< May 14	May 16 >

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. Honbicot's rationale is highly persuasive but regrettably, in the light of the discussion, I do not feel able to adopt it. None of the proposals have in my judgement gained any notable level of support so the status quo shall be preserved. One thing that this discussion has revealed is the utter inadequacy of Wikipedia's categorisation of this topic; cf the difference between ZIM$ and GB£ millionaires, the different quantifications of wealth 200/300 years ago vs. today. Much discussion will be required to arrive at some suitable solution.

Xdamr^talk 14:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wealthy fictional characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

We've got millionaires and billionaires which are definite, definable categories (although they should be merged into millionaires) but "wealthy" is simply subject to opinion and impossible to define. The main problem with this category is that you can put ANYONE in it depending on your perception as there is no universal definition of wealthy.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge Category:Fictional millionaires into it. This has been around before, and the argument put forward is the opposite of the actual position. "Millionaire" and "Billionaire" are actually elastic and largely unverifiable: a million or a billion whats? And when? And who is counting? How can you equate a million Victorian British pounds with a million 2007 Zimbabwean dollars. "Millionaire" and "Billionaire" are not useful concepts before the 19th century. Furthermore, "Millionaire" is no longer a valid term for wealthy in the 21st century, but a contemporary British fictional character certainly doesn't need to be a sterling billionaire to be conspicuously rich. "Millionaire" excludes Mr Darcy, who is perhaps the character in English fiction most famous for being wealthy. He lived in an era when wealth was measured by income (he had "Ten thousand a year"), and his implied capital was less than a million pounds. On the other hand "Wealthy" is a simple concept that can be applied to all cultures and eras. Sure it's fuzzy round the edges, but so what? It's much better than the alternatives, and we are not exactly dealing with a highly contentious politicised area of the category system. Honbicot 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with your statement. Angie Y. 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague, subjective category. Judging who is "wealthy" invokes POV. Any inclusion criteria would violate policy against arbitrary inclusion criteria. Furthermore, the name is wrong. It would have to be fictional wealthy characters, not wealthy fictional characters, because they are only fictionally wealthy. Doczilla 01:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Wealthy" is a subjective term that requires editors to make personal judgments on the fictional characters. Such categories do not work in the long term. Dr. Submillimeter 07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Submillimeter Sleep On It 10:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a major subgroup of fictional characters. Jamie Mercer 11:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We have categories for this though. This is a simple delete because the concept of wealthy cannot be objectively defined.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which you say below that you plan to nominate for deletion later! Haddiscoe 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see any reason not to trust editors to use this category appropriately. Postlebury 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is precedent for deleting any fictional character category if the concept of wealthy cannot be objectively defined.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wealth is one way to describe a character's behavior and upbringing. Angie Y. 12:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We have categories for this. This is a simple delete because the concept of wealthy cannot be objectively defined.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some people don't agree, dude. Angie Y.

• But you can't argue with the POLICY. Sorry, whether or not you agree is totally irrelevant.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could all contributors to this discussion please note that Wikipedia:Overcategorisation is NOT a policy, it is a guideline. That means, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." We are at complete liberty to reject it in this case, in so far as it calls for this category to be deleted, (which it doesn't actually). Wilchett 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This category is highly subjective; just how much money must a fictional character have to be wealthy. In addition, how would this apply to characters lose their wealth? Should we categorize them as both wealthy and poor? In addition, this category is going to have to include pretty much all fictional royalty, which is not a useful way to categorize them; being rich is certainly is not their most notable characteristic. All in all a bad idea for a category. Lesnail 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there this rampant distrust of editors to make sensible decisions? Absolutely no evidence has been presented that this category is not being used sensibly, or that it will ever be used indiscriminately. And in any case, it's just as easy to take an article out as to add one in. Haddiscoe 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hornbicot. This is actually not so subjective - since fictional characters are at issue, the question is whether the author creates the character with wealth as a defining characteristic. And remember, an English millionaire is much wealthier than an American one, given the exchange rate. Where an Italian millionaire, well, can have a couple nice meals.A Musing 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Define wealthy. What would the inclusion criteria be and how does the category name specify this? It can't. This isn't category stuff. This is TVTropes-type stuff. All arguments to keep are WP:ILIKEIT reasons or the product of misinformation. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!}

• Are you seriously suggesting that wealth is not a major theme in fiction? If not, why are you happy to have no suitable category for some characters with articles? OrchWyn 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is, but the criteria is not objective. "Millionaires" and "billionaires" already exist from which any editor can decide whether somebody is "wealthy" or not. It's personal opinion and a category cannot work if there is a POV inclusion criteria. I urge the closing admin to favour guideline over the popularity.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I go ahead and add everyone with a million Zimbabwean dollars to the millionaires category that will be fine because it's "objective", but adding plutocrats to this category is "subjective"? That's just a laughable stance you have there. Haddiscoe 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. The Huxtables seemed wealthy to me growing up; so did all those re-runs of the Brady Bunch, Partridge Family, not to mention the Beverly Hillbillies, 90210, Dynasty, Dallas, Falcon Crest and most of the soap opera characters, even Archie & Edith -- heck they owned a house in New York City, must be worth a mint! -- just about everyone was wealthy compared to me, so is that the criteria? And if an editor comes from an even poorer background than me, feel free to expand the cat to encompass everyone that fits your criteria. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No-one is arguing that we shouldn't have categories in this field, and this one is the best by far, as the others are wildly inconsistent and almost entirely meaningless. There is only one argument for deletion and it is bad - it puts ideology before practicality - but there are many fine arguments for retention. As for definitions, get a dictionary. Anyone with any common sense will understand that it is contextual wealth that is significant, and the argument for deletion assumes that readers are fools. This is just not a problematic category. If the nominator had also put up the millionaire and billionaire categories he might have appeared to have a semblance of a case, but by pretending that those inferior categories are actually good, he destroyed his own line of reasoning. OrchWyn 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An amount is defined. "Wealthy" isn't. I planned to nominate them later under a different rationale, arbitrary inclusion criterion, but whatever.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia:Overcategorization is a guideline (not a policy) and that means, and I quote, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Common sense calls for the retention of this useful and harmless category. Wilchett 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The category still fails to function. Anyone could decide Homer Simpson is wealthy in terms of family love, and include him, or include Ben Harper because he's extremely wealthy in comparison to Starvin' Marvin. The point is, without objective criteria the category fails to function. I agree, exceptions to guidelines can exist and some do, but this category CANNOT function. Remember "obese people" and "effeminate fictional characters" and "fictional perverts" - hell, even "fictional drug addicts", they all got deleted under the same brush for which there is massive precedent. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge Category:Fictional millionaires into it, per Honbicot. Are they $ millionaires, £, or €? Johnbod 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That's excatly what I was gonna say. :D Angie Y. 00:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any category can be misused, but there is no reason to presume that this one will be. Haddiscoe 01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Think about this: Veruca Salt, Princess Morbucks and Karin Kanzuki come from wealthy families. Angie Y. 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge millionaires into it. Zythe: We have heard you, so please stop repeating yourself. Your opinion will be considered by the closing nominator, so there is no need to continue responding to everyone.--Mike Selinker 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was simply countering points. Tell that to Angie Y who keeps saying "keep" and making it look like more have voted.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure thing. Angie, please only put in one vote (that is, "keep," "delete," or the like") per debate. And Zythe, a person's vote isn't an invitation to a dialogue. Feel free to modify your own statement, but it's not okay (with me, anyway) if you respond to person after person.--Mike Selinker 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fictional millionaires. I don't think anyone in the 6-digit range would be considered notably "wealthy" in fiction. Bulldog123 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and possibly reverse merge the millionaires and billionaires cats). The problem with "millionaires" is that it assumes a more-or-less contemporary economic and monetary system, and is impossible to apply to much of fantasy and science fiction. Mark Vorkosigan is described as having started with a million Betan dollars, which is equivalent to four million Barrayaran marks. But how much is that in Euros or US dollars? It's never explained. He could be a billionaire, or he could be only half-way towards millionaire status. There's no way to know. But he's inarguably among the wealthiest characters of the Vorkosigan Saga. Xtifr _tälk 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoo! Big keep consensus. Angie Y. 23:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and keep seperate from the millionaires and billionaires as we're talking about fiction and not every fictitious character uses the same monetary systems as we do, not to mention any characters set in our world and set a long time ago (say, anybody before the Rockerfellers) may still be considered wealthy despite having less even than a single million dollars. --linca^linca 01:26, 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 Rename. Vegaswikian 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Symbols of Poland to Category:Polish symbols

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to reduce the risk of confusion with the subcategory Category:National symbols of Poland, and because most of the items in the other subcategories do not represent Poland as a whole. Haddiscoe 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Honbicot 00:10, 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 Reame. Vegaswikian 00:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ABC network shows to Category:American Broadcasting Company network shows

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - to disambiguate the category for shows originating on the American network from those which originate on one of the other networks around the world that use the initials ABC. Otto4711 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Honbicot 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment surely Category:ABC (USA) network shows or similar would be preferable? Johnbod 01:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally the preference is to avoid abbreviations, so your proposal would call for replacing one abbreviation with two. Vegaswikian 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about Category:ABC (United States) network shows? Although ABC is an abbreviation, the network is never called by its full name. It just doesn't look right and would be more confusing to readers. --musicpvm 07:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once you start to require all those modifiers (and they are required), I don't believe the result is any less confusing than the straightforward "American Broadcasting Company". If people get confused, well...they've got to learn that it's a big world someday. Xtifr _tälk 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. If there were only one "ABC", I might agree that the abbreviation is common enough to justify ignoring the rules about abbreviations, but since there are many ABCs in the world, and since we do have general rules against abbreviations, and since the main article is located at American Broadcasting Company, I think that's the best choice for the category as well. I might suggest dropping the "network", though, since it becomes redundant once the name is spelled out—but I won't insist on it. Xtifr _tälk 20:35, 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 Reame. Vegaswikian 00:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transitional typefaces to Category:Transitional serif typefaces

Category:Old style typefaces to Category:Old style serif typefaces

Category:Modern typefaces to Category:Modern serif typefaces

Nominator's Rationale: Myself and another editor were working on creating the classification of typeface categories. I started with the serif and created the categories in question. However, the Category:Sans-serif typefaces subcategories are named a little different. This proposed change would make all the classification categories consistent, and it would be clear to those unfamiliar with classification that Old style, modern, and transitional refer to serifed faced, while geometric and humanist refer to sans-serif. Andrew c 20:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for greater clarity, per nom. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wilchett 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for greater consistency with other classification categories. CApitol3 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 03:24, 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge.--Mike Selinker 11:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literature protagonists to Category:Characters in written fiction

• Merge - per the many many CFDs in which consensus against "protagonist" categories developed. Merge rather than delete to avoid orphaning anything. Otto4711 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. We've been through these protagonist cats too many times to count. Doczilla 01:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Protagonist" is an unnecessarily difficult word to use. Wilchett 19:47, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as empty and requested by creator. Vegaswikian 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian lake navigational boxes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I created this category by mistake. Category:Italian navigational boxes (lakes) is the real one —Ian Spackman 16:12, 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. --Xdamr^talk 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Groundlings
Category:Broken Lizard
Category:Three Stooges members
Category:Monty Python members
Category:Second City alumni
Delete - as with categories for actors by film or TV series, these are performer by performance categorization. Per strong consensus against such categorization these should be deleted. Otto4711 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These don't so much keep a list of current performers that are performing but show former performers, directors, writers, etc (especially in the case of Second City and Groundlings). The Second City alumni show the common thread between several of the greatest comediens of the last 60 years and how they got there start, where they came from, and how they've established working relationships with each other (for example, most of the cast of 30 Rock met at Second City).--Twintone 18:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the category has no way of establishing the working relationships of these people beyond happening to have been involved with Second City at some point. The category has no way of annotating temporal relationships to other category members so it can't impart the information that you're indicating it does. Otto4711 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - by the same token, having a category for school alumni, i.e. Northwestern University alumni, doesn't show relationships to others that attended the school at different times.--Twintone 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I like all of these. Certainly with the Stooges and Python, those are as strong connections as sports team players or band members, both of which I support as categories.--Mike Selinker 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both above. Note: the Pythons' live shows contained enough music to qualify as "Musicians by band" in any case, i would have thought. Johnbod 01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Twintone Tim! 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otto Sleep On It 10:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stooges and Python - they're really much more than performers by performance, and instead a recognization genre of performance. The Second City alumni category seems like a different animal than the others, and I'd like to hear thoughts on it separately before making up my mind. We're talking about a category for people who have performed with a recognized troupe, not in any one performance. I note the Royal Shakespeare Company lists alumni in the article itself - is there any particular reason for deleting this kind of category of people associated with a prominent performing company? A Musing 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the Second City category seems a lot like the Groundlings category. Both are long-lived troupes with high turnover in personnel and few-or-no permanent members. Xtifr _tälk 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, rename two: I think that troupes are much more analogous to Category:musical groups than to performances, generally speaking. On the other hand, I think that member categories should say "members" (or "alumni"). So, I suggest we rename Category:Groundlings to Category:Groundlings alumni and rename Category:Broken Lizard to Category:Broken Lizard members. Xtifr _tälk 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Twintone and rename two per Xtifr's logic - with which I concur.--VS ^talk 02:00, 26 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. Vegaswikian 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games based on Disney Cartoons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Disney video games, or at least Rename to Category:Video games based on Disney cartoons. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. -Sean Curtin 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Tim! 21:48, 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 Merge. Vegaswikian 00:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish operas to Category:Polish-language operas

• Merge, as effective duplicate, because all the operas in Category:Polish-language operas appear to be in Polish. Also, there do not seem to be any other opera-by-nationality categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Johnbod 01:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Polish-language operas is correct and consistent with all the other 18 Category:Operas by language items . -- Kleinzach 03:14, 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: Quebecois films. --Xdamr^talk 14:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quebec films to Category:Canadian films

• Merge - There do not appear to be separate categories for any other Canadian province or territory, and I don't see a similar structure in place for sub-national divisions for other countries. Otto4711 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger. This is a well-poulated subcat of a well-populated parent, and the fact that Quebec has a different primary language to the rest of Canada leads to distinct cultural difference and makes it quite feasible to write a useful head article on Quebec films. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl, who has left little to say. Category:Québécois films might make clearer that this should not include an English film which happens to be made in Montreal; but accents on cats invite miscategorization, and should be avoided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG. Look more carefully Otto! We have Category:Cinema of Catalonia & seven Indian "films by language" categories. Johnbod 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, stuff the condescension. Secondly, a structure for Indian languages is not the same thing as a structure for provinces. Otto4711 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In practice it pretty nearly is. Kannada films are all made in Bangalore etc. This could be called "French-Canadian cinema", if we did not all know that would be unacceptable to most Québécois. As Septentrionalis says, this category should not include an English film which happens to be made in Montreal. No doubt French-language films made in Toronto would end up here too. Johnbod 00:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per BHG, mainly because Québec is culturally distinct from the rest of Canada. — Dale Arnett 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BHG. Yet another way in which limiting national categories strictly to current political entities gets in the way of common sense. A Musing 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category: Quebecois films, as the Canadian government recognized the Quebecois as a nation. 132.205.44.134 22:35, 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. Vegaswikian 00:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of structures to Category:Lists of buildings and structures

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per parent and many related categories. Oliver Han 12:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per convention of parent category Category:Buildings and structures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 01:23, 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 No Consensus. --Xdamr^talk 14:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arab Israelis to Category:Arab citizens of Israel

Nominator's Rationale: per name of primary article on topic Arab citizens of Israel. --Abnn 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support - I imagine that the original name was due to some length consideration, but Wikipedia is not paper, especially regarding sensitive topics as this we should strive to accurately represent the sum of sourcing and consensus. Tewfik^Talk 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting point. If the current name is in line with current convention (rather than just size as I initially thought), then perhaps we should stick with it. Tewfik^Talk 16:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Other similar categories include the ethnicity first (in this case, Arab) and the nationality second (Israeli). It matches other categories. --Shamir1 06:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved out of speedy. Conscious 09:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Shamir1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Length is a consideration for cats; we should cut down on the blue haze above articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - based upon the description of the category, it should be Category:Non-Jewish Arab citizens of Israel or Category:Non-Jewish Arab Israelis. Mangoe 20:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are there really so many Jewish Arab citizens of Israel that the "Non-Jewish" prefix serves any useful purpose? On a quick reading, the article Arab citizens of Israel does not appear to mention the existence of any, and says "Arab citizens of Israel is a phrase used to describe Arabs or Arabic-speaking people that are not Jewish, who are citizens of the State of Israel." I know that there are some, but they are AFAIK they they are very rare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer Jewish Arabs aren't that rare, at least not in Israel, but it is rare that they refer to themselves as Arabs. It's accepted practice to refer to them instead as Mizrahi (i.e. Mizrahi Jews) and the term Arab is reserved for non-Jewish Arabs. --Abnn 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To quote: "A category of notable non-Jewish Israeli Arabs". Mangoe 16:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as original nominator. It's not a big deal, it was more just a housecleaning speedy rename. User:Tiamut also originally suggested the move on the category's talk page. --Abnn 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. as per Shamiri Mayumashu 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and strongly. This also has a lot to do with self-affliation. I don't see many Arab citizens being happy with being called "Israeli" even in that way. Bulldog123 16:23, 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 Reverse Merge Category:Northeastern University (Boston, Massachusetts) to Category:Northeastern University, Boston per BrownHairedGirl. --Xdamr^talk 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northeastern University, Boston (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Orphaned and replaced by Category:Northeastern University (Boston, Massachusetts) using AWB –Crashintome4196 07:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge Category:Northeastern University (Boston, Massachusetts) to Category:Northeastern University, Boston. No need for the Massachusets disambiguator, unless there is another Northeastern Uni in a town called Boston. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 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 Delete. Vegaswikian 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional bowlers to Category:Fictional bowling players

To match Category:Bowling players, and to distinguish from Category:Bowls players.--Mike Selinker 07:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is the categorization of fictional characters by hobby, which generally is not useful. Characters such as Fred Flintstone have been placed in this category. The problem is that many characters are not notable for their hobbies and that characters that share hobbies are generally not similar in other respects. If kept, then the category should be renamed as Category:Fictional professional bowling players to focus the category on professional bowling players. Dr. Submillimeter 08:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)&[reply]
• Rename and restrict to Category:Fictional professional bowling players I agree that fictional characters generally shouldn't be categorized by incidental hobbies. Otherwise you could end up with characters who happened to go bowling a few times in a TV series or comic book or series of books ending up in this category, burying the more useful and significant characters for whom bowling is actually a more major feature. Therefore rename as recommended in Dr's comment above to restrict it to characters who do bowling professionally. Dividing characters by profession is reasonable and there are a few characters that qualify (Roy Munson in Kingpin (1996 film) comes to mind). Dugwiki 15:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - none of the articles are for fictional professional bowlers ("professional bowling players" is about the silliest damn construction I've ever seen, by the way) so, since renaming would render the category empty there seems little point in renaming rather than deleting (although as category creator I'll be devastated to see it go). Otto4711 19:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Many people from England, Australia etc will take this to relate to bowlers in cricket. Alex Middleton 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • or hats? Carlossuarez46 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hardly. Most people now living in the UK have probably never seen a bowler hat in real life. It's over 40 years since people stopped wearing them. Alex Middleton 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I'm too influenced by Hercule Poirot's current run on tv. ;-) Carlossuarez46 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial overcat. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - category would be legitimate if limited along the lines of Category:Bowling players, but it would also be empty. Categorizing people (fictional or otherwise) by non-defining hobby is overkill, and that is exactly what this category does. -Sean Curtin 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 01:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What about these character's makes bowling a defining feature? I don't think it is for Rip van Winkle, but for some like Homer Simpson is it used as a key to his character's personality? Does it define him in any way?A Musing 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gtrmp Bulldog123 16:24, 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 Delete. It seems that much of the support for keeping was to clean this category up based on some defining characteristic. I think it is better to delete this and then once a clear set of defining characteristics is defined then the category can be recreated. It would also be better if the name was changed to reflect the defining character of the new category so that it does not resemble a catchall category as the current name does. Vegaswikian 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The ability to swim is not a defining characteristic. The category's not fictional professional swimmers. It's not fictional London Channel swimmers. It's just fictional swimmers. One user recently added the category to a ridiculous number of characters simply because they'd swum at least once in their many years of publication. Doczilla 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but prune like mad. This category was created to parallel Category:Fictional baseball players, in that it's a category about certain sportspeople who happen to be fictional, such as Caitlin Atkins and Aspen Matthews. It's certainly not for Lori Lemaris, who probably isn't entering too many high school swim meets with that tail of hers. I'd add "Fictional sportspeople who participate in the sport of swimming" to the header, and get everyone who's not a sportsperson out of there.--Mike Selinker 06:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating subcats for the characters with no history of competing in sport swimming, like Cavewoman who frequently swims to hunt and provide giant fish for her group's survival, and James Bond, who swims for spy mission purposes and for recreation. Also, turn Fictional mermen and mermaids into a subcat of Fictional swimmers so they can be reasonably removed. -- Wisdom4 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To some degree, this is categorization by hobby, but for other characters, this is categorization by mode of locomotion (for mer-people, for example). The category contains very few professional swimmers. I suggest deleting this and creating Category:Fictional professional swimmers for the few professional atheletes in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - But factually define in good faith terms exactly which characters belong in this category in the cat page discription and have expert editors update the articles to reflect the category additions as well. Invisible Woman turns out to be captain of her high school swim team. This is only mentioned once in an early issue of Marvel Knights 4 and is not yet included in the article, so the cat was agreeably reverted from the article by another editor, until the article itself can be updated. There clearly needs to be more communication here, lest my participation in editing be fully discouraged. Discuss Fiction swimmers

--Wisdom4 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename/restrict to fictional professional swimmers As above, the category should be restricted to fictional professional swimmers. Dividing characters by profession is reasonable, but characters generally shouldn't be categorized by incidental hobbies. So rename to Category:Fictional professional swimmers and prune out articles that don't qualify. The category shouldn't be deleted unless such a restriction empties it (to keep fictional professional swimmers seperated in the parent categories from actual people). Dugwiki 15:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Deleting this category and creating Category:Fictional professional swimmers from scratch would be less time-consuming than renaming this category and pruning the categories. Dr. Submillimeter 07:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial overcat. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete confused and ill-defined. I doubt it's usefulness even if it was well defined. Ocicat 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune to only include character who participate in swimming as a sport to match Category:Swimmers. -Sean Curtin 00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Why does an author characterize someone as a swimmer? Does it mean anything, or define their character in any way?A Musing 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe keep/rename but prune of almost everything. I looked through about a third of them (skipping the obvious anime/comic characters) and came up with three entries for whom competitive swimming (professional or amateur) seemed important. The rest consisted of comic book mermaids/men, comic book Atlanteans, Bond girls in bikinis, and a whole host of comic book and other characters whose swimming often isn't even mentioned, much less important. (Lois Lane? Forest Gump, whose athletic prowess is in running? And where are the Rhinemaidens from Das Rheingold?) So it appears to be possible to establish Category:Fictional competitive swimmers, but I'm inclined to agree with Dr. S. that sorting through the existing category is exhausting, and that the name is just too tempting. Mangoe 13:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as categorization by hobby. I have no objection to creating a category for professional swimmers, but the present content of the cat is of little help there. >Radiant< 11:13, 22 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. Consensus is there to not keep. I decided that merging was better then deleting given the various suggestions on the table. Vegaswikian 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Effects of the 2003 Iraq conflict (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete: Looking at the contents of this. a subcategory of the much larger "2003 Iraq Conflict" parent category, I don't observe any logical differentiation between what is categorized under the parent category and what is considered an effect. Not to say there may not be an eventual need for such a category, but the contents do not seem to support it just yet. Bsherr 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vaguely named and largely subjective category. Doczilla 05:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I'm such an inclusionist, I'll take it ALL...cat. looks very keepable and salvageable to me, good for contemporary researchers. --Wassermann 10:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but restrict. There have been a number of scholarly assessments of the impact of the conflict, and they are worth categorising together. However, the category definition needs to be tightened to restrict it to studies of the effects, rather than including incidents and people of the conflict. It might be worth renaming it to Category:Studies of the effects of the 2003 Iraq conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:2003 Iraq conflict (changing my vote). Based on the discussion below, I think that any category labelled "effects" will be too problematic, and if a grouping is needed o the studies into the effects of the conflict, it would be better done as an article or list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:2003 Iraq conflict - It is difficult to see why some articles (such as Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War and United States occupation of Fallujah) are called "effects" while other articles (Opposition to the Iraq War and Iraq Body Count project) are not. Moreover, I do not understand why some people are categorized as "effects" of the conflict, such as Edward Seitz and Tony Lagouranis. I suggest merging these articles into Category:2003 Iraq conflict and finding a better way to sort these articles. Dr. Submillimeter 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge it - There's clearly no differentiation between it and the parent category. Mangoe 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categorization by causation is problematic for a number of reasons: one is the POV nature of what caused what; the inability in a category (as opposed to an article) to provide sourcing; the butterfly effect may indicate that all present are effects of all past events; and finally, the sheer volume of "effects of" categories that can be created (with equal validity to the current one): Category:Effects of World War Two, Category:Effects of George Bush's election, Category:Effects of the rise of Christianity, Category:Effects of the formation of the Earth....Carlossuarez46 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlos. excellent argument! Sleep On It 10:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yes, v good argument by Carlos, but deletion will lead to these articles not being categorised under Category:2003 Iraq conflict (unless they are already inappropriately in both that categ and the subcat). Merger is needed to avoid orphaning these articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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. Vegaswikian 00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television writers by series to Category:Lists of television writers by series

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - similar to the actors by series categories nominated the other day, this should be renamed to reflect its purpose and to discourage the creation of new categories for TV series writers. Otto4711 02:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 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 Delete. Vegaswikian 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Twilight Zone writers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - per strong consensus against person by project categorization. Otto4711 02:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 05:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Similar reasoning to why we avoid categorizing actors-by-series. Dugwiki 15:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I still disagree. Tim! 21:46, 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 Rename to Category:History of Islamic science. There seems to be consensus for a rename to the "History of ..." form. --Xdamr^talk 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, There already is a Category:Islam and science, which serves the same purpose as this category. We don't need both an Islamic science and an Islam and science category. Sefringle 02:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant category. Doczilla 05:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- no, these categories are separate it seems. "Islamic science" was science practiced under the Muslim regimes of olden days, while Category:Islam and science seems to be more about the realtion of MODERN Islam and MODERN science. --Wassermann 10:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- yes see, I am right. "Category:Islamic science" of past times was astronomy/astrology, early cartography/geography, medicine of the Middle Ages, and the beginnings of modern chemistry (alchemy), while the category you all would like to keep (Category:Islam and science) is about MODERN issues. --Wassermann 10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not now; people must have been merging. List of ancient Persian doctors and Islamic astrology are under Category:Islam and science Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per Wasserman. Islamic science of the pre-modern period is a notable topic in the history of science. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Rather than keep the current name, it would be better to identify either the specific nations involved (such as the Abbasid Caliphate) or to explicitly indicate the time period. Given the intention of this category, the current name is ambiguous. Could someone suggest a better name? Dr. Submillimeter
• Rename to Category:Science during the Umayyads; Category:Science during the Abbasids, Category:Science during the Ottomans, etc. I agree with Dr. Sub on that; that's what we're trying to capture, apparently. To label science as "religious" (even inaccurately, such as lumping all Arab scientists under this category, regardless of what their religious views are/were) is problematic, unless we want Category:Jewish science (which presumably would categorize all Jewish scientists and their works), Category:Hindu science (ditto), and Category:Christian science (not to be confused with Mary Baker Eddy type stuff), etc..... Carlossuarez46 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:History of Islamic science - or similar. Anyway don't delete or salami-slice. "Science during the Bourbons", "Science during the Stuarts" - no thanks. Johnbod 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be an emerging consensus that it useful to have some way of categorising the scientists and science in pre-modern islamic societies, and that the current name is too vague ... but the proposals so far suggest several different approaches to the naming. Before trying to devise category names, it would be helpful to clarify what we intend to be the scope of this category or categories. I see two options in time (up to he end of the middle ages, or up to the fall of the Ottoman Empire); and two geographical options (in what we now consider to be Muslim countries, or no geographical boundaries so that we can include Moorish Spain and the muslim areas of the Balkans etc). My only clear preference so far is not to exclude Spain and the Balkans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Origionally Category:Islam and science was called Category:Islamic science[1] for the purpose of the POV of Islamic science. Consensus was to move it to Islam and science. Now that category has been re-created, and there is much duplication.--Sefringle 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The usage of this category isn't clear from its name at the moment. Maybe a better name would be "History of Islam and science" or "Historic Islamic science" or something to that effect. I think it can be a useful category if we find the right now. As it is right now, it isn't distinct enough from the related "Islam and science" category. --Abnn 05:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Islam and science would be the better of the two.--Sefringle 05:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Islam and science, and then see what subcats are useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla, redundant. Sleep On It 10:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category is unrelated to Category:Islam and science. Islamic science (also known as Arabic science) is a period in the history of science and has, despite it's name, fairly little to almost nothing to do with Islam, quite unlike the other category. —Ruud 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ruud. This one is a meaningful historical category.A Musing 18:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something like Category:History of Islamic science or something a little more obvious. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the main article is titled History of science in the Islamic World. Maybe this category, if kept, should be called Category:History of science in the Islamic World--Sefringle 03:21, 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 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: salt.--Mike Selinker 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entertainers by age upon death (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Speedy delete and SALT - second re-creation of the category by User:Castrodead in the last couple of days. Speedy deleted this and its entire sub-category tree yesterday. Otto4711 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perma-Delete - I've warned him too many times. I hope there will not be a third recreation from him.UnknownMan 00:48, 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 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 Renamed. Vegaswikian 07:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Archdiocese of Kottayam to Category:Syro-Malabar Catholic Archbishops of Kottayam

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, less wordy, and the more common way of titling categories for bishops/archbishops. Category:Archbishops of Kottayam would be fine also, if there are in fact no other religions that have that title. Mairi 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Archbishops of Kottayam unless there is evidence that other denominations used the same title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Archbishops of Kottayam assuming this title to be unambiguous. -- roundhouse 11:05, 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 Renamed. Vegaswikian 07:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Archdiocese of Changanassery to Category:Syro-Malabar Catholic Archbishops of Changanassery

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, less wordy than the current name, with no loss of accuracy. Category:Archbishops of Changanassery would also be fine, as there don't appear to be any other archbishops with that title. Mairi 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Archbishops of Changanassery unless there is evidence of that title being used by another denomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Archbishops of Changanassery assuming this title to be unambiguous. -- roundhouse 11:06, 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.