precedent. As for Johnbod's comment: The correct title of Zapatero in Spanish is "Presidente del Gobierno" (President of the Government), which in English often gets -loosely- translated to "Prime Minister" (as do lots of local titles for the job - e.g., Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri in Italy, Taoiseach in Ireland, Premiér in Czech Republic, statsminister in Norway, etc., essentially equivalent to the Prime Minister's job in the UK) so yes, in a strict translation Spain's government does have a "President" and I have no lack of confidence that the right thing to do is to delete this eponymous category. Carlossuarez46 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming the fork articles have a proper parent It looks like this is probably an unnecessary eponymous category for this person since all the items in the category are easily found from his main article. The only caution would be to make sure that the fork articles have reasonable alternate parent categories to avoid orphaning them after deletion. Finally, note that whether or not he's still in office isn't relevant to this cfd. Dugwiki 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very relevant to the question of future growth of the category. Johnbod 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, lots of heads of government have done notable things after they leave office (including returning to office): Winston Churchill (returned to office, authored numerous books, won Nobel Prize for literature), Jimmy Carter (authored books, won Peace Nobel Prize), Pierre Trudeau (returned to office, influential campaigner in matters of Canadian constitutional reform), and others. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking they do more notable things in office rather than out of it. Johnbod 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, true. We can always delete this now and await further developments to see if Zapatero becomes one of the very few people where an eponymous cat makes sense. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the primary category for the subsidiary articles. Craig.Scott 00:59, 3 July 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 13:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no likelihood of expansion. Everything in it except one article is a redirect and the one article, if I'm reading it correctly, is not for a location that's "in space" in any way but metaphorically. Otto4711 15:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A category mostly comprised of redirects is not useful. Dr. Submillimeter 16:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have Category:Middle-earth astronomy, and we have the article Middle-earth cosmology, which contains the anchors for most of those redirects. This category serves no purpose that isn't already established by the main article.-Andrew c 15:02, 1 July 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 13:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional Greeks, per many previous hero / villain discussions. Or at least Rename to Category:Fictional Greek villains -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional Greeks - The division between "heroes" and "villians" is not clear enough to use for categorization purposes. Dr. Submillimeter 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dr. S. Doczilla 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fictional Greeks. The fact that there isn't a Category:Fictional villains category to serve as parent to this says pretty much all that needs to be said. Xtifr _tälk 05:01, 5 July 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 13:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Defunct airports in Texas, convention of Category:Defunct airports in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object to merge - Okay with rename to Defunct airports in Houston - The reason why I created the category is so someone on the category "Airports in Houston" may see the defunct airports in the city. Why not have "Defunct airports in Houston" - there are multiple defunct airports in the city, as shown by this link: [1] WhisperToMe 15:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Defunct airports in Texas - The Houston category only contains one article, and the Texas category contains only the Houston category. This level of categorization is excessive. Moreover, most defunct airports are not sorted according to city. Dr. Submillimeter 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete per overcat and precedent --Kbdank71 13:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorization and as per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Also there is a template on her article interlinking all these pages. Lugnuts 13:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation of deleted content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated content. Tagged. Otto4711 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even though the template links to all those articles, I still feel the category serves a purpose. Quasy Boy 14:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There seem to be enough articles directly related to Hilary Duff that don't fit into Category:Hilary Duff albums or Category:Hilary Duff songs. Just because we have a template doesn't mean the category can't coexist. the wub "?!" 18:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, yes, it's recreated content, but now there are some articles that really wouldn't fit anywhere else. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but they're all interlinked with the template that's set up. Other actors/actresses have templates instead of eponymous categories. Lugnuts 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not alot of actors have templates. Quasy Boy 16:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this one does! Lugnuts 08:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is also a singer!!! Quasy Boy 18:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - every article has at least one additional category. The DVDs are in Category:Music videos and DVDs, the perfume is in Category:Fragrances, the tour is in Category:Concert tours and so on. Per WP:OC the category is not warranted. Otto4711 13:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is ample material to justify a category in this case. Alex Middleton 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speedy rejected; this is still overcategorization. The content does not require a category for navigational purposes as all of the material in it is easily interlinked through the main article on Duff and is all easily categorized elsewhere. Otto4711 13:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why try to force everyone to navigate via the main article? If a reader is interested in reading about a more specific aspect of her, it should not be necessary to visit the main article at all. Dominictimms 17:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting that someone would be interested in reading about, say, Hilary's 2007 tour or her clothing line, but have no interest whatsoever in reading about her? That seems highly unlikely, but in the event that it should happen, our hypothetical reader (who is probably going to start his search by typing "Hilary Duff" in the search box as opposed to "Category:Hilary Duff") can, from any article on any aspect of her, navigate to the other aspects via text links or the navtemplate that's in every article, located earlier in the article than the category listing and therefore encountered before the category listing. Otto4711 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. They might have no interest in reading about her on that particular visit so they should not be forced to visit that main article to navigate to the others. You are too fond of prescribing how people do or should use Wikipedia. The fact is that there are umpteen ways to do so, many of which don't involve any sort of search, and all of them should be welcomed. Trying to cut down on the number of methods of navigation is to attack one of the main reasons for Wikipedia's success. Dominictimms 01:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see having hundreds or thousands of unnecessary categories that waste editors' time and resources maintaining is a reason for Wikipedia's success. And I think that you've missed the point a bit, which is that it's unlikely that people starting off a search for information on Hilary Duff are going to type anything other than "Hilary Duff" in the search box. Otto4711 13:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may use Wikipedia only and always by means of searching via the search box, but that doesn't apply to me, and I'm sure it doesn't apply to hell of a lot of other people. We should cater for all sorts of minds, not just those that work the way yours does. Dominictimms 19:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that the only way to find articles should be the search box. What I am saying is that it is overwhelmingly likely that someone looking for information on Hilary Duff is going to start by searching for "Hilary Duff". What alternate method of starting a search for Duff-iana do you think people are going to use in place of searching for "Hilary Duff"? Someone looking for information on, say, one of her DVDs is probably going to start by typing the name of the DVD in the search box. What alternate method of searching for, say, The Girl Can Rock do you think people are going to employ instead of the search box? Now, our hypothetical reader has read and enjoyed the article on the DVD and decides s/he would like to read about other Hilary Duff DVDs. From Hilary Duff: The Girl Can Rock, Friend Reader could click on the link to Hilary Duff to check the main article, but if Friend Reader is the independent sort who wants to get around without going to the main article, s/he can click on one of the links in the DVD infobox, or could click on a link in the extensive navigational template, or someone could create and populate Category:Hilary Duff DVDs and then Friend Reader could click on it. So many ways to navigate, the eponymous category is unnecessary and even the most free-thinking of readers can manage to limp through to all the Hilduff articles without ever going near the main article. Otto4711 20:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcategorization of material that is already thoroughly linked by other means. Xtifr _tälk 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete per precedent and overcategorization --Kbdank71 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorization and as per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Lugnuts 10:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all material is interlinked through text and template and appropriately categorized elsewhere, no need for the category per WP:OC. Otto4711 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is ample material to justify a category in this case. Alex Middleton 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no reason to delete this other than that we could find work a rounds to cope with its absence. We could also find work a rounds to cope with the absence of category:United States, but nonetheless deleting that would also damage Wikipedia. Dominictimms 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deleting the category is spelled at the link provided in the nomination. This is one of thousands of eponymous categories which clutter Wikipedia, absorbing time and effort for maintainance that could be better spent on meaningful work. Otto4711 14:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I see that is absorbing time and effort unnecessarily is this campaign to delete useful categories. Dominictimms 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 sub-cats & 8 articles justifies a category. There is no general rule against person categories. Johnbod 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general consensus against eponymous categories, such consensus is linked to in the nomination. Otto4711 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge --Kbdank71 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete overcategorization. Are we supposed to create a separate category for every medium in which every NFL team's games have been broadcast? Shoester 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into Category:Sports radio in the United States and Category:National Football League media - The category only contains one article, so it really is not needed. However, the article should appear in the parent categories. Dr. Submillimeter 12:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete per precedent --Kbdank71 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 05:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 08:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doc. Lugnuts 10:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An essential link between closely related items. Dominictimms 19:32, 4 July 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 already speedied --Kbdank71 13:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Sikh Beliefs to Category:Sikh beliefs

Nominator's rationale: Merge; Redundant and uses incorrect case. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge Haddiscoe 13:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge this qualifies as speedy.-Andrew c 20:25, 30 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 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pop songs by artist to Category:Songs by artist

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Category:Songs by artist is designed to serve as a container category without division by genre or style. Otto4711 05:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Songs by artist is supposed to function as a directory, an index to all songs by artist. Creating subcategories for it defeats the entire point of its existence. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Such index categories do eventually become far, far too large to be useful. Nor does there exist any logical way to determine which categories should be unsubcategorized index categories like this versus which ones should be subdivided. You can make the exact same "but we need a master list!" rationale in every single category tree we have, which consequently undermines the entire purpose of having subcategories in the first place. And there is demonstrable value in separating songs by genre; that value is, in fact, more demonstrable than the value in having Category:Jennifer Lopez songs and Category:System of a Down songs sitting in the same parent category. Keep. Bearcat 04:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Prove It Alex Middleton 23:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I understand Bearcat's point, but I think subcategorization is a thorny path here. Music style is not always easy to pin down.--Mike Selinker 06:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mike Selinker Dominictimms 17:30, 1 July 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 13:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: She's only released one album, so it makes more sense to move Alright, Still into Category:Lily Allen. ShadowHalo 04:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the Category:Albums by artist structure and delete Category:Lily Allen instead as an eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 04:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto and the long-established Category:Albums by artist structure. Bencherlite 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note the header on Category:Albums by artist, which says that artists' albums always go into an album category, regardless of how many the artist has released.--Mike Selinker 14:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the Category:Albums by artist structure. Dominictimms 01:05, 3 July 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 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. All fifteen players who have accomplished this feat are already listed at MLB hitters with four home runs in one game. Skudrafan1 03:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categories for every type of arbitrary sporting accomplishment can become very unwieldly, as many such categories can be created. Lists would be better. Dr. Submillimeter 08:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion. Doczilla 08:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baseball players have too many categories, and this is one of the least needed of them. Alex Middleton 23:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dominictimms 17:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete per precedent --Kbdank71 13:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per many precedents, category is not needed for this material. Eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 02:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category is needed for this material. Wimstead 13:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we do not need a category for only two articles (main and discography), plus the three standard subcategories that exist for almost every band. We have ample precedent for deleting such small categories. All these articles and subcategories will be more than sufficiently interlinked already. Xtifr _tälk 20:49, 4 July 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 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Ascomycetes to Category:Ascomycota;
Category:Basidiomycetes to Category:Basidiomycota;
Category:Deuteromycetes to Category:Deuteromycota;
Category:Glomeromycetes to Category:Glomeromycota.

Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see, we have the situation where these categories are at their "old" names (stemming from when they were at the order level), while the main article for each are at the phylum-style names, per the revised taxonomy. Suggest rename to match things up. Alai 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (possibly erroneous) understanding was that these are the English names (albeit perhaps derived from outdated taxonomy): one basidiomycete, two basidiomycetes. --Stemonitis 06:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I don't follow why one would want to apply that to the categories only, and not to the articles. Alai 17:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that nom is correct, but this is a case where I'd rather have the information reviewed by a domain expert if possible. Can we advertise this at some relevant Wikiprojects? Xtifr _tälk 10:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a note at WikiProject Fungi. Alai 17:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename unless there are last-minute objections from domain experts. This was posted to the Wikiproject a while ago, nobody from there (or elsewhere) has commented, and nominator's rationale seems correct and justified to me, so.... Xtifr _tälk 08:00, 4 July 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 13:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pulp fiction villains to Category:Characters in pulp fiction

Suggest merging Category:Pulp fiction heroes to Category:Characters in pulp fiction

Suggest merging Category:Pulp heroes and villains to Category:Characters in pulp fiction

Nominator's rationale: Merge - per consensus against "hero" and "villain" categorization and the redundancy of having "heroes," "villains" and "heroes and villains." Otto4711 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - "Villian" and "hero" are not necessarily well-defined, as characters may switch from one role to the other. Because of this problem, the general consensus has been not to use these labels for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 08:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per previous consensus against "hero" and "villain" in cat names. While it may be that the roles are sharply defined and adhered to in the genre, that is something for the articles not the cat. - J Greb 02:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 30

Category:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

Category:Middle-earth in space

Category:Fictional Greek Villains

Category:Former airports in Houston

Category:Hilary Duff

Category:Jennifer Lopez

Category:National Football League on the radio

Category:Lily Allen

Category:Sikh Beliefs

Category:Pop songs by artist

Category:Lily Allen albums

Category:4 home runs in a game

Category:3LW

Fungal phyla

Category:Pulp fiction villains