< March 11	March 13 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who lived to be nonagenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. For those not familiar with the term, this refers to people who have lived to the age of 90. With life expectancies in western countries growing ever closer this number, I feel this is an unnecessary overcategorization. Category:Centenarians (people who have lived to 100) should be the limit of these kinds of categories. Tom (talk - email) 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find the CfDs, but we've deleted categories like this repeatedly. It is not a useful category for navigation (the purpose of categories) and there is no clear stoppping point as to which decades of life should have categories. There's no reason this couldn't be a fine list. -Will Beback · † · 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See previous XfD here. Actually... this is criteria to have the category speedily re-deleted. --Tom (talk - email) 01:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and here's another, [1]. -Will Beback · † · 07:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Peta 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ~ Rename Category:Nonagenarians --emerson7 | Talk 01:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent and Wikipedia style guidelines. Doczilla 04:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally redundant JoJan 09:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Living to 90 is impressive but not so notable that it should be categorized. Dr. Submillimeter 10:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Living to 90 becomes less exceptional every year. Nathanian 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as a trivial characteristic. --Xdamr^talk 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nondefining. Pavel Vozenilek 12:20, 15 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Derived from Catholic Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete These tags-by-source just clutter up the bottom of articles. CalJW 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 04:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• either delete or move the tag to the talk pages. This doesn't need to be out in public. Gentgeen 05:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathanian 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - although it is ugly - it is the only reference information present in many of these articles, and thus should be kept for verification reasons. --Peta 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is the reference, not the category. Craig.Scott 03:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category is not needed for verification. In any case, most sources do not have a category to facilitate verification. Haddiscoe 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cluttersome of article, not needed for point. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category, keep Template:Catholic and optionally move that template to the articles' talk pages instead. — coelacan — 03:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 18:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 03:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Personally, I find these tags-by-source most helpful! Pastorwayne 12:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would be okay as a talk page tag, but as it is template generated, it cannot be applied to talk pages without a massive effort, and that would not be worthwhile. Choalbaton 22:17, 17 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Bismarck to Category:Bismarck family. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bismarck to Category:Bismarck family

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to most common form for non-ruling families. I would do a bulk nomination for the German family categories with one word names, were it not that the princely status or otherwise of each one needs to be checked. CalJW 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:36, 15 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Bülow to Category:Bülow family. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bülow to Category:Bülow family

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with most other families (globally, if not for Germany). Mediatization complicated matters for German family categories, but "House of" should probably be reserved for princely families, as that will be more consistent with the namely of categories for families from other European countries. CalJW 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:37, 15 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as empty. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antiguan sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Antigua boxers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Both are empty, Category:Antiguan and Barbudan sportspeople already exists. Not necessary to refine to the specific island within the country of Antigua and Barbuda that the person came from. Jwillbur 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the national category. Haddiscoe 00:59, 14 March 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 category's talk page (if any). 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Octave Chanute Award recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is another award that goes to people so famous that they win lots of awards anyway (such as Howard Hughes and Neil Armstrong. As stated before, categorizing people by every single award that they have ever won is not feasible, as the category lists in articles on people will get very long and will be very difficult to read. As with other award categories, this category should be deleted. (Notable winners are already listified at Octave Chanute Award, so listification is not necessary.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you don't want Armstrong and Hughes delete them from the category. Its a terrible disservice to the other lesser known winners to delete a category because some guy on the list already has too many awards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and as overcategorization by award. I'm sure no disrespect is intended to the recipients, but on the other hand no one is owed an awards category so I'm not feeling the "disservice" argument for keeping. Otto4711 03:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. Doczilla 04:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Award is too minor to have a category. There are other more prestigious awards for aviation. Epbr123 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OVERCAT. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 03:01, 16 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Forbes World's Richest People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Forbes World's Richest People (Mexico) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - According to the parent category, this is a list of people whom Forbes Magazine has declared to have US$1 billion. This appears to be redundant with Category:Billionaires, and it looks like it verges on copyright infringement. I therefore recommend deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. "Verges" is pretty generous: the copyright violation is pretty clear.

UnitedStatesian 22:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • No U.S. copyright on lists of facts: see Feist Supreme Court decision. Merge. Jheald 08:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Billionaires, looks like a published list to me. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --emerson7 | Talk 01:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published_list. Doczilla 04:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as published list. --Rimshots 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete again as Overcat. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rimshots. Pavel Vozenilek 12:22, 15 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. "keep" arguments boil down to WP:USEFUL and an appeal to earlier debates. >Radiant< 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who have committed treason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't think this category is useful or serves a particular purpose by grouping these characters together. I think it's categorization for the sake of it. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep absent the presentation of any arguments not offered in the last three CFDs of this category. Otto4711 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see how it would fare with its name and purpose degenerated to a point where any arguments to keep would simply be "because I like it."~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can someone explain why classifying a fictional character by the crimes they commit is encyclopedic and not over classification? Vegaswikian 05:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After reading Vegaswikian's comment, I would agree that classification of fictional characters by action is not useful. (We have also discussed the other interpretation problems in the past, such as the definition of "treason".) Dr. Submillimeter 10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category has POV problems as well. Whether or not a character commits treason may be open to the reader's interpretation. "Convicted of treason" would be different, but I still don't see what the actual benefit of having this category would be. — coelacan — 03:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Categorizing characters by action is very useful real people are classified by their actions fictional people should be as well Irate velociraptor 05:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll find this category doesn't really serve any effective purpose though, whereas Category:Fictional African-Americans does. Jafar, Scar from Lion King, a 24 character and the animated Hawkgirl being examples from inside the category.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Unassessed-Class Harry Potter articles to Category:Unassessed Harry Potter articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Unassessed-Class Harry Potter articles to Category:Unassessed Harry Potter articles

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, following conventions. However, the template ((WPHP)) would need some manipulation of the markup so that all articles current unassessed will automatically be moved to the new category, but I don't know how to do that. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c

• Rename per nom, and convention of Category:Unassessed-Class articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. If this goes thru, drop me a line and I can change the template; it's not really that difficult. :) --Ebyabe 12:49, 13 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Telecommunication physicists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - A Google search on "telecommunication physics" shows that the term is hardly ever used. The term should not be used for categorization in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm two for two on seconding Dr. S's nominations: this is a Neologism. UnitedStatesian 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. s/hardly ever used/never used/. The lone google hit is a mis-translation from a foreign language (curiously, one that I actually speak), its a college course title that should have been translated as "physics and electronics for telecommunications". linas 00:01, 16 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and towns in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Imagine similar categories for other former countries. It also may cause dangerous double categorisation. I think it is obsolete category and hence should be deleted. Darwinek 17:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Essentially duplicates the contents of Category:Cities and towns in Russia, Category:Cities in Ukraine, Category:Settlements in Belarus, etc. Listing individual entries in this category is, thus, heavily redundant, while listing subcategories would not be entirely accurate (for example, there are towns in Russia that have been created after the dissolution of the Soviet Union).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant per Ëzhiki. —dima/s-ko/ 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathanian 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete double categorization, no point in category with only one subcategory. TheFearow 21:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As double-cat of the aforementioned categories. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as undesirable double-categorisation. I think that is is fairly established consensus that these categories apply to current entities only. --Xdamr^talk 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:23, 15 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:19th century California attorneys into Category:California lawyers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:19th century California attorneys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, overgeneralization, all 4 entries are already in Category:California lawyers anyway.--Wizardman 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Category:California lawyers seems to be sufficient for organization. Dr. Submillimeter 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge into Category:California lawyers If kept rename to Category:19th century California lawyers for consistency. Craig.Scott 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:California lawyers. Vegaswikian 04:23, 17 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. NY is to be treated differently: renaming this to Category:Fictional characters from New York City. Rimshots's suggestion to merge the Philadelphia & Pittsburgh categories with the Pennsylvania category did not, I think, get a consensus. They could perhaps be nominated separately for further discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Fictional Floridians to Category:Fictional characters from Florida
• Category:Fictional Hawaiians to Category:Fictional characters from Hawaii
• Category:Fictional Iowans to Category:Fictional characters from Iowa
• Category:Fictional Kansans to Category:Fictional characters from Kansas
• Category:Fictional New Yorkers to Category:Fictional characters from New York (or Category:Fictional characters from New York City)
• Category:Fictional Oregonians to Category:Fictional characters from Iowa

  Note added after CFD closure: I assume this was an error. I will rename to Category:Fictional characters from Oregon. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Fictional Pennsylvanians to Category:Fictional characters from Pennsylvania
• Category:Fictional Philadelphians to Category:Fictional characters from Philadelphia
• Category:Fictional Pittsburghers to Category:Fictional characters from Pittsburgh
• Category:Fictional Texans to Category:Fictional characters from Texas

These were not caught up in the demonym-killing Fictional Americans nomination of March 6, so I'm listing them here. Category:Fictional New Yorkers is a bit of an odd duck: It's about the city, but there's no category about the state. So either that should become the state category (and maybe we should merge the two Pennsylvania cities to the state category), or the New York category should become New York City and a subcategory of an (otherwise empty for the moment) New York state category.--Mike Selinker 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all except NY as nominated to clear out the demonyms. Merge the NY cat into Category:Fictional characters from New York City and allow for subcats as needed (from Brooklyn, from the Bronx, etc) in the future. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the state characters as per nom., NY to NYC as per User:Youngamerican and merge the Pennsylvania city categories to Pennsylvania state. --Rimshots 17:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of a weird position, Rimshots. Why would we give New York City a category but not Philly or Pittsburgh? I think it's either that NYC gets a category and Philly and Pittsburgh keep theirs, or all three get merged to state categories.--Mike Selinker 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that all NY state characters are NYC characters as well. The same cannot be said for Philly and Pittsburgh. Also, the NYC category is huge, quite opposite to the other ones. --rimshots^talk 00:19, 17 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Hunters to Category:Hunt seat

• Merge, Categories should not be named famous, per WP:NCCAT. There are only 2 entries, just upmerge these to the parent. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete underpopulated, subjective, and incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla 04:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'Famous' = POV. --Xdamr^talk 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV. --Rimshots 17:40, 14 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freelance writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A very high proportion of notable journalists in all fields are freelancers at some stage of their career, and in most other fields of writing freelancing is the norm across board, so there doesn't seem to be much benefit to be had from letting this very small category grow. AshbyJnr 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nathanian 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 22:18, 17 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep/no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islam and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Category:Judeo-Islamic topics is enough, and this one can only provide POV and edition wars. Barraki 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No need to get more specific than Category:Judeo-Islamic topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Has its own article and many linking articles. Separate from Judeo-Islamic topics. --Shamir1 07:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Category:Judeo-Islamic topics. — coelacan — 03:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. War zone concentrated on today's events. Pavel Vozenilek 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I am tired of removing this category from the pages living persons, as it alleges them of bieng anti-semitic without evidence. Blatant violation of WP:BLP.Bless sins 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category in no way shape or form implies antisemitism on the part of the article. You are confusing it with Category:Anti-Semitic people; something completely different. Further, a review of WP:BLP would show that when controversial information is reliably sourced, there is no violation. Verified information that makes people uncomfortable is not necessarily a reason to improperly throw the BLP tag around. -- Avi 06:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. User:Bless sins need to distinguish between "Islam and antisemitism" and "anti-Semitic Muslims" (the latter is a category that does not exist but he seems to confuse the two.) --Shamir1 07:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, important and encyclopedic category. Some deniers often try to sweep it under the rug, but this is not a legitimate reason to remove. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In the past 40 years, this has proven to become one of the primary areas of anti-semitic development. Categorizing it on its own allows for better and more efficient use of the encyclopedia in studying the phenomena of Islam, Antisemitism, and the interactino between the two. -- Avi 05:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The amount of information on this topic deserves its own category, if for nothing else than to distinguish this distasteful topic from general Jewish-Islamic relations. --Eliyak T·C 06:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a distasteful subject area yes, but a reality nonetheless, and the articles belonging to this category have ample reliable sources that warrant categorizing them in this way. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Even if the category may be prone to abuse, if an entry has ample reason to be included then there is no reason to remove the entire list. I mean lets face it, probably more than 60% of wikipedia categories are somtimes abused, it doesn't mean that all of them should not exist.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category is neither POV, nor fork, as some have argued here, but a sad reality, which deserves its own category. Beit Or 18:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

)Keep but perhaps Islamic Antisemitism would be a better name. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, important and notable topic. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:39, 20 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Future Is Wild species (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - all of the stub articles in the category have been merged into a single List of The Future Is Wild species categorized in Category:Fictional species so the category is now empty. Otto4711 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as now empty cat. Good job in merging all of that stuff together. --- RockMFR 17:53, 12 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gentrified Neighborhoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Inherently POV, nearly meaningless. Same objections as the recently-nuked category "cities which have suffered from urban decay." (My apologies if I have raised this dicussion inappropriately; this is my first entry of this type.) Uucp 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a fine discussion to raise. To me, this seems like a reasonable category, though I agree the name is POV. However, I can't come up with another way to say "Neighborhoods which have undergone urban renewal to attract higher-income residents." I guess I'll say keep for now, but I'd look for another name.--Mike Selinker 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subjective and transitory. Just more trouble than it is worth. See gentrification and maybe list more examples there (with references/dates/explanations). Wilchett 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If kept it does need to be renamed with a lower case "n" in "neighborhoods." Otto4711 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The phrase suffers from severe POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too subjective. Epbr123 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective, pointless, unmaintainable category. Doczilla 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as subjective and POV-tastic. Application of the term is controversial even among geographers and planners. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:52, 14 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Propellerhead's Reason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Most of the articles originally in this category have been merged into the main article. Betaeleven 14:27, 12 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Tracy Brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - a category for five fictional characters under their family name seems absurd. They are already categorized in Category:Thunderbirds so there is nothing to merge. Otto4711 14:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary category. Epbr123 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 22:55, 13 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. David Kernow (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dam disasters in the United States to Category:Dam disasters

• Merge, Only 11 entries here and 9 in Dam disasters, seems like a logical merge Happywaffle 13:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - In the interests of neutrality, and (with no offense meant) what's so special about American dam disasters that they need there own category. Either every country should have their own dam disaster category (which is an incredibly bad idea) or none of them should. The Kinslayer 13:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Natural subcategory of Category:Disasters in the United States. There must be more elsewhere that haven't been categorized here (or that we don't have articles for due to systemic bias, but that will be resolved over time). Wilchett 16:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This looks like a logical division for Category:Disasters in the United States, although I agree that Category:Dam disasters otherwise looks too small to divide by country. Dr. Submillimeter 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - a nine member group of anything is hardly in need of categorising. --emerson7 | Talk 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as cross-cutting subgroup of both Category:Dam disasters and Category:Disasters in the United States. Mike Dillon 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for good reasons stated by Wilchett, Submillimeter, and Dillon above. Just because editors have not been properly looking out for other countries is no reason to bring the US categories down to that level. Improve WP, not take it down to the lowest common denominator.Hmains 03:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Keep Category:Dam disasters doesn't need subcategorising but Category:Disasters in the United States does. Epbr123 10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Category:Disasters in the United States certainly needs subcategorising. Nathanian 12:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons given by Mike Dillon. In addition, note that the global Dam disasters categories can be expected to grow -- and will come to need more geographic subcategories -- with the addition of more articles.--orlady 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category serves as logical sub-categorisation for Category:Dam disasters; as more articles on other nation's dam disasters are written, they too may be nationally sub-categorised. I don't think that this is bias, only good housekeeping—eleven entries is a viable number for an individual category in my opinion.

Xdamr^talk 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a logical subcat without bias. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Follows scheme of Category:Disasters in the United States. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful subcategorisation as number of articles will grow up. Pavel Vozenilek 12:25, 15 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. No objections raised. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pigou Club members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The Pigou Club does not appear to be an actual organization. Instead, it appears to be a group of unassociated people that agree on the use of pigovian taxes (taxes on people or organizations who adversely affect society, such as taxes on gasoline because of its effect on the environment). This is effectively categorization by opinion, a form of overcategorization, and it should be deleted. (Note that the "club members" are already listed at Pigou Club.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:20, 12 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Albany, New York to Category:Radio stations in Capital District, New York
• Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Albany / Schenectady / Troy to Category:Television stations in Capital District, New York

There should be a consistent media market name for radio/TV/newspapers in the Albany/Schenectady/Troy NY area, aka "Capital District". Maybe it could be "(media) in New York's Capital District" instead. --Vossanova ^o< 18:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - would close as No Consensus, but shall leave to admin. anthonycfc ^[talk] 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Novels by character to Category:Characters by novel

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, category has a wrong name, since it lists characters grouped by their respective novels. GregorB 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, category is named correctly, my mistake - it's only awkwardly placed in the hierarchy, perhaps. GregorB 10:41, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Some authors share their fictional setting with other authors. Technically that includes every author who e.g. writes D&D novels, or M:tG novels, or anything set on the Real Earth. While Shared universe is a useful article, putting an arbitrary subset of books, authors, characters and objects from several different universes in a category is not helpful. >Radiant< 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. That whole "fictional settings/universes" structure needs another looking at as well. Otto4711 12:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This kind of categorization would be confusing. Dr. Submillimeter 12:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rename to Category:Shared universes, and restrict contents to categories and articles on the shared portions of fictional universes. I hardly see how this is an authors category. IT's a reasonable subset of fictional universes, where multiple authors contribute to a whole. It should be restricted to the many author hsaring, as opposed to two authors (a writing team) collaborating on a book series (like a husband and wife writing team)... ie. Star Trek, not the Rama series by Gentry Lee and Arthur C Clarke. 70.55.91.139 06:30, 15 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename, no objections raised, and Malazan redirects to Malazan Book of the Fallen. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Malazan Book of the Fallen, to match the title of the series. >Radiant< 10:28, 12 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Greece: Ski areas and resorts to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Greece. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greece: Ski areas and resorts to Category:Ski areas and resorts in Greece

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to correct word order per conventions. Wilchett 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Nathanian 12:26, 13 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: speedied. >Radiant< 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional school bullies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete as recreation of the deleted Fictional bullies category. Otto4711 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just tag it with ((db)) -- Cat ^chi? 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Shanel speedy deleted the category. It is already orphaned/depopulated. This debate can be closed. -- Cat ^chi? 05:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted per below. David Kernow (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete - empty category. Otto4711 03:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment its a new show that is to premier soon. That category will be filled soon in a reasonable amount of time. Till then, it may be deleted perhaps. -- Cat ^chi? 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this TV show is too minor to have a category like this. 'The Sarah Jane Adventures cast members' would be a better title anyway. Epbr123 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on recent decisions, the cast, &c, should be ((listify))d rather than categorised. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per consensus, this is not a valid basis for categorisation. Articlespace cast lists are the most appropriate vehicle for presenting this sort of information. All this is aside from the fact that the category is empty.

Xdamr^talk 23:02, 13 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guō (郭) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Dīng (丁) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Wéi (韋) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recreation of previously deleted material. More useful as a list than as a category, it serves no useful purpose to categorise people by a personal attribute. Appears also to violate Wikipedia:Categorization of people . Ohconfucius 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - We already decided not to sort people by name. People sorted by name generally have little else in common with each other, so these categories should be deleted. (Maybe the categories from the 22 Nov 2006 categories should be blocked. Two other categories were recreated following that debate.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per precedent and Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names. Doczilla 04:45, 13 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Kurdish-language television stations. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kurdish TV is an improper title and should be renamed to Category:Television stations in Kurdish or something along the line. Cat ^chi? 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Kurdish-language television stations (by analogy with Category:Spanish-language television stations in Florida et al). Category:Television in Kurdistan would be inaccurate as several of the stations broadcast globally and are not based in Kurdistan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Kurdish-language television stations per Angus. -- Mais oui! 09:52, 14 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as empty (and outdated). youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2006 Governors-elect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Empty category. All Governors-elect from 2006 are now sitting Governors. Mike Dillon 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as empty category, and pre-emptively salt similar categories for the next several rounds of such elections since we should not be categorizing people by such temporary statuses. Otto4711 03:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant transient category. Ohconfucius 03:56, 12 March 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 category's talk page (if any). 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dog images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All images previously in this category are now on the commons. Delete Peta 01:30, 12 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cnidarian images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All images are now on the commons; commons is better at organizing this king of content than wp. Delete Peta 01:21, 12 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gastropod images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

category is empty since I moved the last of the images to the commons. The commons does a much better job of managing images. Delete Peta 01:08, 12 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Wisconsin arts venues into Category:Wisconsin_culture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wisconsin arts venues to Category:Wisconsin_culture

• Merge, There is overlap. Winsconsin culture already has a theaters subcategory, for example. greenrd 00:48, 12 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Willis Research Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, universities should not be classified by what collaborations they are or were involved in, because each academic department - never mind institution - may be involved in multiple collaborations in any given year. greenrd 00:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per greenrd's request. Ravenhurst 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Nom is correct. Bigman17 02:06, 15 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Cryptography templates to Category:Cryptography templates

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Category is mainly used to hold article-space templates rather than wikiproject-related templates. While I can see the use of having a category to hold all templates used by a project, Category:Cryptography templates would fit in better with the other categories in Category:Wikipedia templates by subject area. While the two categories could coexist, they would largely duplicate each other, hence this proposal for a rename. Mike Peel 23:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but reckon Category:WikiProject Cryptography templates could become subcategory of Category:Cryptography templates (as well as of Category:WikiProject templates). Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's true, however I can't see the point in doing this - as I say in the nomination, the two categories would largely duplicate each other. More generally, I'm using this as a test case to try to have only WikiProject metatemplates in Category:WikiProject templates, not templates that are meant to be used on articles. Mike Peel 09:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.