< May 10	May 12 >

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Extremely vague name. I believe "Pokémon anime characters" more accurately describes the characters that are currently listed in this category. hbdragon88 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pokemon series characters maybe? Feydakin 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pokémon anime characters sounds good. After the rename, there are a few things from the parent category that can be moved into it. --- RockMFR 23:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Home Improvement TV Shows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to Category:Home renovation television series. If there is a distinction, it isn't apparent. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge redundant. ST47Talk 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as an entirely nonsense category. I have depopulated the category at its only location and deleted an identical category created by the author.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles which have been seen by internationally recognised figures who have published work in the field[edit]

Category:Articles which have been seen by internationally recognised figures who have published work in the field (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, There is no way to moniter which articles should be in such a categoryu; it is a self-ref; it does not in any way help the project; and it will merely lead to an endless debate of which people are "internationally recognised figures"; and what difference does it make who has read -- as opposed to edited -- an article in any case? None. DES ^(talk) 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (and suspect this category not seriously intended). David Kernow (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ST47Talk 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contains only one article, an article extensively revised by the same editor who created this category. DGG 00:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename because as many of the subcategory-names acknowledge, some of the first-tier subdivisions of Canada are territories. Cloachland 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and per parent Category:Provinces and territories of Canada. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Jewish descent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete, Category created for one individual, no reasonable criteria for inclusion; does it mean someone who has a Jewish grandparent? Great-great-great-grandparent? Is this a one-drop rule thing? At some point it would encompass hundreds of millions of people. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Del - per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. These categories and lists are getting out of hand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems to be a less than useful category. - Doright 22:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Del I simply cannot conceive of any reasonable circumstances where this would be meaningful. Why not have a category for people of African descent - then we can include all human beings on the planet (yes it will take time but with an army of Wikipedians and phone-books, I think this is doable). 217.205.212.162 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do away with most, if not all, of these unusually motivated ethnic categories. Bulldog123 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Isarig 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete excessively broad category per above. Doczilla 07:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List of Jews more useful for this kind of thing Gzuckier 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I created this cat page to house Category:Canadians of Jewish descent to house Mark Steyn whose page as a month ago mentioned his Jewish ancestry, text that has since been edited out. (I believe the comment was unsourced.) And why has this link already been killed while the discussion hasn t been closed? Mayumashu 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion log says that it was deleted as a "Fork of existing and established category" by User:^demon after having been nominated for speedy deletion as ((db|page was recently deleted. Duplicates [[Category:Jews]])). The speedy tag was added before this CfD was created, and the categ was never tagged for CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see. Thanks for the going to the trouble of answering! Mayumashu 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:That '70s Show to Category:That '70s Show episodes

• Merge - all of the articles except two are for episodes. Many of the articles are in the episodes cat already but this should be merged in case any aren't so they aren't orphaned. Otto4711 21:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tanner '88 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - category is not needed for one article and a characters subcat. Otto4711 21:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary. ST47Talk 23:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename per amended proposals (specifically, splitting "Archaeological sites" and "Monasteries" categories). Conscious 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A group of categories needs to be renamed per Wikipedia:Categorization and per earlier precedents Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_9#Category:Political_parties_in_Palestine and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_9#Palestinian_territories. In short:

• Palestine is a geographic region with unstable borders
• Palestinian National Authority is a political entity
• Palestinian territories (not Palestine territories) and Israeli-occupied territories are controversial POV terms. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed moves

• Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli-occupied territories to Category:Archaeological sites in the Palestinian territories
• Category:Monasteries in the Palestine territories to Category:Monasteries in the Palestinian territories
• Category:Airlines of Palestine to Category:Airlines in the Palestinian territories
• Category:Aviation in Palestine to Category:Aviation in the Palestinian territories
• Category:Sport in Palestine to Category:Sport in the Palestinian territories
• Category:National symbols of Palestine to Category:National symbols of the Palestinian National Authority
• Category:Elections in Palestine to Category:Elections in the Palestinian National Authority

Nominator's Rationale: Rename for the reason stated above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • After reading the comments below, I am slightly changing my vote. Indeed, the following cats seem more precise: Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank, Category:Archaeological sites in the Gaza Strip, Category:Monasteries in the West Bank and Category:Monasteries in the Gaza Strip. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all because this naming system excludes the Gaza Strip. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... except for the Palestinian National Authority renames, which excludes East Jerusalem and those areas of the West Bank outside PNA control. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • Thank for pointing this out BHG, now Gaza is included. Please reconsider. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's better, but the "in the Palestinian National Authority" isn't grammatically correvt, or geographically inclusive. Why not just call them all "West Bank and Gaza Strip"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in general with the following caveat: based on practice and the compromise with Palmiro linked above, I believe that the convention is to use "Palestinian National Authority" for governmental content, "Palestinian territories" for social/etc., and "West Bank" or "Gaza Strip" respectively for specific geography. Since none of these relate to historical "Palestine", I still support, though I would probably rename some of them eventually. Tewfik^Talk 22:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all. More logical names. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, except suggest:

• Category:Aviation in Palestine to Category:Aviation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
• Category:Transport in the Palestinian territories to Category:Transport in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
• Category:Sport in Palestine to Category:Sport in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

...as I'm not sure if transport or sport can "be" in an authority, i.e. a governing body. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Limited support per Tewfik and David Kernow. Can Humus_sapiens modify his proposal to take into this consideration? It's good to be consistent as I was just noticing these issues myself. I am listing this on WP Palestine's notice board and deletion sorting for thoroughness. --Abnn 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've modified them here per consensus mentioned by Tewfik. Please review and let's update the corresponding pages. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's have this CfD run its course for now. There is no rush on such a renaming. --Abnn 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE I have brought up on WP Palestine and with Tewfik the need to develop a relatively standard consensus on category naming across all Palestinian categories, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#Consistent_Palestinian_naming_standards. --Abnn 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• After discussion with Carlossuarez46, I've realised that some editors would prefer that the "Monasteries" and "Archaeological sites in" be appended to West Bank or Gaza Strip. I personally agree; what does the proposer think? Tewfik^Talk 06:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Neutral on Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli-occupied territories. I guess it would be impossible to make any of these "Palestinian territories" categories subcategories of the related "Israel" categories. Right now all archeological cites in the Palestinian territories are listed under Category:Archaeological sites in Israel. All of the arceological work seems to be done by Israelies, so there is some justification for this. At the same time this classification constitutes cultural theft. The excavations themself may be illegal under international law. I tried to solve the problem by creating the subcategory under Israel, and moved all the sites I could find not in Israel proper to the new category. It seems that they have once again been "stolen" by Israeli POV-pushers. I do not think naming the category to "Palestinia -something" would please these Israeli zealots. -- Petri Krohn 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are reading the proposal carefully. Try reading it again. --Abnn 01:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be possible to create Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank and Gaza Strip like we now (since April 15) have Category:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights. If we create Category:Archaeological sites in the Palestinian territories the sites would end up also listed in Category:Archaeological sites in Israel, allowing Israel to claim (Wiki)ownership over them. -- Petri Krohn 01:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reading too much into this category renaming, although I could be wrong. I would think that if one can place "Palestinian territories" as a category of "Israel", then one can equally place "West Bank and Gaza Strip' as a category of "Israel", thus I don't see the rational for one over the other based on your line of reasoning. There is a preference on the part of some people here (including myself I must admit) for "Palestinian territories" as that is more the standard naming scheme in use in this general topic area as I understand it. --Abnn 02:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything goes for me, as long as you prevent the sites from ending up in category Category:Archaeological sites in Israel. You will have to do a lot of work defending your category, whatever its name is. -- Petri Krohn 03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Tewfik's caveat. (Though "National symbols" could be read any of the three ways, it appears to me.) Alai 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Humus and Tewfik. --Shamir1 04:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is an issue that has just been posted for discussion at the WikiProject Palestine page. To go ahead and rename now without garnering feedback from those editors invested in the project would just lead to series of edit wars and changes later on. Specific problems related to each of these proposed changes include:
• Category:National symbols of Palestine to Category:National symbols of the Palestinian National Authority
• Well over half the Palestinian population does not live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip but that does not mean that they do not have national symbols. Where does the PLO fit it here? It predates the Palestinian Authority and is still operating. Where do other Diaspora groups go?
• Category:Elections in Palestine to Category:Elections in the Palestinian National Authority
• What about electoral politics related to Diaspora organization like the PLO or the Hamas-leadership in Syria?
• Category:Airlines of Palestine to Category:Airlines in the Palestinian territories
• What about airlines and airports that existed in British Mandate Palestine like the Lod airport?
• Category:Aviation in Palestine to Category:Aviation in the Palestinian territories
• Same as above.
• Category:Sport in Palestine to Category:Sport in the Palestinian territories
• What about Palestinian Olympic teams and other Palestinian sports figures who are made up of not just people from the Palestinian territories but from the Diaspora as well?
• Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli-occupied territories to Category:Archaeological sites in the Palestinian territories
• What about archaeological sites in East Jerusalem or the Seam Zone?
• Category:Monasteries in the Palestine territories to Category:Monasteries in the Palestinian territories
• Same as above. Tiamut 10:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further problems are summarized in my statements below which were posted at the Palestine WikiProject page: Why is this list completely restricted to the Palestinian National Authority and the West Bank and Gaza?

Where do places like occupied East Jerusalem and the Seam Zone go? (i.e. places that are neither under the control of the PA, nor in Israel whose borders in any case are undefined)

Where do places like Nazareth and Umm al-Fahm go? (i.e. cities with a majority or totally Palestinian population currently located in Israel)

Where do places like Amqa and Al-Zeeb go? (i.e. villages that were depopulated and destroyed during the war of 1948 but tend to be located within what is now claimed by Israel, even though they are no longer physcially present)

Where do articles like Palestine, Canaanites, etc., fit in? (i.e. articles related to Palestinian history?)

Where do articles on Land Day and October 2000 events go? (i.e. political events that involve Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel)

While I appreciate the attempt at categorization, it's very narrow and doesn't deal with almost half of the articles related to Palestine. It needs more work that addresses these complex and important issues. Tiamut 09:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine"

• Support per Humus and Tewfik. 6SJ7 18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now; the proposal has been so modified and each category has several renames proposed that I wonder if consensus can be devined for the myriad proposals. I think that handling each cat separately is prefered. That said, I think that the cats be re-done as:

Archaeological sites and for the most part monasteries have little to do with what government comes and goes, they are almost like stationary geographical features (e.g., mountains, rivers, lakes, etc.), so they are grouped by geography, not by claimed state status (otherwise we'd have Category:Mountains of Kurdistan (which by happenstance we do have, perhaps as a sub-national rather than a super-national or proto-national description?), Category:Rivers of the Confederate States of America, Category:Cities in Biafra and the like).

• Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli-occupied territories to Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank and Category:Archaeological sites in the Gaza Strip (one is probably legally Jordanian territory, the other Egyptian; there are proposals to put a Palestinian state on portions of one and all of the other, but they are currently just proposals). and for the same reason:
• Category:Monasteries in the Palestine territories to Category:Monasteries in the West Bank and Category:Monasteries in the Gaza Strip

Airlines/Sport/National symbols/Elections are "national" (i.e., heavy influenced or dependent on what the current population is like) rather than geographic; another way to know the difference is that for these categories we don't really need to know what the borders are (where for monasteries and archaeological sites we do) or whether or not the "government" has control or not over those territories (just like we wouldn't exclude from say Category:Cities in Somalia, Category:Archaeological sites in Cyprus, or Category:Rivers of Afghanistan, the cities, sites, and rivers in the parts of each country where the "government" doesn't hold control). These should be "Palestinian territories", so:

• Category:Airlines of Palestine to Category:Airlines in the Palestinian territories
• Category:Aviation in Palestine to Category:Aviation in the Palestinian territories
• Category:Sport in Palestine to Category:Sport in the Palestinian territories
• Category:National symbols of Palestine to Category:National symbols of the Palestinian territories
• Category:Elections in Palestine to Category:Elections in the Palestinian territories

Carlossuarez46 20:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove my opposition in general; I still think the discussion is confused, but Tewfik pointed out correctly that my comments to the Archaeological Sites and Monasteries were consistent with his; it is those "geographic" things I am more interested in and so I will concur with Tewfik in those; as to the second, based on "national" characteristics, between Palestinian territories or Palestinian Authority, I still prefer the former but could live with the latter (although it would be odd to say National symbols of the Fooian government, Airlines of the Fooian government, etc., and as best I can tell that's what use of Palestinian Authority actually equates to). Carlossuarez46 06:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am still very concerned by the use of the term "Palestinian territories" considering that its exact definition is contested. Does it include East Jerusalem? Does it include the Seam Zone? Does it include the Jordan Valley region which is Area C and under the full control of the Israelis? Isn't using such terminology wholly misleading? Further, how are the "National symbols of the Palestinian territories" different from the national symbols of the Palestinian people at large? If you are talking only about the symbols of the Palestinian National Authority, it should be named as such. I feel we still need time to hash these issues out and explore how the nuances in this very complex situation can be best represented. For now, I remain opposed to such a broad renaming since it sets a precedent for other categories before we have resolved the issues raised throughout this page. Tiamut 10:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you rather have instead of Palestinian territories? I personally believe that any grey areas will exist and need discussion no matter what we call them, but for those few cases, as well as for the majority, the current names are far more incorrect than any of the options on the table. Tewfik^Talk 16:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tewfik; ambiguities will always remain. However, for geographic terms only a few ambiguities really exist between Israel & West Bank and Tiamut has pointed them out. Currently, East Jerusalem and Seam Zone are categorized in Category:West Bank, therefore their archaeological sites would be categorized in Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank, and monasteries, etc., too. Presumably what airlines, sports, and transport that are Seam Zone- or East Jerusalem-specific would be categorized as Category:Airlines in the Palestinian territories, etc. Some of these categories (and therefore the dispute over them) seem quite hypothetical, the one article in the airlines category is based in Gaza; as there are no commercial airports in either the Seam Zone or East Jerusalem, it seems unlikely that there are or will be any airlines that could meet WP notability (and thus have an article) based solely in either of those locations. Similarly, the sport category has 2 subcategories: Category:Football in the Palestinian territories and Category:Palestine at the Olympics, neither of which is Seam Zone or East Jerusalem specific (and because they encompass both the West Bank and Gaza should be categorized Category:Sport in the Palestinian territories and not split Category:Sport in the West Bank and Category:Sport in the Gaza Strip), and I highly doubt we would see an article Seam Zone at the Olympics or such, this dispute also seems more hypothetical than real. Carlossuarez46 18:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is the setting of precedents on how to name other categories. Further, why confine Palestinian sport to the territories when the teams are made up also of diaspora people. Why not name it simply, Category:Palestinian athletes? It is necessary to think about these changes in depth before moving forward. Tiamut 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree for many reasons: First many teams in many sports in many countries are made up of people from other countries (diaspora people as you may term it) it would be exceedingly impossible and clutter to create categories such as Category:Athletes of Fooland originally from Xyzland for 200 x 200 different possibilities. Second, sportspeople are categorized by their "nation" (here, the Palestinian territories): A Palestinian-American athlete is not a Palestinian athlete any more than a German-American athlete is a German one. Third, consensus has been to remove ethnic/religious categories of sportspeople because they are an improper intersection of qualities; an athlete of Fooland who is ethnically Palestinian plays his/her sport no differently than any other athlete of Fooland does. Carlossuarez46 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Category:National symbols of the Palestinian National Authority. The Palestinian National Authority is not a nation. It is a provisional authority set up with agreement with Isprael, the occupying power. The only nation is the State of Palestine, the PNA is just borrowing its symbols. -- Petri Krohn 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the symbols aren't exclusive to the PNA, so while I don't particularly mind since they are the governing authority, I would be open to some other formulation (I think Abnn suggested simply including them in Category:Palestinian nationalism). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for all moves This is long overdue. To avoid confusion and to be consistent, changes must be made, and essentially many were already. Amoruso 09:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the "State of Palestine" exists only in theory at present so territories is a better description. Number 57 09:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Humus Feydakin 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Humus sapiens. In particular, Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli-occupied territories is a monstrous term. In fact it has only two items in it and should be deleted.--Redaktor 05:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This school has different nicknames for its men's and women's athletic programs; in fact, the men's and women's athletic departments are completely separate. See Arkansas Lady'Backs. This also will make the category title consistent with Arkansas Razorbacks basketball and Arkansas Razorbacks basketball players. — Dale Arnett 19:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, now that the womens team has been renamed. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University and college namesakes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete This is an essentially co-indcidental connection between people whose lives had little in common. Alex Middleton 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I have dumped the categ membership into a List of University and college namesakes, which someone can tidy up if they think the info is worth keeping, or delete at AfD if they think it's complete trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 12:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree that it is "essentially co-indcidental." The importance of people for whom colleges and universities were named is a significant characteristic researchers and general readers do (and will) enjoy exploring. This cat encourages and enables such. Pastorwayne 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any such researchers can go to the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hmm..I saw something like this on college trivia pages so I guess it is really trivia-ish. Feydakin 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norwegian Champions League winners (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete This appears to be the only such category for a nationality (it is being used for individuals, as no Norwegian team has won the competition). It is not needed. It is rather a co-incidental connection between players who happened to play for a strong team in the right season, and there are too many categories already. Alex Middleton 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overgcategorisation (this sort of thing is specifically discouraged in the guidelines). Also, the purpose is better served by List of UEFA Champions League winning players. ArtVandelay13 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 12:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Bulldog123 00:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anime and manga villians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, Note that this category is also up for speedy renaming to Category:Anime and manga villains to correct spelling. The consensus on CfD per many discussions has always been against categories of fictional villains for POV issues. Not sure if this is recreation of deleted material and eligible for speedy. Lesnail 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All these articles have "(show name) characters" categories, so there's no need to merge to any other category.--Mike Selinker 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per strong consensus againt "villain" POV categories. Otto4711 20:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--Yesterday, someone created Category:Anime and manga villains as well, so now we have both a misspelled Category:Anime and manga villians and a Category:Anime and manga villains. Assuming the consensus is to delete, can the closing administrator please make sure that both go away. Given the speed at which these categories are appearing, I strongly suggest salting at least the properly spelled one. Lesnail 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reason above. ~I'm anonymous

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and salt. Conscious 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of Category:Analysts, after splitting its members between Category:Financial analysts and Category:Mathematical analysts.

Financial analysts and mathematical analysts have nothing in common except for the name analyst. They are not just people who analyze things in their respective fields. Lesnail 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that this is classification by word, but I'm not sure that deletion is helpful, because there are so many other types of analyst. If this is going to deleted, it ought to be salted, because otherwise it'll be recreated fairly soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, then, as per BrownHairedGirl. --Smerus 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please delete; all of the present articles look like they belong in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Financial analysts (should we rename as ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Business analysts?) except the bizarre Dubai Police Serious Game, which I removed from the cat and prodded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BHG's comment Bulldog123
• Delete category. There are way too many kinds of analysts for this to be useful. Doczilla 07:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per discussion above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Secretaries of State of the Kingdom of England. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to make it clearer that this category is for articles about Secretaries of State in the Kingdom of England, which ceased to exist in 1707, not for later secretaries of state of GB or the UK who happened to be English. Alex Middleton 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The proposed name matches the naming of Kingdom of England. However, the other categories in Category:Government of England just use "England" to mean the pre-1707 Kingdom Bluap 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, to clarify that it is referring to the Kingdom of England, not to the geographical area of England or to English nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:English Secretaries of State, pre-Union as the "Kingdom of England" is not a usual phrase to describe this period, though strictly correct. Johnbod 01:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per conventions of Category:Musicians by band.--Mike Selinker 15:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this can (and are) all linked at Procol Harum, easily findable if one wants to find 'em. The musicians by band collection ought to be fully re-evaluated in light of regular deletions here of material for which ample inter-links exist and particularly so on Bios where category clutter is rampant (if some musician has been in 20 bands, s/he gets 20 cats, plus several from where s/he is "from", his/her ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, political views, and the rest of the bio cat stuff). Carlossuarez46 17:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've populated most of these categories, and I can tell you for certain that no musician is in 20 band categories. None is in 10, for that matter, and I think that I've seen maybe one musician in 5 categories. It is vastly more likely that a musician is in exactly one band category than any other number. This has no parallel to the efforts to wipe out all eponymous categories, as it is a feature of the band (like songs, albums, etc.), not the musician. But regardless, it's the defining element of almost all of these articles. In fact, it's precisely the moving of band members into these categories that makes it acceptable to delete the main categories, like, say, Category:Procol Harum.--Mike Selinker 17:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and Weak keep per Mike Selinker. this cat is just starting to get to the size where a category might be useful, but it's borderline. Additionally many musicians have rather unstable careers, so there are a lot musicians who do end up in several different bands. I don't want to start a rush on these categories, hence the weak keep for now, but if someone wants to find the musicians who played in the band, what's the difficulty in just going to the Procol Harum article? Is there anything this category achieves which couldn't be done better by a template?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the category categorizes articles. Without a band member category or an eponymous category, Mick Jagger has no categorical connection to Keith Richards, which makes no sense in an encyclopedia. Not to me, anyway.--Mike Selinker 03:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there are several categorical connections. e.g., they are both categorised as English rock guitarists, as Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, and probably several others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, Simon Le Bon and Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer), then. (Serves me right for picking two icons.)--Mike Selinker 07:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still no need for a common category: both articles (Simon Le Bon and Roger Taylor (Duran Duran drummer)) will be heavily cross-linked and linked from [[Duran Duran]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the point that Mike Selinker is trying to make is that Mick Jagger/Keith Richards and Simon Le Bon/Roger Taylor and clearly linked to each other through their band, so it is best that the category reflects this. Sure there are other categories that link the pairs of musician, but lots of other people (who are not relevant in this context) also fall into these categories. As for Procol Harum musicians, excluding the Info box I don't think there is a single page that links all of these people as Gary Brooker and Keith Reid are the only constant members. StormCloud 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and convention. Otto4711 21:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and keep. I put most (all?) of the entries in this category, so I'm obviously going to want to keep it. The point is that Procol Harum did have a rather unstable membership (when I get time to add all the pages this category will contain 22 entries which is big enough); as more Procol related articles are added the main category page is going to get cluttered up. Far better to put the individual members into their own category from the start then have to move then there later . As for a rename, a more general name sounds like a good idea to me. Keith Reid for example is an integral part of the group, but he is a song writer rather then a musician. The same it true of Guy Stevens who managed the group in it's early years. The word member better describes these people then musician StormCloud 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more observation on clutter, is that the members of the group are tagged with the Procol Harum Musicians category, and NOT with the Procol Harum category. As one is a sub group of the other it keeps down clutter on the articles.
• Rename per nom and oppose deletion. Tim! 06:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. Categorizing contemporary popular musicians by band makes a lot of sense to me. Of all of the cat Carlossuarez46 lists, I think these are some of the more worthwhile. Few musicians have been in more than a handful of major acts for which we have articles and cats, so the category clutter is not so bad. ×Meegs 01:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 21. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:First Bundesliga footballers to Category:Bundesliga footballers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The name 'First Bundesliga' is not widely used, particularly in English. Bundesliga, without qualification, is usually taken to refer to his league, particularly on the subject of football. Other Bundesligen, such as the Zweite or Austrian Bundesliga, disambiguate themselves ArtVandelay13 13:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. ArtVandelay13 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Category:The Football League players, no consensus on Category:The Football League players (current). Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Football League players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Too wide ranging and potentially large to be of any use. ArtVandelay13 13:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating: Category:The Football League players (current)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As no explanation has been provided as to why this has been singled out from many similar categories. Note that without this category, top flight footballers in England before 1992 cannot be categorised by league, whereas top flight footballers from just about every other major league have a by-league category. Alex Middleton 15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can just about see the value of a 'Football League First Division (pre-1992) players' category (although it may be a) overcategorisation and b) a ridiculously unwieldy name), but this isn't as specific as that, as such is too wide-ranging. So that, and the fact that it's not (jusst) a top level division, is why I'm singling it out. ArtVandelay13 18:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge current cat into general one ("current" categories are always harder to maintain). I am not convinced of the usefulness of classifying players by competitions but if they are going to be deleted then delete all, don't just single out the Football League. Qwghlm 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With regard to the comment about "top flight footballers from just about every other major league..." The Football League (FL) is not the main/major/top flight league in England which is the Premiership, so there is no direct comparison between the FL and major leagues in other countries. The FL consists of the three divisions below the English top flight. This category could potentially get way too long given that the FL has three divisions with a total of 72 clubs.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Football League was the top flight for over 100 years, which is longer than almost any other national top flight has existed. Greg Grahame 12:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FL has never been the top flight, nor could it be. It was, and still is, a league containing a number of divisions. The top flight was the First Division, and not the FL itself which had four different divisions - First, Second, Third and Fourth, and is now three divisions The Championship, League One and League Two. The old First Division was the top flight for over 100 years, yes, but not the FL. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alex Middleton. Greg Grahame 12:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British software companies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I didn't realise that the category Software companies of the United Kingdom exisited when I created this one. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD G7, since it is empty and was created in error. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Small and limited category, no potential for growth, especially when its contents are themselves not properly cited and subject to AFD.--Stratadrake 11:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment May or may not be relevant, but 31,500 non-wikipedia ghits for the owrd "trickjumping". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resp. If reliable sources are among those google hits (as opposed to 31,500 fans asking how to do it on forums), an article on Trickjumping could be created. Not a category containing some stubs with a few instructions how to do it. --User:Krator (t c) 14:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, see above comment. --User:Krator (t c) 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly keep until the conclusion of the AfD--an AfD where 9 different articles of different styles but on similar subjects were mass-nominated. I maybe wrong, but I would be surprised if they weren't sent back for relisting, as most such heterogeneous noms. are, and I would not even be surprised if most or all were kept. The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Straferunning.DGG 00:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Krator pointing out that this involves the category distinction, and the articles within it are not being discussed here. Trickjumping is a gaming term of some report, but we shouldn't have a category for it without first having an article about the same. --Stratadrake 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, apparently trickjumping itself was deleted in February 2007. --Stratadrake 05:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - articles may be placed in Category:First-person shooters if this category is deleted and the articles themselves are kept. —msikma (user, talk) 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was listify and delete. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete This category has been disputed on its talk page, and I don't believe it is a legitimate status. "Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion" gets just 9 unique google hits, all of which are from Wikipedia or relate to a conference held in 1958. That was 49 years ago, and apparently the phrase hasn't been used officially since then. "Hero of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion" doesn't get any google hits at all. Greg Grahame 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I also tried a Google search on the phrase and found almost nothing that does not refer to Wikipedia. This is an obscure designation; the category is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 11:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Hero is far too much of a POV term to make a good category; if the "Heroes of the Christian Church in the Anglican Communion" is not a neologism, and has sufficient reliable sources, it might work as an article, but not as a category. Additionally, i think it's very misleading for the Quaker George Fox or the Methodist John Wesley to be categorised as Anglican heroes: in their lifetimes, both were strongly denounced by anglicans, and Fox was actually imprisoned for dissenting from Anglicanism. It does seem a bit like calling Galileo Galilei a "hero of science in Catholicism". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wesley and George Whitefield weren't universally liked by Anglicans in their own time (or ours -- the Anglican communion is fairly broad, after all), but both were Anglican ministers and people can be underappreciated in their own time but recognized later (even Galileo was cleared by the Church of the charges against him, with the pope expressing regret on how the affair was handled, and is buried at Santa Croce). --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that some Anglican perspectives on Wesley have rehabilitated him, but it still seems to me to be misleading to categorise Wesley as an Anglican hero or venerated by them. his defining characteristic was surely that after his attempts at reform failed, he lead a breakaway? AS with Galileo and others, it might be more accurate to categorise these people as "rehabilitated", but thatseems to me to be too vague, because here are different degrees of rehabilitation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Persons venerated by Anglicans or similar. I'm no expert here, but according to the talk page, the people in this cat are venerated on the Anglican liturgical calendar but are not canonized as saints. Also according to the talk page, the lists may vary between parts of the Anglican communion. If that is the case, I'd suggest subcats to include those not universally venerated by Anglicans but only by a branch of Anglicanism (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. would be listed in Category:People venerated by American Anglicans or whatever). I could be wrong, but veneration seems to be an official enough status for the foundation of a category (or at least a list) such that it is not merely an indiscriminate collection of someone's favorites. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's enough for a list, but probably not enough for a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • Fair enough. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but convert to list, which will be less intrusive and can be annotated and sourced. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Submilli Feydakin 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The switch to the lower case "B" is a speedy. The change to the word order makes it clearer that this category relates specifically to the national parliament, and ties in with the article Parliament of Canada. Hawkestone 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to the convention "X in Y" form for categories of buildings and structures. Hawkestone 11:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, per convention, and to reduce ambiguity. Canada and Australia are both federal nations; the name "in Canada" is clearly inclusive of provincial govt buildings, whereas "Canadian legislative buildings" could reasonably be read as meaning only federal buildings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Legal procedure. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Procedure law to Category:Procedural law

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to more grammatical form. Kurando

• Comment wouldn't Category:Legal procedure be a better name? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think either name would suffice. I note that there are two articles legal procedure and procedural law which would benefit from merging. Kurando | ^_^ 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (closed together with the Isms CfD). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belief systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Vague and ill-defined category spanning diverse parents such as Category:Study of religion and Category:Theories. This is essentially a dupliacte of Category:Isms, which is currently heading for deletion in this CfD of May 9.
This category already includes abolitionism (a political campaign), abstract expressionism (an art movement) and ableism (a form of discrimination). Not only are these not belief systems, they have little in common apart from the suffix "ism".
The list of parent categories, which includes Category:Word coinage, demonstrates that the category is conceptually confused. There are already better-defined category hierarchies group these subjects more logically. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Postlebury 09:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nonsense. IZAK 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose -- There does not appear to be any pleasing this group of administrators. You don't see the usefulness, so everyone has to suffer. I am absolutely astonished by this phenomenon. Listen, I don't think it's a coincidence that we have myself (B.A. in philosophy), and this guy Wassermann (apparently a doctor of philosophy) on one side, and wikipedia administrators on the other. I don't suppose you could defer to those of us who actually use the category? Furthermore, art movements consist in actions consistent with beliefs about the principles of aesthetics. Forms of discrimination are actions taken that are consistent with beliefs about groups of people. Political campaigns are consistent with guess what?! that's right --beliefs. In fact, it does not even matter if the belief is the cause of the action or if that is just the name that comes to be attached to actions. There still exists a descriptive sentence which is believed to true by the actor in that case.
  I find your view myopic and wasteful of valuable efforts here. Please LAY OFF or provide a constructive way to deal with what I have defined VERY WELL. I've even expressed the definition in terms of set membership which is as precise as you can get. I am absolutely astonished. Gregbard 09:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply You say that "art movements consist in actions consistent with beliefs about the principles of aesthetics", but by the same token, we could define marriage as an action consistent with beliefs about principles of family formation. You appear to be confusing beliefs with actions which may based on beliefs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counterpoint -- Yes we sure can do that and give it a name 'marriage-ism' or whatever. What exactly is your problem with that? Don't you think a close examination of the principles and consequences of a set of beliefs should be encyclopedically accounted? If not, please leave us intellectuals alone to the task. No I am not confused at all. There exists a set consisting of a sentence or sentences each of which is believed to be true by a person performing the action of (fill in the blank, Absenteeism, etc.) The existence of that sentence is ALL THAT MATTERS. We have a name for that sentence. It's called a belief. Sometimes beliefs consist in being a 'state of belief.' Well, the whole thing gets pretty philosophical from there. I don't suppose you can lay off now?
    • Reply Sorry, but if all actions are based on a belief (whether concious or not), and this category includes all such actions, then the categories will include just about all of human activity. Not helpful for categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Discrimination can be unconscious "Institutional racism" etc. To an idealist philosopher, a Hegelian, say, everything is the Idea in Being. I suggest looking at existing categories for philosophy/ideas and expanding/using them. Maybe a cat Worldviews would cover much of what you are trying to link up?--Red Deathy 10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply --Excuse me, Sir; an unconscious belief is a belief. We even use the same naming convention for those which supports my point: x-ism. Am I wrong in presuming that Worldviews isn't going to house absenteeism to your liking either?! Time to lay off. Gregbard 10:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment no need to be insulting, please retract the slur of calling me sir, I am sir to no one. To be unconsciously racist requires no belief, whatsoever, no unconsciously sexist, it merely means acting in a way which will disadantage a particular group. For example, putting stair up to a shop will be ableist, without any belief or thought being required. Absenteeism is indeed not a belief and doesn't meaningfully form any sort of set with Racism, Fascism, Buddhsm, etc.--Red Deathy 10:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply -- Actually yes being racist necessarily requires a racist belief. Unless you want to get into denying that for every fact of the world there exists a sentence which describes that fact. I don't think that's where you are going with this, so please just stop. It's too painful to watch. You say: "...merely means acting..." Well no one acts ANY way without there existing a belief about the act, otherwise it isn't the act of a person we are talking about. Why don't you show me a person putting a stair to a shop who isn't thinking or believing something about it, please?
      • Reply This getting a bit silly. Someone building a stair inevitably will have beliefs about stairs being useful for walking up, etc, but may not have even considered the possibility that some people cannot walk. That's unintended discrimination, but it's based on the absence of a belief, and should be distinguished from the person who says "stuff them disabled people, they can stay downstairs". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Counter-reply -- By that standard you couldn't call an ignorant person a racist. Yet we do. If we ask the stair installer if he or she is aware that disabled people can't use stairs, he or she says "yes, I know that." Knowledge is true justified belief, and therefore there is a belief behind the action the whole time! You just have to be aware of it. Wikipedia could sure help in that btw. If we get into absence of a belief we now say that atheism is not a belief system because it involves the absence of belief. We do call atheism a belief system, so therefore you are incorrect again.Gregbard 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is just an inappropriate and unintentially disruptive recreation of Category:Isms. The articles in this category have very little to do with each other, and most current categories on religion, political philosophies, art movements, and other such things are sufficient. Dr. Submillimeter 11:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply -- Who is disrupting who here? Excuse me, cease and desist from further destruction of these connections which I have made, in which you see no value! So we have a category with diverse members. You present this as a reason in and of itself to devalue it. Please justify this claim. Intelligence involves seeing the connections between things, if you don't see it well then what can I say?!?!? People exploring the world of ideas will be better served by this category. Maybe there is x-ism, anti-x-ism, counter-x-ism, and non-x-ism. Too bad someone has to be stuck being an anti-x-ist, when they could be a non-x-ist if they just knew there was such a thing. Way to go guys. Gregbard 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Gregbard, if you want the category to stay, you need to persuade other editors that it makes a workable category. So far, you haven't suceeded.
      WP:CAT is helpful here, where it says that "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles". Unfortunately, as you say above, the articles in this category are not similar, they are diverse. We don't create categories for just because things have connections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counter-reply You see they ARE similar. Just not in a way that you care about. They have a legitimate intellectual connection, which I think to the opponents is the same thing as saying that there is no connection at all. That is just obtuse. So far I have not succeeded? Well I guess it's true if you say so! I have responded point by point to all the reasons given by opponents. I have appealed to higher levels of analysis. I have given examples, etcetera. In return, my demonstrations have been roundly ignored. You call this category "Vague and ill-defined" even though it is expressed in terms of set membership and includes a diagram. I have no choice but to be left wondering with whom I haven't succeeded? Kindly, it is you that has not succeeded in understanding the value of navigable isms. You can play it up like I'm just not persuasive enough, but that rings quite hollow. I don't think you are seeing this the way a student of philosophy would, and that is exactly who would find this very useful. No hard feelings. Gregbard 13:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply. Gregbard, let's just assume for a moment that you are right, and that this category is useful. If it is, then you have a problem in that you have not persuaded any other participants in this CfD, so maybe you should try putting your case differently?
          The problem so far is not that your explanations have been ignored, but that nobody finds them persuasive. For example you say that "They have a legitimate intellectual connection, which I think to the opponents is the same thing as saying that there is no connection at all" ... which is not the case. What the opponents are saying is that the strength and nature of the connection is not enough to make a useful category which assists readers to navigate between related articles. As per the CfD on Category:Isms, the existence of a list is a different matter (please do read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes), and I suggest that you would do much better to start by writing a reliably-sourced article on belief systems, where you could explain the different perspectives of the boundaries of the concept of a belief system. (The page belief systems currently redirects to religion, which seems inappropriately narrow). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I find this constructive and positive. Thank you. I still think you should lay off the category. Be well.Gregbard 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This re-creation of Category:Isms has even less reason (not even a shared suffix!) to justify linking the articles in the category. It's vague and baggy, seems already to contain things that aren't really "belief systems" in any common or non-strained sense (e.g. abstract expressionism), and if it were ever fully populated would have to contain zillions of articles, most without any close connection to each other or need to allow fast navigation between them. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the value of this category was not clear to a great many intelligent people. Clearly, defining the boundaries of this category and making clear the connections between its members requires more explanation than is feasible in a category. Since Gregbard seems so willing and able to provide that explanation, I suggest that he work on making this into a healthy, happy, referenced list instead, per BHG. Lesnail 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete belief systems are inherently POV; what constitutes a belief system is POV; take the debate over creationism & evolution, or the coinage of "secular humanism" and its application to anything that a detractor decides to declaim (be it evolution, the age of the earth, or whether 1+1=2). Given that what constitutes belief systems is inherently POV, the inclusion criteria are inherently POV and the cat must go. As for belief systems: I believe I'll have a beer, categorize that! Carlossuarez46 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see nothing wrong with categorizing belief systems as belief systems. BHG, I think you overreacted to the history of this category; I don't think you'd have had any objection to it if it hadn't come out of the category:isms debate. But its history is irrelevant; as long as it's a good category by itself, we can certainly remove any articles that snuck in just because their names ended in "ism", and we can remove the text about how it used to be about "isms". --Trovatore 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS we can also remove it from categories such as "word coinage". It's not an argument to delete a category that it contains articles that don't really belong, is a subcat of cats that it shouldn't be, or has subcats that it shouldn't have; all those things are easily rectifiable, as long as the numbers aren't huge, which they're not. --Trovatore 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Trovatore, apart from premature creation, I also objected because there is no clear definition here of what is or is not a belief system, and no clear sense of how this relates to the rest of the category system. Even without the history, it's not a good category. It could, however, be a great article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see it as being any more unclear than lots of other categories. It would include all philosophical systems, religions, and political ideologies. It would have category:religions and category:political philosophies as subcats. Not sure what the parent cats should be, if any, but surely that can be dealt with. BTW I don't understand Carlossuarez46's objection -- is he suggesting that the term "belief system" is pejorative? It's not, of course; anything that we use to systematically organize our beliefs, is a belief system. --Trovatore 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Trovatore, this is starting to get somewhere, but as per discussions above, the boundaries are still unclear to me. Sure, no prob on religion and political or other philosophies, but should it include aesthetic movements? (Those are more clearly part of the history of ideas, but it's less clear that they are belie systems). Should it include science, or only the philosophy of science? Should it includes forms of discriminatory action (including secondary discrimination), or only prejudiced belief systems such as misogyny? What about sexuality? Is that an innate characteristic, a mode of social organisation, or a belief system? That's why I think that a head article is required first to clarify the intent, or without that a reference to some fairly clear and widely-accepted definition of "belief system". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In my view, intuitively:
            1. Aesthetic movements, no. These are patterns of action, not belief.
            2. Discriminatory action, no. (However racism or sexism might slide in, depending on how defined.)
            3. Science, no -- changed my mind on this one. Science is not a belief system, but an activity designed to make one's belief system more accurate. This is not a faith-v-reason distinction; by the same token I would also argue that theology is not a belief system, but a study intended to make one's belief system more accurate.
            4. However, the "scientific world view", which is distinct from "science", is a belief system. I don't know whether we have or want a scientific world view article.
          • Hope this clarifies what I had in mind. --Trovatore 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks, it does clarify a bit, but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. What about minor political descriptors such as Butskellism, Antidisestablishmentarianism or Blairism; misogyny, misandry, transphobia and others in Category:Prejudices; homeopathy and allopathy, and lots more. I still that that for this category to be workable, we need a clear and succinct explanation of what is a "belief system", rather than just one-of decisions on particular articles or subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems fairly clear to me. A belief is anything that someone believes, or the sort of thing that someone could in principle believes even if no one actually does. So 1+1=2 is a belief, no matter how well justified, because you believe it. The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also a belief, even if no one actually believes it.
                Then a belief system is any systematic collection of beliefs. So Butskellism and antidisestablishmentarianism and Blairism, all yes. Misogyny and misandry and transphobia, as I interpret them, no, because these are emotional responses, not beliefs. Homeopathy and allopathy are patterns of action, not belief, though there are beliefs that motivate them -- if there were to be an article on the theory of homeopathy, that would be a belief system, but homeopathy itself is not.
                Sure, there are corner cases and things people can argue about, but I don't see that this is any less well-defined than category:religions, which also has problematic cases -- is Buddhism a religion, even though it affirms no deity? What about Confucianism, which has even less spiritual content? Scientology, which a lot of people think is more of a grift? Few categories have perfectly defined borders; this strikes me as a useful one in which the fuzziness is within acceptable bounds. --Trovatore 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hmm, that's helpful, but I think that this is starting to illustrate the extent of the problems. I would argue that Butskellism, antidisestablishmentarianism and Blairism are political policies (or policy models or groups of policies) rather than beliefs, but I think that it's a reasonable margin-call, and so will remain an issue of contention (and a significant one, because there are many similar categories). Similarly, you draw the line this side of allopathy and homeopathy, but is it reasonable to assume that an article on a therapy or therapeutic approach will discuss either the action or the theory? Prejudices are also not a clear area: there are many people who will justify their homophobia or transphobia on thoroughly rational grounds, and they seem to me to be another grey area, because hey can also be (as you define em) emotional responses. Sorry, but although I agree that many categories have some fuzziness, this one just has too many fuzzy areas to be viable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK, let me put it this way: There really should be a common parent category for religions and philosophical systems (btw why is there no category:philosophical systems? Is there a category with the same purpose but a different name?). This is not intended to imply that philosophical systems are religions, just that they attempt to answer some of the same questions, and that this is an important enough commonality to categorize. So, if not "belief systems", what should this common parent category be called? --Trovatore 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Sleep On It 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vague, ill-defined, inherently POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment I really don't understand this "inherently POV" claim. What POV is expressed by saying something is a belief system? It doesn't say anything about whether you agree with the belief system, or how well justified the beliefs are, just that it's a system of beliefs. I also don't think that's particularly vague (though it would exclude many articles inherited from the erstwhile "isms" category. --Trovatore 07:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of the NPOV objection (which I share) is that we have no clear and neutral definition of what is a "belief system" and what isn't one. Either it's synonymous with Category:Religions or it's a big, baggy category of religions plus ideologies, beliefs, or movements that some Wikipedian thinks are more or less equivalent to religions in some unspecified sense. Since there's no clear, neutral, and widely-agreed delimitation of what "belief system" means, the judgement about what does or doesn't belong in the group is unavoidably a reflection of the categorizer's bias. There is no obvious or easy way of remedying this problem. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like your objection is that you think it's a stalking horse for people who want to claim that "naturalism is a religion" or some such. Is that it? I don't think there is any such implied claim; naturalism is clearly a belief system, and that should be noncontroversial both among naturalists and among those who are not naturalists, without in any way implying that naturalism is a religion. --Trovatore 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, too vague, indiscriminate, subjective and ill-defined. To pick just one of many examples from the discussions above, "racism" could be considered a belief system or simply an emotional reaction, depending on whether it's based on beliefs about specific races or simple xenophobia. So, should it be included in this category or not? The answer is: maybe or maybe not, there's no way to be sure. And this is true of thousands of other potential category members; things that may or may not be based on belief, and which are and aren't under different circumstances. And that doesn't even begin to get into the question of whether some of these things are really belief systems on their own, or are merely components of broader belief systems (which would be true for several forms of racism, for example, but not necessarily all). If there's no possibility (and I don't believe there is) of deciding whether some things should or should not be included in this category, then it cannot be considered a useful category. It might be possible and acceptable to create a list, where explanations of the fine points can be added (and cited), but something this vague and ill-defined cannot and should not be the basis for a category. Xtifr _tälk 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Dispositional beliefs are beliefs. Therefore all of the issues brought to bear against this category over the recent days are moot. Racism neatly, and clearly fits into the category, as do many of the other dispositional beliefs like absenteeism, etc. This would seem to answer these objections. The opposition has been reduced to something like 'well, its not really a belief. It's not Really a belief. It's NOT REALLY a belief. It's NOT REALLY A BELIEF!' None of which says anything at all about being a belief or not. Gregbard 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • replyNobody said "it's not really a belief". Let's lay off the straw men, ok? However, "belief" is not the same as "belief system", and while racism may or may not be a belief (in some cases it is; in other cases, it merely reflects beliefs), it is only sometimes a system in its own right. And that's just one example. I'm not saying that the information suggested by this category is wrong; I'm saying that it needs exposition which cannot be provided by Wikipedia's category system, and therefore, a Wikipedia category is the wrong way to present this information! My objection is primarily technical, not philosophical (though I do think you're oversimplifying matters a bit from a philosophical POV). Wikipedia's categories are not abstract concepts. They are not the same as mental categories. They are a technical tool, and they are the wrong tool for the task at hand. Xtifr _tälk 19:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I learned a lot about wikipedia from this discussion about deleting this category. No hard feelings. I wish you well. Fifty years from now, when everybody is linked to the wikipedia via computer implants in the brain, maybe we'll all see things differently. Gregbard 00:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain to Category:People of Irish descent in England and Wales

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Category description doesn't match category contents. This doesn't make logical sense. Either include every Irish-descended person in Great Britain, or rename the article for the regions included. Currently, this category omits Scotland, yet falsely claims to represent the whole island. Mal 07:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NO, it does not omit Scotland. The category text says "Please place people born in Scotland in the Category:Irish-Scots". That category is quite properly a sub-cat of Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, so Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain is correctly described. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Irish-Scots was hidden on page 2 before I moved it, and the text reads to me like it is intended to exclude Irish-Scots, so at the least it was carelessly worded, as the natural reading was that Category:Irish-Scots was entirely separate. I have added the word "subcategory" to clarify matters. As for the fate of the category, I would tend to favour deletion of all ethnic categories, but we seem to be stuck with them, so it would be inconsistent to delete this one. Hawkestone 11:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But don't count that as a "keep" vote in the unlikely event that there is a movement to delete this category. Hawkestone 11:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: this is the 3rd (and perhaps 4th) CFD for this cat. See the January 2006 go-round and the April 2007 go-round; the history indicates another CFD prompted some change to the category and refers to CFD of December 8, 2005 but I could find no relevant CFD on that page's archive. Carlossuarez46 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The argument made by the nom. almost mirrors that made by me in January 2006 (result was no consensus). Now that Scots are a sub of this, that particular argument doesn't hold for me, although the lack of parallelism might be construed as implied meaning that Scots are somehow different. What continues to bug me is the arbitrary "1/4" ancestry notion. Now, that's not reflected in the title so someone looking at a bio with that cat wouldn't necessarily know how much Irish ancestry merits inclusion and how little means exclusion. Maybe part of what bugs me about it is that for WP:BLPs, perhaps racial/ethnic categories shouldn't be used at WP. Maybe the other part is the selection of a threshhold of 1/4, which has a notorious history in Latin America and elsewhere in defining "racial purtiy", see Quadroon, where being 1/4 African by descent meant an unequal treatment in law and by culture. I won't "vote" (I know it's not a vote) one way or another but I just had to comment. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bhg. I really think the notion of Irish quadroons is a red herring. Where would this leave Jackie Charlton's dog? Johnbod 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why so? 1/4 Irish gets you in, regardless of how you internalize it; 24.999999% Irish means out, even if you self-identify as Irish. So WP is a better judge of what makes someone of Irish descent than everyone else. Carlossuarez46 21:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Geography seems good Feydakin 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think we need a specific category just for Erotic lactation and a drawing thereof. WjBscribe 05:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No room for expansion that I can see, and we don't need a category for one article. VegaDark (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. We've killed off the other -philia categories. Doczilla 07:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postlebury 09:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. However, note that the subcats of Category:Houston, Texas include 14 called "Houston" and only 3 named "Houston, Texas". If this nomination succeeds, the others should be renamed to match. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and reverse merge to Category:Sports in Houston. This was one of many categories that were the subject of a CFR discussion back in February 2006. At that time, it was agreed that "Sports in Houston, Texas" would be changed to "Sports in Houston". Note that the final archived discussion only includes the categories that were NOT renamed; however, I was involved in that discussion, and I can assure you that Houston was one of the proposed renames. The page history for the "Sports in Houston" category indicates that it was created shortly after, and as a direct result of, the settlement of the 2006 discussion. — Dale Arnett 19:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (added "reverse merge" later — Dale Arnett 21:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. I have just reviewed that CfR discussion, and it was a truly weird way to do a CfD, by nominating only the subcategories which were unaffected by the change. I wonder whether the ones subject to change were ever even tagged?
    Whatever happened then, however, I suggest that the appropriate way to look at these things is by city, and to decide all Houston categories together, not to plug the sports subcategory out of a few dozen category trees. In the meantime, we have a duplicate category, and a merge one way or the other is needed. I support a merge to Houston, Texas, because that's the name of the parent category; but as above, we need a group nomination for all the subcats of Category:Houston, Texas, to standardise on one form or the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comment: Actually, many categories were nominated that you no longer see on the archived version of the CFR. The original CFR requested renaming of virtually all "sports by US city" categories to "Sports in City, State". It was agreed that cities that were generally recognizable to a worldwide audience as being US cities don't need the disambig by state (except in cases such as Columbus, Ohio or Portland, Oregon, where more than one city exists with the same name). — Dale Arnett 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply thanks for the explanation, but it sill seems like a flawed decision. If internationally-known cities do not need the state, why apply that to only the sport categories? The choice between "city" and "city, state" should be decided for all cities or on a city-by-city basis, rather than taking a difft approach to sport than, for example, government or the arts.
        In any case, I dislike taking that CfD as a precedent. It appears to have renamed untagged categories, and it appears from what you say that the visible archive is not the full text of the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Note that the "other" CfD discussion mentioned above by Dale Arnett ignored extensive precedent to have categories match parent articles. So, it was a fluke. These things happen. We can at least start correcting some of the errors now, with this one. I do feel that the choice between "city" and "city, state" should be made on a case-by-case basis, but currently, the main article is named Houston, Texas, so the related categories like this one should match. Xtifr _tälk 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 11:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as discussed on the Opera project here, comedies probably account for a quarter to a third of all operas, however most of these are in specific genre categories (opera buffa, opéras bouffes, operettas etc.) The Category:Comic operas has 70 entries comprising 58 works in English (of which 54 are late 19th century English works). These are closely related in style so we recommend renaming the category 'English comic operas'.--Kleinzach 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming. The category includes non-English comic operas such as Le flibustier (opera), so it would be better to create Category:English comic operas as a subcategory, and populate it as appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we made Category:English comic operas as a subcategory there would be almost nothing left in the main one of Category:Comic operas. (Le flibustier (opera) was unique, a (relatively obscure) comédie lyrique by a Russian composer presented at the Opéra-Comique in Paris.) The full figures for the category are: 58 works in English, 5 Czech, 3 Russian, and one each of French, Danish, German and Italian operas. 54 of the English works are closely related in period and style. The non-English works are unrelated. If the category is renamed they will obviously be removed. This is not a problem because many operas are not included in a sub-category. --Kleinzach 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your point, but I still don't think that justifies removing the "comic opera" categorisation from the non-English ones. Sure, it may there is a lot more commonality amongst the English comic operas, but if I see a category "English comics operas", one of the first things I'll look for is the non-English ones. Category:Comic operas will still have 13 articles and one well-populated sub-category, so it doesn't seem to me to be underpopulated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "non-English ones" are in the specific genre categories (opera buffa, opéras bouffes, operettas etc.) 'English comic operas' would be a well-defined group. The remnant non-English items will be un-defined flotsam and jetsam with almost nothing in common. It simply wouldn't be a meaningful category. (You might argue that we should have a (5) 'Czech comic operas' category. That's possible, though simply being defined as operas is no problem.) --Kleinzach 10:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename "Comic operas" is too wide-ranging to be useful. Make it more soecific and you have a valid category. --Folantin 10:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, which will limit the category to works actually described as "comic operas" (in English) by their creators. --GuillaumeTell 08:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - funny opera does not necessarily equate to comic opera. This will help keep operas out of inappropriate categories. Moreschi ^Talk 11:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral (objection withdrawn after discussion above). I still think that it would be useful to have a more generic category of comic opera, but in view of the info above on accepted definitions of the genres, I won't object to the renaming. It would be helpful to clarify the purpose of the categories by means of some category text, including a link to the article on that genre (if it exists): e.g. Category:English comic operas should explain that it refers to a particular tradition in England, not to funny-ha-ha operas in the English language.
  Also, there appears tomay have been some canvassing on this CfD: [1]. I haven't checked whether this was an isolated incident, so have issued no warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely drawing someone's attention to a CfD isn't canvassing within the meaning of the act? I certainly don't have time to scan all new CfDs, so I'm grateful to be told that there's one in which I might have an interest. Saying "I hope you will vote for my proposal" - that's canvassing. Kleinzach didn't do that, and knows perfectly well that I will disagree with him whenever I think fit. --GuillaumeTell 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, there is a difference, but it depends on the selected audience and how widely it's done (see the discussion on WP:CANVASSING#Types_of_canvassing. A neutrally-worded message (such as this one) to people considered likely to agree would probably still be counted as canvassing, but a one-off message isn't. I probably should have said "may have been" rather than "appears to have been", and have amended my comment above. If this was a one-off, sorry for any offence taken; but there have several episodes of blatant canvassing recently so I am watchful for any sign of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Apology accepted, and, after all, this isn't a matter of earth-shattering importance, or at least I don't think it is. --GuillaumeTell 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Operas by Gioacchino Rossini to Category:Operas by Gioachino Rossini

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as discussed on the Opera project here modern scholars prefer Rossini's first name with only one 'c'. We use one 'c' in articles. Can we change the cat for consistency? --Kleinzach 04:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per nom and also because Rossini preferred one "c" himself. -- Ssilvers 15:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. More accurate. --Folantin 10:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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.--Mike Selinker 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:F. C. Unirea Valahorum Urziceni to Category:FC Unirea Valahorum Urziceni

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, No space between dots, and per other cat system in Romania footballer therer is no dots. Matthew_hk tc 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Conscious 11:21, 21 May 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: rename both to Category:FC Unirea Valahorum Urziceni players.--Mike Selinker 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:F. C. Unirea Valahorum Urziceni players to Category:Unirea Urziceni players

• Merge, Already created a cat. Matthew_hk tc 04:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not Category:FC Unirea Valahorum Urziceni players? I think the category name should match FC Unirea Valahorum Urziceni. Conscious 11:23, 21 May 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sex and the City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - the material in the category does not indicate that th category is needed for navigational purposes. Everything in the category is interlinked. Otto4711 04:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mutiple subcategories and articles is sufficient content for this category. Tim! 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Tim's stated rationale for keeping this category seems somewhat at odds with his statement here regarding TV show categories in general. None of the articles in this category would be undercategorized by the deletion of this container category and he seems to accept the notion that simply having episode and character categories doesn't warrant the eponymous container. Otto4711 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As above.--Mike Selinker 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 19:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Curb Your Enthusiasm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - another eponymous TV category without the volume of material to warrant it. Otto4711 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep presently running TV series with potential for growth. Tim! 06:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As above.--Mike Selinker 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantastic Children (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - tiny category, all of the material is easily interlinked. Category not needed for navigation. Otto4711 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary, vaguely named, and incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla 07:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - the handful of articles that aren't improperly categorized for cast and crew are easily interlinked through the main Dynasty article. This category is not needed for navigation. Otto4711 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The volume of Dynasty articles and images is growing; when the category was created there were only a couple. The subcategories need to be joined together and the whole body of work is nicely organized this way. The articles are nicely interlinked, but only because of my recent efforts; if I realized that clean categories and well-linked articles were mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have bothered. I don't get your issue, it just seems like you enjoy deleting categories. TAnthony 05:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure why you feel the need to make this personal or about me. My issue with this category is I think clearly explained in the nomination. Otto4711 15:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Sorry, didn't mean it as an attack; I understand that you're just housecleaning, but it seems silly to delete a category simply because it's not essential for navigation. Perhaps I don't know anything about categories, but I thought part of the purpose of a category was to organize articles, and it seems like Category:Dynasty characters and Category:Dynasty images etc. should be united under a category like this. You are right, though, the people tagged in the category should be removed. Again, sorry for my previous tone. TAnthony 15:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom, it doesn't look like the category is actually necessary for navigation. To reply to TAnthony above, the main purpose of categories is to facilitate navigation of articles for the reader. They're not intended to be "tags" per se to tag everything that might be related to a particular subject. In the case of eponymous categories (ie categories named after a specific person or object), most of these categories aren't needed because the main article associated with the topic already provides ample navigation. And since having the extra eponymous category pretty much duplicates the maintainence required when things change, having an unneeded eponymous category means you're increasing the editorial workload for little or no gain to the reader. Keep in mind that readers interested in finding out more about Dynasty, for example, will almost certainly start by going straight to Dynasty (TV series). So if that article already has all the links in this category for easy access, then the category is just duplicating that effort. Dugwiki
• Delete per nom & precedent; if things will all be interlinked, category not needed. Carlossuarez46 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Dynasty (television series). Or delete; I don't care much. The biggest problem with the category as currently named is that it looks like a mistake for category:dynasties. --Trovatore 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename - I just removed the people listed in this category because of the convention of not classifying people by project, and though there are not a lot of pages left in the category (and perhaps will not be many more), it seems helpful to keep the subcategories linked in this way. And I can't imagine very much maintenance work would be created in the future because of it, as suggested by someone above. TheRhani 23:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mutiple subcategories and articles is sufficient content for this category. Tim! 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Tim's stated rationale for keeping this category seems somewhat at odds with his statement here regarding TV show categories in general. None of the articles in this category would be undercategorized by the deletion of this container category and he seems to accept the notion that simply having episode and character categories doesn't warrant the eponymous container. Otto4711 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of part of multiple subcategories are you failing to understand? Tim! 16:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - I think I just proved (at least to myself) why this category should stay; I went to the Dynasty (TV series) article to read it, and after skimming through I instinctively clicked on the category to see what other articles were related to it. All the character articles, spin-offs and even the pilot episode were neatly organized there, which was helpful. I know most of the links are probably in the main article, but the category makes a good jumping-off point. 206.13.74.249 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As above.--Mike Selinker 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - the material in the category following cleanup does not warrant an eponymous category. The material is all easily interlinked through the main article for navigational purposes. Otto4711 02:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mutiple subcategories and articles is sufficient content for this category. Tim! 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As above. Otto, it seems like you should make an umbrella nomination so people can vote on the principle of deleting TV show categories. Having all these separate nominations just wears people out, I expect.--Mike Selinker 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:October Road (TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - the two articles are easily interlinked rendering the category unnecessary for mavigation. The likely expansion, for articles on episodes, should be in an episodes by series category and placed in the appropriate category tree rather than in this category. No prejudice to recreating should there be a sudden explosion of articles. Otto4711 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a presently running TV series with potential for growth. Tim! 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The O.C. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - in the absence of several dozen improperly categorized articles for actors from the series, there appear to be three articles in the category. These articles (two of which are up for deletion) are easily linked through the main article and the navigational template. The category is not needed for navigation and is a de facto performer by performance category. Otto4711 02:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, why are you people obliterating ALL of the TV-show categories? Now you are making the network categories these cats. reside in and others vastly underpopulated because of these mass-deletions...PLEASE, THINK! --Wassermann 06:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, multiple subcategories and articles such as List of songs in The O.C. which appears to be surviving AFD is sufficient content. Tim! 06:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The category has two articles in it that aren't miscategorized actor articles. Otto4711 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As above.--Mike Selinker 15:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Millersville Marauders men's basketball coaches (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

School is not a Division I basketball institution, therefore anyone added to this category (unless they have D-I experience) will be non-notable. Why bother? fuzzy510 02:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but ONLY because it's empty. The size of a school has nothing to do with the notability of its coaches. The University of Central Missouri is D-II, and Transylvania University is D-III, but everyone in Category:Central Missouri Mules basketball coaches and Category:Transylvania Pioneers men's basketball coaches are well-known D-I coaches. In fact, one of the men in the Central Missouri category is a Hall of Famer! That having been said, though, it should be deleted as empty. It can always be recreated if someone truly notable can be found to fill it. — Dale Arnett 13:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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.--Mike Selinker 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The O.C. Media to Category:The O.C. images

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - "images" is the preferred structure. Otto4711 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 19 May 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: rename.--Mike Selinker 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SFC Terriers men's basketball coaches to Category:Saint Francis Terriers men's basketball coaches

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, category name is somewhat ambiguous (SFC?), while the new name is far clearer. fuzzy510 01:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Should have proposed it myself!  :) — Dale Arnett 13:13, 15 May 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: rename.--Mike Selinker 11:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Enderverse to Category:Ender's Game series

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To match the main article, which is at Ender's Game series; Enderverse is just a redirect. Note related CFR of Enderverse novels and short stories. Alai 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename the article instead to Enderverse. 132.205.44.134 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -Sean Curtin 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per ((in-universe)). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Lesnail 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; per nom, "Enderverse" is a ghastly, awkward neologism with almost no currency. Note: it's not "in-universe"—it's not even that notable. It's more like something made up in school one day. Although I love the books, I would probably strangle anyone who used this term in my presence, and count it a mercy.  :) --Xtifr _tälk 01:23, 16 May 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.