< March 3	March 5 >

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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only two games to support this category. ' 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two games, and just not a significant game series at all. SubSeven 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main Zelda games category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague, undefined category. Doczilla 01:47, 6 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category is serving as de facto performer by project container, save for a couple of articles about (I presume) his home town and high school. No need absent the film articles for his own category. Otto4711 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, but cleanout~~ Neutral I think as a general rule top and high priority bios can have eponymous categories. Here the problem is misuse of the category. I think getting rid of the movies so we can see the airport, home town, family, etc. would make this a useful category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I look at all the high priority Hollywood actor eponymous categories below, maybe I should just say that top priority articles should have eponymous categories, in general. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that general consensus disagrees with this. My understanding of debates on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization etc leads me to conclude that eponymous categories are not a badge of notability or greater significance. They should only exist where there is appropriate content to put in then, such as a substantial number of directly relevant articles/sub-categories.

Xdamr^talk 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eponymous categories are only necessary when the articles in the category cannot be easily found from the eponymous article. This is not the case for film performers because a filmography can be included or linked to the John Wayne article. -- Samuel Wantman 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per rightly agreed approach to this type of category. Craig.Scott 13:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a question of whether or not John Wayne is an important actor. It's whether or not a reader would likely access all the links in this category from his main article. Almost all of these links appear (or should appear) in his main article in his filmography. So the category isn't needed to navigate those articles - a reader is more likely to use the main article, and would probably have an easier time doing that. Dugwiki 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Setting aside miscategorised content, there are insufficient directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category.

Xdamr^talk 15:34, 6 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only four articles (not even his own) all about various women in his life. All already linked through his article. No need for a category. Otto4711 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per rightly agreed approach to this type of category. Craig.Scott 13:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thinly populated eponymous category. SubSeven 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something else is added to justify. Ulysses Zagreb 09:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 01:45, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only two articles in the category. Not enough material for an eponymous category. Otto4711 23:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that if there are several subcategories and several articles, that's enough for a category.--Mike Selinker 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike S. Category:Categories named after musicians is full of categories used to house subcats for each act's albums, songs, and members. This cat has two of those, plus one for the films that she's directed. ×Meegs 12:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the musician categories shoudl be deleted, in line with the treatment of actor categories. Craig.Scott 13:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that all of the musician categories should be deleted, but I do agree that if the category doesn't have substantial material beyond album and song subcats (which are children of Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist respectively) then the musician shouldn't have an eponymous category either. Otto4711 15:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main article and its sub-article already list (or should list) her complete list of works. A reader is much more likely to use the main article, therefore, to find articles for those works. Therefore the category should be deleted as being unnecessary and redundant with her list of works in the article. Also, for reference, my guess is that Category:Categories named after musicians probably contains a fair number of other similar categories that likewise should be deleted. Dugwiki 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Works of Barbara Streisland which should coever everything Ulysses Zagreb 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 01:52, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient material to sustain a category. Otto4711 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that if there are several subcategories and several articles, that's enough for a category.--Mike Selinker 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything should be linked from his article. If it isn't, that is what "See also" sections are for. When the "See also" section gets too long, it is time to think about creating a category, not before. -- Samuel Wantman 07:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to investigate this further, but right now, I think that Mike Selinker is correct. If "William Shatner" was clearly a musical act, I wouldn't hesitate to keep this for the reasons I gave in the Streisand and Hillery Duff discussions. ×Meegs 12:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per rightly agreed approach to this type of category. Craig.Scott 13:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just an FYI, for reference this category was discussed last year July 3 2006 at [1]. The result was "No consensus", and it was kept by default. Dugwiki 18:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's the real Slim Shady. Lugnuts 18:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment *Comment This appears to be probably an unnecessary category. Shatner's albums, books and filmography all should already appear in his main article, and so the category wouldn't be needed to navigate those links. On the other hand, an article like William Shatner's musical career would be hard to properly categorize unless it was under the category Category:William Shatner. Usually I'm all for deleting eponymous categories, but it's possible this one has some esoteric items that might require it. I'm going to remain neutral on this for now. Dugwiki 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Interestign question, that. Currently the article on Shatner's music career is in two oher categories, Category:Outsider music which is completely inappropriate and I'm removing it, and a category for Beatles tributes, which also seems problematic. Is a category which will serve as essentially a placeholder for an otherwise uncategorized article an appropriate solution? Otto4711 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite possible, Otto. While unusual, it wouldn't be the first time a category is kept because of the existence of only one or two articles which are otherwise hard to categorize. Dugwiki 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Works of William Shatner Ulysses Zagreb 10:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Setting aside improperly categorised 'actor by film' type articles, there are too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quatloo 05:11, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - articles are almost all about various of their projects. Film- and discographies in their aricles cover the territory. Insufficient material for a category. Otto4711 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Setting aside inappropriately categorised articles, there are too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 01:55, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minus her film articles we are left with articles on her husbands, an impersonator and an "...in popular culture" article. All can be linked through her article as needed; no need for a category. Otto4711 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the category wouldn't be needed for her filmography or celebrity husbands. However, the article Marilyn Monroe in popular culture appears to be a subarticle specific to her that would currently be orphaned if this category is deleted. I'm a little concerned that if the category is deleted it might end up orphaning some articles. If someone's main article is split into related subarticles, it might be necessary to have an eponymous category specifically to keep those articles from being orphaned. Dugwiki 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:In popular culture or one of its subcats (much as I hate them) is the appropriate home for the "...in popular culture" article at this time. Otto4711 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the article to Category:Representations of people in popular culture Otto4711 19:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that solution, Otto. It gives the "In Popular Culture" articles a common category home and also would seem to address my above concern. Thanks. Dugwiki 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minus film articles, there are too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 01:57, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the listed articles are for film projects. Leaving those out we're left with a stub for a spoken-word album, an article on a dress designer and an article on a man she was engaged to for a while but then called it off. Insufficient material for a category; can all be linked through her article. Otto4711 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless articles are orphaned It looks like this category could probably be safely deleted as most of the articles already would be linked in her main article. My only concern here would be if some of the articles are sub-articles to the main article about Ms. Hepburn that aren't easily categorized elsewhere. So my delete recommendation would be contingent on the articles in it not being basically orphaned in the category system by the deletion. Dugwiki 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us the articles you're concerned about so we can look for additional appropriate cats as needed? Otto4711 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I had one, but there are a fair number of articles so I'm leaving open the possibility that someone might object based on those grounds. If not, I'm for deletion. Dugwiki 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minus film articles, there are too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 01:57, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one subcat and two articles, not enough material to justify an eponymous category. Otto4711 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Filmography is already in Gibson's article, and the DUI incident is already subcategorized under other things and linked from his main article. The South Park episode appears in South Park related listings and doesn't need to have a "Mel Gibson" category tag to be categorized. Dugwiki 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete to unimportant Ulysses Zagreb 10:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 01:58, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is insufficiaent material to warrant an eponymous category. Most of the entries are for projects she's involved with, plus an article for her sister and a stub on the pair of them that I AFDed. This can all be linked through hr own article with no need for a category. Otto4711 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that if there are several subcategories and several articles, that's enough for a category.--Mike Selinker 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like the Streisand cat above, this has an albums and songs subcat and is right at home in Category:Categories named after musicians. Perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the two from Category:Categories named after actors, where they stick-out and are constantly in danger of being filled with acting performances. ×Meegs 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the musician categories shoudl be deleted, in line with the treatment of actor categories. Craig.Scott 13:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone interested in this artist will visit the Hillary Duff page. Link to relevant articles there. zadignose 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competeley agree with Mike Selinker. This category serves as mother category to those subcategories. QuasyBoy 1:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment You don't need an eponymous category to serve as the "parent category" to subcategories about the person. The main article already acts as a central hub in that respect (ie if you want to visit Duff's songs, they're all linked from the main article and so is the associated subcategory). That being said, you might need a Hillary Duff category if the main article has subarticles that are hard to categorize elsewhere. So whether or not to delete is going to depend on whether the deletion would leave some of the articles essentially orphaned in the category system. Dugwiki 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Works of Hilary Duff Ulysses Zagreb 10:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Hilary Duff All The Time. Quatloo 05:12, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category is serving as a de facto performer by project category, as the articles are pretty much all about various projects and characters of the eponymous subject. Interlinking then through his article and each other as appropriate is sufficient. No need for this category. Otto4711 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I created this category a while back, but the nominator is correct in saying that a list of his projects on the Steve Coogan article is sufficient, and thus unneccesary as a category. Bob talk 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minus inappropriate articles, there are too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 01:59, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The category is serving as a de facto performer by project category, as almost all of the articles are about media in which Cohen appears. There are also a couple of articles about characters he's created and one about a guy who some people think inspired Borat. These should all be interlinked with his article and each other as appropriate instead of through a category. Otto4711 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What we have here is almost Category:Da Ali G Show in line with the members of Category:Categories named after television series. I am guessing that it was named for Baron Cohen because some its members predate or postdate the show. We should not keep this as an actor cat, but I wonder if we should rename it for the show (and expel Erran Baron Cohen and Mahir Çağrı). ×Meegs 12:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the category was renamed from Category:Da Ali G Show to Category:Sacha Baron Cohen by consensus here. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minus inappropriate articles, there are too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category is an overstatement. - Gilliam 10:46, 8 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subtracting the articles on Ingrid Bergman films we are left only with articles for immediate family members, which are easily navigated from within Ingrid Bergman and each other. Otto4711 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. --Xdamr^talk 02:00, 7 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. the wub "?!" 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - The Astaire and Rogers category is explicitly for their films together, which we don't do. The Astaire solo category is populated mostly by film articles. With those removed what's left are articles for his sister Adele, his dance studio chain a choreographer on some of his pictures and a guy who may play Astaire in a movie. All of which either should be interlinked already or, in the case of the guy who's supposed to play him, omitted entirely as too tenous a connection. The categories should be deleted. Otto4711 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Too few directly connected articles/sub-categories to merit eponymous categories. --Xdamr^talk 02:01, 7 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 no consensus Tim! 10:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - eponymous category with insufficient material to justify it. The album and song subcats should be categorized in the appropriate "...by artist" parent cats and the articles about the two girls and two Dsney Channel films they starred in are all suitably interlinked. Otto4711 22:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overcat. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that if there are several subcategories and several articles, that's enough for a category.--Mike Selinker 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competeley agree with Mike Selinker. This category serves as mother category to those subcategories. QuasyBoy 1:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the articles (one for each sister, one for the duo and two for DVDs they've appeared or had music in) are already linked through the main article Aly & AJ. Simply having several articles is not IMHO sufficient reason for having a category. The subcats are already children of Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist and are also accessible through links in the main article. Also not sufficient IMHO to require an eponymous category. Otto4711 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not specifically because of Mike's concern, I looked at the articles for each of the two girls and, finding that they were largely duplicates of the duo's article and each other, boldly redirected them. So both of those articles are now out of the category (assuming they don't get boldly undirected). Otto4711 22:29, 5 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) 12:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one non-notable article in this category. There aren't a lot of videogame wikis which should have articles. Savidan 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure there are any notable video game wikis at this time. --- RockMFR 01:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be useful only as a 'trap' to spot AFD-worthy articles, but that wouldn't be right. SubSeven 21:50, 5 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) 12:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While doing some cleanup, I came across this category, which appeared misnamed, and moved its contents to Category:Sherbro. The creator of this category objects and recreated it, so here we are. BanyanTree 20:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Darwinek 21:26, 7 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 rename Category:Norwegian government ministers to Category:Government ministers of Norway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Norwegian government ministers to Category:Government ministers of Norway

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match the majority of the similar categories. AshbyJnr 19:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename Category:Government ministers of Norway is closer to what the category's info intends. Good eye AshbyJnr! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:11, 4 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) 12:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - geez, these things breed like rats. Performer by network categorization. The few articles that aren't for people can be categorized elsewhere and/or interlinked with each other. Otto4711 19:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TV companies don't own golf tournaments. It's quite a trivial matter which U.S. channel broadcasts each tournament. Mowsbury 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my comments on similar categories further below. Dr. Submillimeter 09:35, 5 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) 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - oops, found another one. Performer by network, articles should be categorized elsewhere, clutter, blah blah blah. Otto4711 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my comments on similar categories further below. Dr. Submillimeter 09:35, 5 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) 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another (I hope the last) of these performer by network-style categories for sporting announcers by network. The Grey Cup articles are already housed appropriately at Category:Grey Cup and the category should be deleted. Otto4711 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:15, 4 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 no consensus Tim! 10:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ Rename all to "Category: (Network) sports programs" or "Category:(Network) sports shows" per Dr S below. - Categories are for the most part being used to capture individuals who do broadcast work for the networks, which is improper personality by network categorization. ~~Those articles on actual sports programs can be categorized as sports programs and in shows by network categories~~. Most of the subcats are also up for deletion for the same reasons. The categories contribute to clutter on the articles of the people so categorized. The categories should be ~~deleted~~ renamed and restricted to articles for specific programs broadcast by the networks. Otto4711 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (timestamp Otto4711 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my comments on similar categories further below. Dr. Submillimeter 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all to "Network" Sports shows - Upon further review, these categories look like they would be useful if restricted to solely to the sports shows broadcasted by these networks. In their current state, however, they are being used as containers for every sports announcer or sports pundit who ever worked with the networks or for games broadcasted on those networks. Both of these forms of categorization are inappropriate. A rename would fix the problem. (Note that a rename would not work for the subcategories of these categories, as the subcategories contain too few articles on the TV shows themselves.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to a rename as suggested, but for purposes of ease and utility would it be better to delete these categories and then create and populate new ones under the "(Network) sports shows" names? Or can bots selectively remove articles from renamed categories? Otto4711 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this using the AutoWikiBrowser. I do not know if I should wait for this nomination to close. Dr. Submillimeter 16:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with creating those new categories and then populating them by re categorizing the appropriate articles. I would included a short introduction that says the category is for the shows and not for the personalities. Vegaswikian 23:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's no different than journalists (or television programs produced by) who've worked for a specific network news division (e.g. CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, etc.) TMC1982 10:29 a.m., 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Many of those categories have been deleted or have been nominated for deletion as well. Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless and until underlying articles and subcategories are all gone. If certain subcategories are being misused, that is not an issue at this level in the hierarchy. Quatloo 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is conditioned on Dr. Submillimeter completing the the creation of the new and better named categories with the appropriate articles. It seems that deleting these and creating the new ones for network shows is the easiest and wisest direction to go in. Vegaswikian 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least rename. At any rate, get the indiviuals and sporting events out of these categories. Piccadilly 18:40, 8 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 Merge all Tim! 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all subcats of Category:European converts to Hinduism to Category:Converts to Hinduism

Category:French converts to Hinduism to Category:Converts to Hinduism

Category:North American converts to Hinduism to Category:Converts to Hinduism

Upmerge all subcats of Category:European converts to Islam to Category:Converts to Islam

Category:African converts to Islam to Category:Converts to Islam

Category:Pakistani converts to Islam to Category:Converts to Islam

Category:Indian converts to Islam to Category:Converts to Islam

Category:Indonesian converts to Islam to Category:Converts to Islam

Upmerge all subcats of Category:Asian converts to Islam to Category:Converts to Islam

Merge, We dont need to divide converts by where they converted from, especially for world religions, This is overcategorization. Baka man 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Disagree Keep This category is overflowed otherwises besides i do think we should split them by place of birth it is interesting people who are hindu or whatever in your area --Java7837 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is WP:ILIKEIT ?Baka man 18:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also you only did this for Hinduism and Islam, do explain why.Baka man 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not done doing it for the other categories and besides hindus are split of by nationality see Category:Hindus by nationality for british hindus canadian hindus american hindus etc. the same should be done for converts --Java7837 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that British Hindus, American, fooian etc are primarily Indian expats, who are fooian citizens. Ditto for Islam, where most people in the country cats are Arab or South Asian ethnicity. This is a trivial intersection between religion, nationality, and a characteristic; a triple intersection.Baka man 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge We already have Category:Converts to Islam and Category:Converts to Hinduism. We don't need these additional specification categories. They just exist to make the lists seem longer and further a POV.--Sefringle 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~How is it Pov --Java7837 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Its not a POV per se, Sefringle, I just think Java thought the cat was overfilled.Baka man 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just categorize by former religion i did it partially for the converts to Islam is that ok?--Java7837 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete and Merge per Bakaman and Sefringle. Category:Indian converts to Islam (to cite just one example) has too few people in it to merit a separate category I feel ,much less talking of dividing them by birthplace, nationality etc. It is enough to keep them in broad categories like Category:Converts to Islam unless there is a specific necessity for subdivision, such as a large number of individual articles that would merit their own sub-category. Ekantik ^talk 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~concerning the converts to islam delete all subcategories of european converts to islam except british converts to islam also keep american converts to islam --Java7837 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~for hindu converts keep only american converts--Java7837 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

No. What purpose do they serve? That is the purpose of this deletion discussion, I do not think that these sub-categories have a place for reasons mentioned above. If you think so, please specify why. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~American converts to islam has more than 100 articles--Java7837 23:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC) the groups i mentioned help organize and unclutter wikipedia--Java7837 23:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ignore earlier comments delete all of them--Java7837 03:16, 8 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 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: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 18:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized wrong. New category Category:Colorado Mammoth players has already been created, and all existing articles have been moved to the new category. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 17:59, 4 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 delete.--Wizardman 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is for people who own cats. While cat owners may feel strongly about this category, it does not bring together related articles (unless Anne Frank is related to Dita von Teese or Mel Brooks is related to Albert Schweitzer in some other way). The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose/strong keep-this category has already survived an Afd, what new justification (that was not used in the earlier Afd) do you have for renominating it? Chris 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 25#Category:Ailurophiles.

Comment - In that previous vote, I counted 9 votes to delete and 4 to keep. The nomination to delete had the support of more than 2/3 of the people who voted. I am surprised that the vote was closed as "no consensus" (which is not the same as "keep"). Clearly, a review of the category was warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial category. Mowsbury 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I created this, but only to replace the mis-spelled Category:Aileurophiles. —Ashley Y 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was created as a replacement for the deleted Category:Cat fanciers. Hobbies and interests are not what an encyclopedia is about, however important they seem to people who follow them. The idea that this sort of thing can create a "strong bond" between people who lived in different centuries is nonsensical. Osomec 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the benefit of Dr. Submillimeter, "ailurophiles" does not mean "people who own cats". Anne Frank, Dita Von Teese, Mel Brooks and Albert Schweitzer are indeed related in some way: they were all ailurophiles. What relates Bono, John F. Kennedy, Jr., Greta Scacchi and Prince Andrew, Duke of York? Is it more significant than what links the former list? I think not, but no-one's suggesting deleting their common category. Wikipedia has an impressively long list of things that, according to Osomec, an encyclopaedia is not about. According to my dictionary, an encyclopaedia is "a work containing information on every department, or on a particular department, of knowledge" (my italics) so I reject Osomec's rejection. Charivari 05:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (ailurophile but not a cat owner)[reply]
- Yes, it means less than "People who own cats." It means people who like cats, and that's far from a good reason for a category. Delete.--Mike Selinker 05:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic of any of these people - also difficult to reference. Could be listified, if properly referenced. Bob talk 11:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a defining characteristic, and it sets a bad precedent as a category. Craig.Scott 13:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned, not a defining charactistic for the people categorized. This is almost the perfect example of the kind of category that should not exist. zadignose 13:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a defining characteristic. Doczilla 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the current condition of the category is not representative of its value. I'd like to ask that people review the old discussion, and remind the nominator that these are not "straw polls". These are discussions and the reason it was closed as no consensus was that while more people may have "voted" to delete the category, very few of them added anything constructive to the conversation that was not dismissed by later "keep" arguments. Many votes to delete are for "not a defining characteristic." I agree that Anne Frank and Mel Gibson are not defined by their love of cats, if it was such a defining attribute, it would be mentioned in their respective articles - but the article on Dita Von Teese doesn't mention she even owned a cat. However, as mentioned in the old discussion, Cleveland Amory, Lillian Jackson Braun, Rita Mae Brown, and Jim Davis (cartoonist) are all specially noted for their connection to cats and just because people are abusing the category isn't a reason to delete it. The nom's reasons are therefore bunk. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete If we categorised everyone by all their hobbies or interests the category clutter would make the category system almost unusable, and any attempt to distinguish this from the thousands of similar categories which might exist (but thankfully do not) is just biased special pleading. Hawkestone 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment well i'll make the same argument i made before... classifying people by political affliation isn't anything more than classifying them by their interests. Why don't we classify every bio article on wikipedia with a political affilation? We don't because for most of those people, even if one were to ask them and they in fact had an affiliation, their political affiliation isn't a notable aspect of their lives. L. Frank Baum isn't known for his political activism, so it isn't mentioned in his article, and so he isn't categorized by that. The problem isn't that we are categorizing people by hobbies or interests notable to their notability - it's that editors are trying to categorize everyone by some non-defining characteristic. It's not the category's fault that people are misusing it. Concientious editors should be actively removing people who don't belong in the category, and then placing a note on the appropriate talk pages to let the contributor know why their addition was removed. No one is saying that we should categorize people by all their hobbies and interests, so please don't make straw men. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We shouldn't categorise anyone by hobby or interest, so please don't make the "other crap exists" argument. Piccadilly 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- response Well... see i disagree (and wasn't trying to have two wrongs make a right, just arguing precedence). If the hobby or interest is a defining characteristic pertinent to the reason why the person is notable then they should be categorized like such. Would you object to Category:Inventors, calling it "crap"? i would hope not becuase then great thinkers like Ben Franklin and Leonardo Da Vinci wouldn't be connected. However, inventing is often nothing more than a hobby or interest for many people who became famous for one of their inventions. Should someone not be considered an inventor by our categorization because conceivably it was only a hobby? I'll make the argument that since Leonardo primarly made money from his art his inventing was only a hobby or interest which he devoted a lot of free time to, and since we shouldn't categorize "anyone" by their interests or hobbies.... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leonardo da Vinci is celebrated as an inventor, and would have an article for that even if he had not painted any pictures. However, I'm not convinced anyone is celebrated as an Ailurophile, - looking at the articles, the people in this category are not. Annandale 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- response it doesn't matter if he's celebrated as an inventor... it's just a hobby. And i'm sick of people thinking that my arguments support the current use of the category. It's being misused, and if i need to rm all the wrong articles to better the dicussion... i will. btw, check out my above posts, listed are several people who are "celebrated" as ailurophiles. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the category has been cleaned up, and while a couple links remain to arguable articles, the overwhelming majority properly use this category. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What criteira were used to decide which articles to leave in the category and which ones to remove? The fixes made no sense. This now looks like it suffers from POV issues. Dr. Submillimeter 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - response - The criteria was whether or not their affinity for cats was an important enough aspect of their lives to be included in the article. Many were removed (like Mel Gibson) because the word cat doesn't even appear in their article, some were removed because the article didn't seem to explain what was so important about their fondness for cats. Some remained because "i wasn't sure". Some POV was excercised merely on my reading and interpretation of the article. Regular contributors who know more about the person will hopefully improve the article if they feel i removed the categorization incorrectly. Quite honestly i understand someone reading an article on Jim Davis (cartoonist) to then want to read about Lilian Jackson Braun it makes sense and aids in usability. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - As described, the clean-up strongly relied on subjective interpretation. Whether or not articles belong in this category strongly depends on the interpretations of individual editors and not any clear objective criteria. Categorization by the interpretation of the last editor to clean-up the article is not useful. For this reason, the category should still be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - response - I've given you the clear objective guidlines, i said i had to interpret some of them becuase quite honestly i'm not familiar with every living/dead persons biography - and had to assume in some cases that people merely added the categorization out of frivolity. The guidline is - "If the person's notability is directly related to their feline affinity, or their affinity itself is in some way notable." (e.g. There's a guy who's been featured on Ripley's and a couple Animal Planet shows and talk shows who converted his house into a kitty playland and had reportedly put several thousands of dollars into the house for these renovations, but as a result, decreased the homes value.) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a non-defining characteristic. Also note that temporary clean-ups during a debate carry no weight as a reason for retaining a category, as Wikipedia has no means for maintaining the category in a similar state in the long term. Honbicot 12:39, 11 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 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 x4, delete x1. >Radiant< 14:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename category:D-Block to category:D-Block members
rename category:The Max Weinberg 7 to category:The Max Weinberg 7 members
rename category:James Brown instrumentalists to category:The J.B.'s members
rename category:Funk Brothers to category:The Funk Brothers members
delete category:Bruce Springsteen musicians

The Brown category may require a slight pruning, but almost all of the members are part of The J.B.'s. The Springsteen category specifically doesn't include any of category:The E Street Band members, and so all the rest have very little to do with each other.--Mike Selinker 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and delete per nom, except I'd like to see a WP:RS that the "J.B.'s" has an apostrophe in it before renaming. Otto4711 18:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasonable enough request. Here is an album cover which shows the periods and apostrophe.--Mike Selinker 18:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, Springsteen toured and recorded three studio albums without the E Street Band in the 1990s, and, after a reunion, two more in 2005 and 2006. Should those other bandmates be categorized? ×Meegs 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. Those people never really formed a cohesive band; if we categorized The Miami Horns by everyone they played with, they would rival Alanis Morissette for sheer number of categories. Just my opinion, tho.--Mike Selinker 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I don't think so either, but I'm still trying to feel-out where you're drawing the line, especially when it come to acts that are named for one person. ×Meegs 11:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Me too. That's why I haven't done any for people like Gary Moore and Fiona (singer) yet, even though there are band members there. I'm thinking that unless the unit is recognized as a longtime band (like Elvis Presley's band with DJ Fontana, Scottie Moore, et al.), there should be no category. But I have no idea what to call a category like that. I'm sure the Springsteen category isn't anything close to a band, though.--Mike Selinker 14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Adding Category:Funk Brothers, entirely composed of members of this band.--Mike Selinker 23:25, 9 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 merge Category:National Hockey League Second Team All-Stars into Category:National Hockey League All-Stars. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Doesn't mean what you might think. The Second Team was just one side (the Canadian one) in the US-Canada all-star battle during the WWII years. So it's not any lower-ranked than the First Team, and shouldn't be separated.--Mike Selinker 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:37, 5 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 both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar to other sports by network categories. These are not being used to capture announcers as of yet, however, the articles within it are not specific to the individual networks. With that being the case and with the likelihood that it will follow the pattern of other similar categories in accumulating individual sportscasters, the category should be deleted. Otto4711 17:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my comments on similar categories further below. Dr. Submillimeter 09:37, 5 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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No article for Air the series, so no need for the empty category. - Denny 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SubSeven 21:52, 5 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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No article for Air the series, so no need for the empty category. - Denny 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SubSeven 21:52, 5 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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category superseded by Category - Ski areas and resorts in Finland. JBellis 16:36, 4 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) 12:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category was created to hold ESPN on ABC personalities. It is an improper performer by network categorization and should be deleted.. Otto4711 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The name is confusing. Dr. Submillimeter 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:39, 5 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 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: merge. >Radiant< 14:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic California people to Category:People from California

Merge - According to WP:OC, people should not be classified using subjective inclusion criteria such as "historic", "notable", or "cool". Presumably, anyone who is dead and who is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article will be "historic". This category should therefore be merged into Category:People from California. Dr. Submillimeter 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge first all possible articles (many of them) into Category:Californios; then make sure others are in their proper Category:California people by occupation category. Just merging into the massive Category:People from California category is of little help in identifying those people who played a role in California history. Only a small subset of California residents listed in WP played/play a role in its history. Hmains 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't just throw people into Category:People from California. There are a number of subcategories for the various geographic regions of the state and they should be put in the proper locations. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 7 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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another clutterful category being used to capture performer by network. The articles on actual games are already categorized in Category:ArenaBowl. Otto4711 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my comments on similar categories further below. Dr. Submillimeter 09:38, 5 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) 12:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category is being used as a performer by network holder wich is improper and leads to clutter on the broadcasters' articles. The articles on the games themselves are already located in Category:ArenaBowl. Otto4711 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:17, 4 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, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the articles in the category are for broadcasters associated with announcing football on CBS, which is an inappropriate performer by network classification. The two subcats are not specific to CBS, nor are the non-announcer articles. The category leads to massive clutter on the announcers' articles and should be deleted. Otto4711 16:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - (Recycled from 2 Mar 2007.) As stated by the nominator, these categories are mostly used to list either individual announcers who have appeared on a given show, individual games that have been featured on a given show, or list articles that cover multiple shows on multiple newtorks. For announcers, this categorization is infeasible, as the announcers work for multiple shows over the courses of their careers. For individual games, this categorization is inappropriate as it reflects a US-centric point of view. For the list articles, this categorization is inappropriate, as the lists do not focus on an individual network's broadcast. Only a few articles on the broadcast itself are located within the indivual categories, but these are more easily linked through the main topic article for each category rather than through the category (which will be very difficult to maintain, given that other editors will want to add the announcers and such back into the categories). Therefore, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 16:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't like the fact that the broadcasts only "relfect a U.S.-centric point-of-view" since according to you're profile, you live in the United Kingdom. Most of these games are based in the United States from the very beginning. It's not like we're talking about the Olympics, were I would be easier to understand your feelings. TMC1982 02:35 p.m., 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:17, 4 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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - similar to categories for other sports by network, these are being used to capture sportscasters who announce games on the networks. The non-broadcaster articles can and should be captured in other categories. These are serving as de facto performer by network categories and should be deleted. Otto4711 16:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - (Recycled from 2 Mar 2007.) As stated by the nominator, these categories are mostly used to list either individual announcers who have appeared on a given show, individual games that have been featured on a given show, or list articles that cover multiple shows on multiple newtorks. For announcers, this categorization is infeasible, as the announcers work for multiple shows over the courses of their careers. For individual games, this categorization is inappropriate as it reflects a US-centric point of view. For the list articles, this categorization is inappropriate, as the lists do not focus on an individual network's broadcast. Only a few articles on the broadcast itself are located within the indivual categories, but these are more easily linked through the main topic article for each category rather than through the category (which will be very difficult to maintain, given that other editors will want to add the announcers and such back into the categories). Therefore, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 16:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:17, 4 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) 12:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is for listing people in the Gang of Fourteen, a temporary political alliance that formed within the United States Senate in 2005. The category seems inappropriate, as the alliance was only for one specific situation (Senate votes to approve U.S. Federal Judges appointed by President Bush). Given the limited scope of the group, it seems inappropriate to have a category for these people. Dr. Submillimeter 15:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the cat served its purpose, and now American politics has moved on. There are much more relevant ways to categorize these senators than a temporary alliance. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the comments above, I'll also point out that any readers actually interested in finding articles for members of the Gang of Fourteen would probably just go to that main article. The list is also there, which means the category isn't really a necessary index. Dugwiki 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with above comment "the cat served its purpose, and now American politics has moved on." This should never have been a category in the first place. This type of thing is fine as an article/list. Quatloo 05:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Annandale 23:18, 9 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 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: merge. >Radiant< 14:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current female heads of state to Category:Female heads of state

Merge - Wikipedia generally does not sort people according to status (e.g. categories generally do not specify "current", "retired", "former", "living", or "deceased"). Therefore, I suggest merging this into Category:Female heads of state. Dr. Submillimeter 15:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Xdamr^talk 15:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~. Keep. It appears that this category is being properly maintained. There's no one in it that isn't currently head of state. There is also Category:Current national leaders which seems like a very useful category that is also being maintained. I see this as a fine subcategory of that. If it weren't being maintained I'd definitely argue for a merge, but it seems fine. — coel acan — 23:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge An encyclopedia shouldn't have a "current" anything. zadignose 14:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subcategory of Category:Current national leaders Normally categories don't differentiate between current and former. But the parent category, Category:Current national leaders, appears to be an exception and it survived a cfd challenge along the same lines. Given the existence of that parent category, I'm ok with having this category as a reasonable subcategory. (If the parent category didn't exist then my recommendation would probably be different.) Dugwiki 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps its time to revisit this category then? (WP:CCC etc). It certainly seems to fly against established practice - article content should be more than adequate to explain whether someone is currently in power or not.

Xdamr^talk 15:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as much for the feminist bias of the "female" part of the name as for bad precedent of dividing between former and current. Hawkestone 21:09, 7 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 delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - similar to categories for other sports by network categories, these are being used to improperly categorize sportscasters, making them improper personality by network categories. The articles within the categories that are for individual notable games, seasons or playoffs can be and are categorized separately. This categorization scheme leads to massive clutter on announcers who work in multiple sports for multiple networks. Otto4711 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - (Recycled from 2 Mar 2007.) As stated by the nominator, these categories are mostly used to list either individual announcers who have appeared on a given show, individual games that have been featured on a given show, or list articles that cover multiple shows on multiple newtorks. For announcers, this categorization is infeasible, as the announcers work for multiple shows over the courses of their careers. For individual games, this categorization is inappropriate as it reflects a US-centric point of view. For the list articles, this categorization is inappropriate, as the lists do not focus on an individual network's broadcast. Only a few articles on the broadcast itself are located within the indivual categories, but these are more easily linked through the main topic article for each category rather than through the category (which will be very difficult to maintain, given that other editors will want to add the announcers and such back into the categories). Therefore, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell do you mean, "relfects only a U.S.-centric point-of-view" when we're also talking about Canada!? TMC1982 02:37 p.m., 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The statement was recycled from another debate. I also did not see (and still do not see) the reference to a Canadian network. Please forgive the oversight. Dr. Submillimeter 09:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about the cat for Hockey Night in Canada. Otto4711 13:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No different than players who play on different teams. --Djsasso 05:49, 6 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) 12:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a prize for the popularization of science that goes to people who win many awards anyway (such as Arthur C. Clarke and Bertrand Russel). As stated before, categorization by award like this is not feasible, as it will lead to category clutter on these people's articles. The resultsing lists of categories for awards will be difficult to read. Therefore I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 15:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Annandale 23:19, 9 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) 12:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Except for this category, Academy Award winners are not sorted by ethnicity. This category therefore appears unnecessary for sorting. Moreover, this category contributes to category clutter; see, for example, Prince (musician). I therefore advocate deletion. (If someone wants to discuss discrimination against African Americans at the Academy Awards, then an article would be more useful than this category, which says nothing about why African Americans should be singled out.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I believe there is a previous CFD about this category)-- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't seem to find the discussion I recall, but I did find List of black Academy Award winners and nominees which is far superior to this category. -- Sam_{uel Wantman} 08:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I found it. It was Category:Academy Award Nominated Black Performers. Not quite the same. --Sam_{uel Wantman} 08:28, 9 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 merge Category:Songs by nationality into Category:Songs by country. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs by nationality to Category:Songs by country

Merge. Duplicates. Songs do not have a nationality. Abberley2 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Songs by country - This is a clear duplication. Dr. Submillimeter 14:49, 4 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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - similar to other sports by network categories, these categories are being used to categorize announcers on the various networks and other people, like Black Eyed Peas and Justin Timberlake, whose association with the NBA is tenuous at best. The articles on the various seasons and playoffs can be and are categorized separately. Categorizing sportcasters by sport/network intersecction leads to massive clutter on articles for people who announce multiple sports on multiple networks, as sportscasters frequesntly do. Otto4711 14:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abberley2 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - (Recycled from 2 Mar 2007.) As stated by the nominator, these categories are mostly used to list either individual announcers who have appeared on a given show, individual games that have been featured on a given show, or list articles that cover multiple shows on multiple newtorks. For announcers, this categorization is infeasible, as the announcers work for multiple shows over the courses of their careers. For individual games, this categorization is inappropriate as it reflects a US-centric point of view. For the list articles, this categorization is inappropriate, as the lists do not focus on an individual network's broadcast. Only a few articles on the broadcast itself are located within the indivual categories, but these are more easily linked through the main topic article for each category rather than through the category (which will be very difficult to maintain, given that other editors will want to add the announcers and such back into the categories). Therefore, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 14:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:18, 4 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 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. >Radiant< 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - This is the categorization of people by membership in a fraternal organization. The people generally categorized as Freemasons (or related organizations, such as the Shriners) are people who are much more notable for other activities than for being Freemasons. (For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, and Winston Churchill are all in this category tree.) Moreover, many of the articles on the people in these categories do not even mention Freemasonry, which further indicates that this is a trivial biographical aspect for many of these people. Furthermore, as stated further down in this page in the debate on Category:Suspected Freemasons, membership to the Freemasons may be kept secret, making this difficult to verify. Hence, it may be very difficult to verify that people belong in this category. For all of these reasons, the categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Category:Belgian Freemasons contains Template:Disputed. This is part of the reason why this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - although I take the point about verification, surely this more an issue for identification of candidates for inclusion in the categories. I'm not sure its a good reason for deletion. I would like to have agreed verification criteria for inclusion in the categories. Failing that, I am happy to support deletion. Frelke 15:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. Membership in these organizations is somewhere near (and probably above) my threshold for importance to justify categorization. I will go along with Submillimeter's proposal, though, because the secret nature of the organizations means that many of the cats' inclusions will inevitably be inaccurate or controversial. As such, I can't really treat this any differently than "Suspected Freemasons", below. I'll suggest the same thing here as there: lists and articles is the only way the cover these sets with adequate context, attribution, and discussion of any uncertainties involved. I am hoping to read others' thoughts on the matter. ×Meegs 15:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the fact that it is a bit of a trivial fact in the life of these individuals and lisitfy (one list of freemasons), when verifiable. Caveat: I created a good bit of these categories, but I did so to help out a newer user and for no other reason, so it shouldn't neccesarily be seen as a "creator does nto object to deletion" situation, per se. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think that membership in the Freemasons is a bit less trivial than others in the debate. It's almost a "religion" or "political affiliation"/"philosophy" by what I've seen, and WP categorizes people on thoses bases. As for verification; a list would be better (as always), but having a list doesn't mean we cannot have a category. Carlossuarez46 01:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually a list might be better here since you could indicate individuals who's membership has been confirmed, if that does happen, and those rumored to be members. The entries could also be cited so someone could follow up if they wanted. Vegaswikian 06:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If they (the lists) had a system for citation of membership, they are somewhat valuable Grye 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:There are still places in the world where someone's being tagged a Freemason could be destructive or even fatal to them, even be it by a 3rd party & uncited... Grye 03:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: On the "support for deletion" side of the arguement, yes it is absolutely 1000% an issue that these lists provide for the often-POV addition of the cat:Freemason tag! This is a significant issue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry. The very significant (& only, that I see) problem with these cats is the verification/citation issue. If they had a system for citation of membership, they are somewhat valuable. & to address the statements that Masonic membership is rarely if ever verifiable, this is not as accurate for many of these people. many of them are citable. In short, the cats are often useful; there definitely is a real problem w/citation; the solution to most issues is probably in helping with that citation. Grye 17:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominators logic is clear and correct. Per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious delete. My main concern is about the "Masonic Knights Templar" category. We had an extensive discussion about that one a year ago, and decided to create it since, without it, many biographies were getting categorized as "Knights Templar", which was causing confusion with the medieval order of Knights Templar. I could see getting rid of the Masonic cat though, and just categorizing the modern bios as Freemasons. If it causes considerable confusion, we can always try to re-create that one "Masonic Knights Templar" category to untangle things. However, in terms of this CfD, it might be best to simply remove the Masonic Knights Templar category from the nom, since it doesn't really serve the same purpose as the others. --Elonka 06:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Category:Masonic Knights Templar suffers the same problems as the other categories. For example, Harry S. Truman is listed in that specific category. However, his article makes no mention of this specific status, nor is it clear than Truman's status in the Freemasons was in any way important to his career. Even if he belonged to the organization and achieved this status, it would need to be supported by a reliable reference. If the Freemasons are secretive about such things, then verifying that Truman was a Masonic Knight Templar may be very difficult. Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The Freemasons are not "secretive about such things", at least not in the US and UK... their membership rolls are public record. This is not as true elsewhere (it depends on the country and its history). However, you do have a point about the import of the categorization. In Truman's case, since he was Grand Master of Masons in the State of Missouri, his membership in the Masons probably did have some impact on his political career. His membership in the Masonic Knights Templar (a "side" body where one has to be a Mason to Join) less so. The question is, did either have enough of an impact to merit a categorization. Blueboar 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - If Truman's article had mentioned Freemasonry, then I would believe that it was important enough for categorizing him as a Freemason. (Maybe someone should add some information on his membership to the article.) However, his article and many others in this tree do not even mention Freemasonry. It is therefore unclear as to whether this is even relevant for many people. Dr. Submillimeter 10:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Or else listify. - Privacy 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, inappropriate in category space. Quatloo 05:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If one accepts as a basic rule of categorisation, that the categories are supposed to be used only for the most essential characteristics, these categories make claims for the central importance of Freemasonry in the lives of the subjects of the articles which in most cases will be debatable at best, and probably just wrong. Hawkestone 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, being a freemason was very important in fact I would say it is a defining charactersic Ulysses Zagreb 09:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It is highly doubtful that being a Freemason is all that important. These categories tend to reflect a conspiracy theorist's view of the world. Annandale 23:20, 9 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 delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - similar to the NFL on TV categories, these are being used largely to categorize personalities who are involved with NASCAR broadcasts, making them improper performer by network categorization. The television programs themselves appear to all be in Category:NASCAR media already, which is where they belong. These categories lead to clutter for broadcasters who can and do work for a variety of networks announcing a variety of sports. Otto4711 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - (Recycled from 2 Mar 2007.) As stated by the nominator, these categories are mostly used to list either individual announcers who have appeared on a given show. For announcers, this categorization is infeasible, as the announcers work for multiple shows over the courses of their careers. Only a few articles on the broadcast itself are located within the indivual categories, but these are more easily linked through the main topic article for each category rather than through the category (which will be very difficult to maintain, given that other editors will want to add the announcers and such back into the categories). Therefore, I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested. Similar to the golf category. Mowsbury 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three in agreement with the nomination and Dr. Sub. Barno 15:23, 5 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 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: judgment call, but merge since there aren't any other subcats of auto racing films so this one seems arbitrary. >Radiant< 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NASCAR films to Category:Auto racing films

Merge - It strikes me as overcategorization to subdivide auto racing films on the basis of what auto racing franchise is involved with them. Otto4711 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Films for other sports are not sorted according to league or association (e.g. no one has created a category for NFL films). The category should be merged. Dr. Submillimeter 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Category:NFL Films. It's a production company, though, not a catch-all for movies with NFL games in them. Otto4711 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge. It allows the NASCAR films to be categorized within the NASCAR category structure (specifically Category:NASCAR media). There has been a recent push towards making NASCAR-oriented movies in the US, so I expect the number of articles in this category to continue growing. I have posted a message in WikiProject NASCAR to obtain more discussion from additional interested parties. Royalbroil^T : C 20:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for reasons noted by Royalbroil. Not all the listed films had any formal association with the NASCAR organization, and none are from NASCAR's equivalent to NFL Films. All were marketed in ways that featured (not just happened to include) NASCAR or cartoon-equivalent stock car racing. I think there is more documented cultural significance, i.e. encyclopedic value, in this category than there would be for "Indycar films", "SCCA films", or even "Formula One films". I would vote to merge any of those to Category:Auto racing films, unless someone showed books and TV shows verifying as much interest paid to those groups as has been paid to movies specifically about NASCAR's big league. Barno 15:19, 5 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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles for thousands of rock musicians, and a single flat category containing them all will not be useful. The system we have in place is to give each band its own category (e.g. Category:The Clash members), which is in turn a member of Category:Musicians by band. We also categorize individual musicians by instrument, nationality and genre within Category:Musicians. Delete. ×Meegs 13:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Was going to nominate for deletion myself but didn't have time. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I forgot to say, if kept, it requires speedy renaming to change "Members" to "members". — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any member of a band should be in an existing musician category (and a category for their band if it exists), which gives a better relationship between articles than this category. Also, many musicians will have been part of a band at some point in their career, so this isn't really useful. mattbr³⁰ 14:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is the sixth page I've made, and I am really annoyed now because they were all pointlessly deleted after I used up all saturday working on those, and my band member category took me about 6 hours to make it- so if it is deleted then I means I've wasted my whole weekend. Plus If you think THAT page is pointless, then look at the living people category. FromtheJasonater 16:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that you are annoyed. Categorization is a tricky area to work in because it requires laborious editing of many pages and a lot of coordination with the work of other people. Before beginning large categorization projects, it is usually a good idea to consult with others. If you're interested in musicians or bands, you might want to visit WikiProject Musicians or WikiProject Albums to talk to editors with similar interests. You also mentioned Category:Living people. It is very much a special case. You're right, it is pretty much useless for most of the things we use categories for, and when it was created, it was extraordinarily controversial. Its sole purpose is to allow editors to monitor biographies of living people, which are particularly sensitive. ×Meegs 16:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry that you wasted your time, but caetgroizing people by whether they happened to have at some point in their lives been in a band is unnecessary in the face of the far superior existing categorization scheme of categorizing by specific band membership. As for Category:Living people, my understanding is that it is maintained at least in part of legal reasons because of WP:BLP. Otto4711 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consider putting these folks into subcategories of Category:Musicians by band, though. That category is fairly new, and could use help getting filled up.--Mike Selinker 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unpractical. Garion96 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The redundancy, vagueness, and non-Wikipedia capitalization demonstrate that while the category creator has enthusiasm that can be directed into constructive efforts, he/she needs to become more familiar with Wikipedia before embarking on category creation. Doczilla 19:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Doktor Who 00:53, 8 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 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: no consensus. It would be nice if there was a standard for this but it turns out that there isn't. >Radiant< 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Zealand foreign ministers to Category:Ministers of Foreign Affairs of New Zealand

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, using official job title as per most articles from presidents, prime ministers etc. ReeseM 13:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — the trouble is, the post has had other names over the years. Keeping it as "foreign ministers", in lower case, allows it to apply to anyone serving in that role, regardless of what they were actually titled. -- Vardion 18:21, 4 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 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: no consensus. >Radiant< 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Towns in Trinidad and Tobago to Category:Cities and towns in Trinidad and Tobago

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as it covers both cities and towns, as does the related list. Many countries have combined categories for cities and towns. Carina22 12:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ReeseM 13:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cities are a subgroup of towns, so current name is accurate; in addition, there are only 2 cities, so it seems a bit excessive. Guettarda 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose if there is a legal distinction in Trinidad and Tobago between cities and towns, then there should be separate categories for them; rename if there is just an informal naming distinction made between cities and towns. What are the two cities, by the way? Hmains 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Port of Spain and San Fernando. And yes, there is a legal distinction (much like in the UK). Guettarda 19:32, 4 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 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: merge. >Radiant< 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the one below.--Mike Selinker 17:13, 4 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:Current National Hockey League General Managers to Category:National Hockey League general managers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With very few exceptions, we do not separate current/former or active/inactive items into different categories. Dated guarantees, like this one's "as of November 19th, 2006," do not work for categories, as it is very difficult to track edits across multiple articles. The problem was mentioned but not resolved when the cat's acronym was expanded, here. There is also a capitalization problem. There are two solutions: either merge this to Category:National Hockey League executives or rename it Category:National Hockey League general managers. I don't know if the GM distinction is worthwhile, but see that there are already two team-specific GM cats. ×Meegs 10:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:National Hockey League general managers - Separate categories are generally not maintained for active and retired/deceased people in general. Dr. Submillimeter 14:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:National Hockey League general managers. No living/dead categories for occupations.--Mike Selinker 17:07, 4 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Suspected" is used as a weasel word in this context. This is a bad way to categorize people in general, as it may be used to suggest false associations or to make false accusations. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename if necesary. I accept that suspected could be seen as negative. However the nature of Freemasonry is that membership is kept secret or semi-secret (reasonably in many regimes) and there are people who are often named as Freemasons for which there is no way of verifying. Examples are Friedrich von Schiller and Ludwig van Beethoven. If there are suggestions for renaming then I would be interested in hearing. JASpencer 10:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A "suspicion" may be sufficient to support a mention in an article, where it can be sourced, but it is does not justify entry in a category as categories deal in absolutes. Furthermore I have my doubts about keeping category:Freemasons as well, as it is basically a club membership. ReeseM 13:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Category:Freemasons has been nominated for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 15:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone or other suspecting membership in an organization can not be the basis for a cat. The only way to cover this set is in an article or list, where we can give context and name the theorizing historians for each member. ×Meegs 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If kept or no consensus, suggest rename to (something like) People believed to be Freemasons, i.e. something less edgy. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative and inflammatory category. Doczilla 05:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Suspected" is not appropriate. Why not have a "suspected homosexuals" category? As noted, categories imply an absolute judgement that an article fits its classification. We can't hedge our bets with a "suspected" cat. Regarding the above comment about people who are often named, though there's no way of verifying... if there's no way to verify, then don't categorize. We are supposed to deliver verified and verifiable information, not use categories to convey our suspicions. zadignose 14:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
1. it is entirely negative. Renaming is not a solution, as the entire concept is... POV-derived?
2. Imagine that the cat were applied to living persons. similar consideration should be given others
3. It seems unencyclopedic to have wholy unverifiable information. While I agree that there may be some significance to a person's Masonic affiliation, if it were so significant that they were suspected of being a Freemason, then their article itself should address that subject!
4. See zadignose's comment

Grye 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per POV. I can smell the libel suits coming... IAAL. — Dale Arnett 18:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the disclaimer on the page alone is enough to merit deletion, never mind BLP issues when being a Mason can be considered defamatory. MSJapan 03:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV/innuendo. Quatloo 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherent POV, unverifiable by the very concept. WegianWarrior 10:14, 7 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is used to designate people whom the Phi Iota Alpha fraternity thinks are notable. The people in this category are historically famous hispanic people (such as Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti. These people are known much more for their historical actions than for being honored by a U.S. fraternity, and they already receive much historical recognition anyway. Moreover, many people and organizations have recognized the contributions of Bolivar, Marti, and others; creating categories for all organizations honoring these people would lead to a vast, unreadable list of categories. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please keep up the good work. ReeseM 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that we do not have categories for most award's winners. This honor is of very little interest outside of discussion of the fraternity, and offers little utility to the readers of Simon Bolivar to justify the clutter at the article's bottom. These are prominently listed at Phi Iota Alpha#Pillars, though their significance to the organization should really be better explained. ×Meegs 14:34, 4 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) 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete asper resul of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 3#Weapon Plus/Weapon X as list article has been created and "Listify" tag satisfied. J Greb 08:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Doczilla 19:17, 5 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 rename Category:Louisiana-Monroe Indians basketball players to Category:Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks basketball players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Louisiana-Monroe Indians basketball players to Category:Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks basketball players

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. Category should reflect current school nickname, even if the players currently in the category played as "Indians" instead of "Warhawks". Will also support a change to Category:Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks men's basketball players. Dale Arnett 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The change was just this academic year, [2] and the football cat has already moved. Good job as always, Dale. ×Meegs 11:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Good catch. Put a note on the category to explain the name change.--Mike Selinker 17:32, 4 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) 12:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional bird lovers

~~Category:Fictional characters with the power of advanced hearing~~

~~Category:Fictional characters with Electronic data transception~~

~~Category:Fictional characters who have the power of vocal persuasion~~

Delete I see no point of having this useless categories. Af648 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category may be interpreted in many ways. It looks unnecessary. (The page needs a CFD template.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - CFD template added. Dr. Submillimeter 08:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Af648 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question – Af648, I'm not clear why you added [3] and then struck [4] the three superpower categories to this nomination. There is no problem discussing them all together, and Dr. S has since tagged the last three for you, too. Right now, do you think that we should delete all four, or just bird lovers? ×Meegs 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I should have payed attention to the dates, not just the times, of Dr. S's edits. The last three cats are all currently listed at February 27. ×Meegs 15:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not especially useful as a category. Bob talk 11:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per insane precedent / stupidness. I saw this and thought "Jesus Christ..."~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally useless and unnecessary. DivineLady 14:08, 9 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 merge Category:Police Academy films and Category:Police Academy into Category:Police Academy film series. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Police Academy films to Category:Police Academy

Merge redundant categories. Otto4711 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further suggest renaming the result to Category:Police Academy film series to bring it in line with other similar categories and to avoid any ambiguity that this has to do with actual police academies. Otto4711 01:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename per Otto. — Dale Arnett 18:37, 5 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 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: merge. >Radiant< 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scream films to Category:Scream (film series)

Merge - redundant categories. Also suggest renaming the result to Category:Scream film series to remove the unnecessary parentheses. Otto4711 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge uniformly If you are going to upmerge one of the subcategories, you should do both. I.E., also upmerge Category:Scream characters. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all categories per Tony, rename to Category:Scream film series per Otto. — Dale Arnett 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Renaming to whatever everyone else agrees on is fine by me. — Dale Arnett 00:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tony. Doczilla 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename to Category:Scream (trilogy) to match main article I agree that both should be merged. In addition, the name of the category should match the name of the associated main article, which is this case is Scream (trilogy). So either rename the merged category to Category:Scream (trilogy) or rename the main article to match its category. (Either is ok with me, so long as the names match.) Dugwiki 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with whatever solution regarding the name and subcats. Although I really don't like parentheses in article titles, so I'm thinking I'll move Scream (trilogy) to Scream trilogy. Otto4711 14:56, 7 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a form of performer by project or producr by project categorization. Many people involved in filmmaking have relatives who are also involved in filmmaking, which could lead to films being categorized with no point of commonality other than a member of a particular family was attached to it. Otto4711 02:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When family members work together (such as the Wayans brothers), it makes sense to categorize the films that they produced together. However, these categories are being used to group all films made by family members who worked separately from each other. Grouping these films together is therefore inappropriate. (Additional information: "Band" is the name of a person.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReeseM 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague, pointless category. Doczilla 19:15, 5 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.

March 4

Category:Tingle games

Category:John Wayne

Category:Rudolph Valentino

Category:Barbra Streisand

Category:William Shatner

Category:Olsen twins

Category:Marilyn Monroe

Category:Audrey Hepburn

Category:Mel Gibson

Category:Hilary Duff

Category:Steve Coogan

Category:Sacha Baron Cohen

Category:Ingrid Bergman

Fred Astaire

Category:Aly & AJ

Category:Video game wikis

Category:Sherbro People

Category:Norwegian government ministers

Category:NBC Golf

Category:The CFL on CTV

Category:The CFL on CBC

Sports by network

Category:European converts to Hinduism

Category:Colorado Mammoth Players

Category:Ailurophiles

More musicians by band

Category:National Hockey League Second Team All-Stars to Category:National Hockey League All-Stars

Category:NBC College Football

Category:Air (TV series) episodes

Category:Air (series) characters

Category:Ski resorts in Finland

Category:ESPN on ABC

Category:Historic California people

Category:The Arena Football League on ESPN

Category:The AFL on NBC

Category:CBS College Football

MLB on TV

Category:Gang of Fourteen

Category:Current female heads of state

NHL on TV

Category:Kalinga Prize winners

Category:African-American Academy Award winners

Category:Songs by nationality

NBA on TV

Category:Freemasons

NASCAR on TV

Category:NASCAR films

Category:Band Members

Category:New Zealand foreign ministers

Category:Towns in Trinidad and Tobago

Category:Historical National Hockey League Divisions to category:National Hockey League divisions

Category:Current National Hockey League General Managers

Category:Suspected Freemasons

Category:Phi Iota Alpha pillars

Category:Weapon X

Category:Louisiana-Monroe Indians basketball players

Category:Fictional bird lovers

Category:Police Academy films

Category:Scream films

Films by families