< May 20	May 22 >

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. There was little support for keeping the category, and some support for creating a Category:Dreamgirls songs as a sub-category of Category:Songs from musicals, where there are a dozen or so similar sings-by-musical categories). If that category is to be created, it does not need CfD approval, and is better created from scaratch rather tan as renaming of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Delete per convention that we should not have performer by performance categories as they create an unaccepable level of category clutter. All necessary links can be provided by an article. Honbicot 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are eight articles here that aren't performers.--Mike Selinker 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absent the improperly categorized performer articles, the remaining articles are for the most part for songs. I don't think we should categorize songs by the films or shows in which they appear, even if they are written specifically for the film or show. (edit: CFD for such a category that is eight days old at this point) Templates for the songs strike me as a better choice. If categorizing songs by film/show is seen as desirable then they should be categorized under something other than the generic category for the film or show. The remaining articles can easily be interlinked through each other by text links and the category is not needed for navigation. Otto4711 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be a few articles that aren't about performers, but then there would be in any such category. In order to prevent categorisation by performance, we can't allow this sort of category. Alex Middleton 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove performer articles and rename to Category:Dreamgirls songs under Category:Songs from musicals It looks like the standard way to handle songs from musicals is to place them under Category:Songs from musicals, possibly under a subcategory named after the musical. So rename this category to Category:Dreamgirls songs and move it to be a subcategory of Category:Songs from musicals. Then remove the performer articles from the category. Dugwiki 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (and prune performer-by-performance entries) per Dugwiki. Good call. Xtifr _tälk 22:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a bad category. If anyone wants a songs category, they can create that separately, but it would be better if they didn't because the matter is easily covered by a list in the main article. Greg Grahame 19:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song by musical categories are not required, and in this case they aren't all even original to this musical. Wilchett 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dugwiki's renaming sounds like a good way to handle it. --GentlemanGhost 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is not required, as the article(s) can cover everything. Ravenhurst 01:39, 25 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. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anime-related websites to Category:Anime and manga websites

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This category includes websites for both anime and manga, and the new name fits the naming convention used by similar categories such as Category:Anime and manga terminology, Category:Anime and manga webcomics, Category:Anime and manga characters, etc. I would not be opposed to Category:Anime and manga-related websites either, but I believe the -related is unnecessary to the meaning of the title and simply makes it unnecessarily long. --tjstrf talk 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --tjstrf talk 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Related" is too vague and subjective. Doczilla 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename - for Doczilla's and tjstrf's reasons. --Squilibob 06:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 31 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. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anime fandom to Category:Anime and manga fandom

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. This category covers fandom for both anime and manga, and the proposed new name fits the naming convention used by similar categories such as Category:Anime and manga terminology, Category:Anime and manga webcomics, Category:Anime and manga characters, etc. --tjstrf talk 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --tjstrf talk 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename - per nom. --Squilibob 06:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 31 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. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these men were Duke of Italy. Honbicot 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The subcats of Category:Dukes by nation are mostly in the form Dukes of foo, and I can see an argument or either construct. If a change is contemplated, it would be better to consider all the categories together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and rename the others too. The current name is inaccurate. Alex Middleton 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these should be considered together per RHG. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There's no reason not to rename this one as a start, at least none that has been mentioned. Haddiscoe 01:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is the holder of an Italian Dukedom necessarily an Italian citizen? Unless we are sure that he is (and given Italy's history I guess it's unlikely), then "Italian Dukes" is mistaken. Better to consider all the categories together, not to replace one deficient category name with another one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per bhg. i would be likely to oppose the whole lot, following her last argument above. Johnbod 03:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. BrownHairedGirl is mistaken to think that citizenship of a modern unified state determines whether people may be classified under nationalities like Italian and German. There are thousands of people from pre-unification who are classified under those headings. And even a non-Italian who holds an Italian dukedom is an Italian duke. Greg Grahame 11:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That's an argument worth exploring, but it should be made in a group nomination for all the Duke by nation categories. I see no argument advanced here for making Italy an exception to the existing convention; if the convention is to be changed, let's consider it for the other affected categories as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't accept that there is a convention of "Dukes of". The most important English-speaking country with dukes uses "Fooian dukes" as does the most populous country in the world. Honbicot 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at the sub-categories of Category:British dukes. I'm not sure some Chinese Dukes of 1600 years ago should decide this argument. Johnbod 02:54, 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 delete, as overcategorisation.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a category for people who won an award created by a Catholic diocese in Iowa and which is now presented by a slightly larger coalition in Iowa. This is not defining for its recipients and is overcategorization by award or honor. An appropriate list exists in Pacem in Terris Award. This should be deleted. Otto4711 22:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JFK is in this one too! (See next item down). Honbicot 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, clearly not a defining characteristic of most of the people involved. No need to listify, since there is already a list at Pacem in Terris Award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 11:30, 24 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) 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete This category covers pretty much the whole of the European aristocracy, and goodness knows how many other people. But there is a much better system for categorizing nobility in place already, and this certainly isn't a defining characteristic of the likes of JFK, on whose article this is one of a seething mass of categories that desperately needs to be reduced. Honbicot 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obscure and and in general either obvious or trivial. Mangoe 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are also many different systems for defining who is in armiger in many different European jurisdictions. In some places, anyone can say they are an armiger, while in others the government must make it so. It is opening a big can of worms that need not be opened.--Eva ^bd 23:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and in many cases unverifiable. HeartofaDog 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 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 delete. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is really with the aim of producing discussion on a category whose existence seems inconsistent with previous decisions, rather than because I have a vengeance to see this category deleted. It is clearly, effectively, being used as a "Jaina mathematicians" category and this would be inconsistent with the decision not to categorize mathematicians (or other kinds of scientist) by religious affiliation. It is not obvious how the category can be used to describe "mathematics as performed by Jains" other than serving as a repository of Jain mathematicians. This category is a subcategory of Category:Indian mathematics which is itself being misused in a similar way (holding many biographies which are also sorted under Category:Indian mathematicians - an unusual structure that could be simplified significantly by making the biographical category a subcategory of the main one, and classifying the biographical articles only by the biographical category). However, the "Indian mathematics" category would retain some non-biographical articles (for instance, Chakravala method) while the Jain category would be left empty if stripped of its biographies, suggesting that it should be treated as a "Jain mathematicians" category in disguise, and presumably, for consistency, treated as a deletable orthogonal intersection? Purgatorio 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to have "religion X occupation" categories. Mangoe 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was recently decided not to categorize mathematicians by religion, as religion itself generally has little influence over most mathematicians' work (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 29#Category:Mathematicians by religion). This category should not be an exception. Dr. Submillimeter 11:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Indian mathematics and Category:Jains per nom & precedent, unless someone produces persuasive evidence that there is a particularly Jaian form of mathematics. Please do not simply delete or he articles will lose necessary categorisations. (I am alarmed to see how many nominations of intersection categories propose deletion when upmerger would be the more appropriate solution). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Bulldog123 13:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for consistency. Postlebury 22:07, 25 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. Yes, they are often designed with sex appeal in mind (but then, so are some of the male superheroes), but that doesn't mean this is useful categorization. Roughly half of superheroes these days are female, and it's simply false to consider "male" and "female" two different species. In most cases we don't subcategorize people by gender. Instead, I would suggest writing an article depicting the female role in fiction, from damsel-in-distress Dale Arden to hapless teammate Invisible Girl (as first written) to powerful protagonist Buffy Summers. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inappropriate separation by gender. J Greb 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: There are categories for female heads of government, female singers, female murderers, and perhaps most analogous to this category, female Transformers. Why not female superheroes? How is this inappropriate? Lexid523 20:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Comic book characters get so excessively categorized that we have to trim the cats wherever we can. Please note that this category was just created this week. There are many reasons why those of us in the WikiProject Comics did not already have this cateogry. Please respect our preferences.Doczilla 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sex of superheroes is clearly relevant considering the fact they are very often clearly designed with sex appeal in mind i.e. usually depicted in extremely revealing tight costumes. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 03:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. Lexid, most of those should probably be deleted as well. --tjstrf talk 03:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think that given both recent and long-standing controversy regarding how female superheroes/comic book characters are treated (e.g. the new Mary Jane statue, the lack of memorial for Stephanie Brown in the Batcave, the whole "Women in Refrigerators" phenomenon), female superheroes qualify as a "unique cultural topic" as required by the Gender, race, and sexuality standard. Its cultural significance as a category can be seen on sites like Girl-Wonder.org, as well as the number of scholarly and fan-produced articles.Lexid523 03:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you voting twice? --tjstrf talk 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake--I've changed it, but I still believe my reasons to be valid.Lexid523 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have to agree with Gustav; the usual depiction of these female comic book and manga characters usually demonstrate them as sexy superhero dames. You don't normally see "handsome"-looking male superheroes, do you? Wait, that sounded wrong, I'm a guy! lol. Kidding aside, yep I can see no reason why there should not be a female superheroes cat. if there is a Category:Extraterrestrial superheroes. Shouldn't there exist a Category:Male superheroes to add up to all three fictional-derived species? I am, however, also in favour of a rename of the current cat. to Category:Superheroine. How does that sound? ~I'm anonymous
- It sounds sexist. It says they don't belong in the superhero category. The Legion of Super Heroes includes males and females. It's not the Legion of Super Heroes and Heroines. Doczilla 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gustav von Humpelschmumpel and Lexid523. Gender does seem to be clearly defining attribute of female superheroes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favour of users Gustav, Lexid523 and I'm Anonymous. Gender is highly regarded; among the four common races in comics: men, women, mutant and alien - women stick out the most, perhaps it may have do with their notable looks of beauty and sexy caricaturistic styles. The categories for female singers, female murderers, etcetera, have been out for some time and this one is no exception. DC&Marvel maniac 16:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose its a legitimate genre. Carlossuarez46 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is overcategorization. RobJ1981 05:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There should be a category for female superheroes, and one needs to be created for male superheroes as well. BFExpert 12:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I agree that the superheroes cat is rather huge, this isn't the way to go. Gender is ambiguous in the comics world. Kree, anyone? There have been codenames used by men and women, which means they'd just be listed twice, and that doesn't help anyone. Plus what Doczilla said. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions: for ambiguous genders, don't add them to the category. For ambiguous codenames, either add the category to the character's main article only (e.g., Carmilla Black a.k.a. "Scorpion") or, if there is no separate article, go ahead and add the category anyway. People will probably be smart enough to figure it out. --GentlemanGhost 15:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's easier said than done. I can't say I agree that people will figure it out. There's too much history that suggests otherwise. Stephen Day 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose With reservations. My concern is that this is a large category. Even though superheroines are fewer in number than male superheroes, this will still be a long list. For such a big category, I'm not sure that we get a significant payoff in terms of differentiation. Are female superheroes that demonstrably different from their male counterparts? Conversely, are all female superheroes that similar that they should be grouped together? I suspect lack of utility may be the reason that there are not categories for, say, "Female characters in written fiction" or "Female characters in television". (I realize that this category is not "Female characters in comics", which would be an even larger category, but more comparable in scope.) That said, I think this is a more encyclopedic category than, for example, Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. As mentioned above, there are certainly verifiable sources, both scholarly and casual, which discuss the differences between male and female within the superhero genre. In fact, Wikipedia has articles on the portrayal of women in comics and the Women in Refrigerators website. As Lexid523 points out, this indicates that this a "unique cultural topic", which is the relevant standard from the "non-notable intersections" section that Doczilla quotes above. Also, this category is no less legitimate than Category:LGBT characters in comics, a category which has existed, apparently without controversy, since June 2006. I, too, am opposed to excessive overcategorization within the comics articles, but this seems to me to be a very basic category which does not parse the contents too thin. --GentlemanGhost 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment General on the size and splitting of Category:Superheroes. Right now, without this cat, Superheroes has 19 sub cats, of which 3 are umbrellas (nationality, publisher, and race) with 30 subs between them. The parent has 159 entries while Female has 143. At this point I don't know how many of those intersect and are included in other viable subs (Golden age, DC, Asian, Canadian, etc). What is showing though is that prior to this cat there was a possibility of an article having 4 distinct Superhero tags. This either adds a fifth, or argues for those 4 sets to get another level added: <foo> <gender> superhero, with about a dozen of those becoming an intersection of gender and race or nationality.

Also, I find it hard to equate gender to sexual orientation, especially since the LGBT cat is not LGBT superheroes. Or, put another way, would a cat Female characters in comics be supported? - J Greb 17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do see where you're coming from, but the fact is the Female superheroes category isn't nearly complete yet, but already has more entries than the comprehensive LGBT characters in comics category. Somebody searching for LGBT superheroes would figure out pretty quickly that Apollo and Midnighter are, and Francine and Katchoo are not, because the category is a manageable size. However, the full list of superheroes, or an alternative "Female characters in comics" category would be far too unwieldy for an individual to sort out.Lexid523 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla. WesleyDodds 18:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry but it's too broad for me. Not only can it include comic book female superheroes but also may end up including heroines from movies (Ellen Ripley), video games (Jill Valentine), books (Mina Harker), television (Buffy Summers) and then there are females who are not superheroes but have been around long enough or have enough story behind to be classed as one (Lois Lane & Renee Montoya). Also what about the females who are anti-heroes (Painkiller Jane)or former villains (Songbird or good turned bad (Willow Rosenberg) - well in her case good turned bad turned good again. But that's just me. RIANZ 22:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's highly unlikely. I mean, Luke Skywalker, The Terminator, and Neo haven't been labeled "superheroes". I think it's fairly understood that except in specific circumstances (e.g. The Incredibles) a character needs to have originated in comics in order to be considered a superhero. By the same token, I also think most people are smart enough not to label a non-super a superhero just because they happen to be a well-developed character in comics. Lexid523 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you haven't seen what most of the people on here are like. Ha! That was a joke not an attack. Anyways, what I was getting at is that now with the term "superhero", it tends to no longer emcompass just comic characters. I do see comic characters as superheroes, but some will see video game characters, TV show characters (Buffy, Lara Croft and the cast of Heroes can be perceived as superheroes by non-comic book readers - although all three do have comics and Lara is a non-powered adventurer). I know the difference between hero, superhero, protagonist and anti-hero but many wouldn't.

How I mentioned non-powers getting confused and added to "female superheroes"... well some people with still add them if say for the sake of argument Aunt May in mainstream continuity gets the Power Cosmic and fights for a couple of issues as a hero before losing the powers and returning to normalcy. Therefore someone will add the category which will in turn get deleted and thus ensues an edit war. The same thing happens with the LGBT characters, some character are seen as ambiguous or are attracted to a character who then in turn is the same sex as they are or they gender swap for a few issues and they are then slapped with the LGBT category. Anyway, I just said it's too broad even for comic characters because of the anti-heroes, the former villains, the former good guys and the cast of Buffy, Angel and Heroes. RIANZ 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument, but I think that getting rid of a category which has at least 200 legitimate entries because there may be the occasional disagreement about who qualifies is playing it a bit too safe. Lexid523 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, in this case gender is a defining characteristic, for better or worse. Other grounds for deletion seem to be more pertinent to Category:Superheroes as a whole. -- Visviva 05:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Most WikiProject Comics contributors posting comments above have voted to delete while most of those voting to oppose are not WikiProject Comics members. Doczilla 08:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 11:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bulldog123 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, precedent set by the deletions of supervillainesses. This leads to a new system of categorising by gender. To someone who doesn't understand how this affects the category system, this may seem like a silly motion to delete but gender in comics it best represented and discussed by sourced articles of which there are many. This is not a tenable category at all.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Travislangley 03:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Suggestion: Making this category a subcategory of Category:Women in comics Lexid523 02:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a good idea, or action since you've already changed the parent cat. That flat out guarantees that the articles will be viewed as belonging both this and the Superhero cat. Having made the move you make the statement that this is unrelated to and separate from Superhero. Not a good solution. - J Greb 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per GentlemanGhost -- Lancini87 04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The super hero genre tends to have character that change too much for this to be viable. Lana Lang, a long standing supporting character had super powers at one time and the same could be stated about many other long standing supporting characters. As has already been mentioned there are characters who have jumped back and forth between hero and villian. You just have to see that characters like Paula Pophouse and Judy of the Jungle have already been added as proof that this category will give out of control too quickly. Stephen Day 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's got nothing to do with gender. The same could be said about a number of male characters (e.g. Patriot from Young Avengers--he pretended to have legit super-powers but was really just taking MGH). I don't understand your objection to Paula Pophouse, because she is a powered character on a superhero team (I've only read the first volume of Freshmen, but she certainly seemed like a superhero to me). And as I said to RIANZ, just because there may be occasional disagreements about who belongs is no reason to ignore the majority of clear-cut, legitimate entries. Lexid523 15:45, 28 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. Can't userfy a category. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I doubt that there are categories of Images by User XXX. And rightly so, in my opinion - Nabla 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move and delete These should be moved to a userspace gallery. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, this doesn't belong in category space. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:28, 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 to "Islamists", as Otto says we don't generally categorize people by current/former status, as everyone becomes a "former <whatever>" upon death. No objection to creating a category for "islamists who have renounced islamism and started counteracting it" or something better titled than that, but said cat has a narrower scope than this one. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ex-Islamists to Category:Former Islamist and/or Arab terrorists

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this category is specifically about former terrorists (and appears to include former members of secular Arab nationalist groups, as well as former Islamist terrorists). GCarty 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Islamists as we generally do not classify membership in groups by past or present status. Similar to how we handled former KKK members by merging to the KKK member category and specifiying in the description that it can include current and former members both. Otto4711 16:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any terrorists should be under the Category:Terrorists tree instead of lumping them here. Otto4711 16:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the category's members (eg Walid Shoebat) were not Islamists, but members of secular Palestinian militant groups. --GCarty 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should be removed and placed in an appropriate category. Otto4711 12:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- i told you allready you are wrong about walid shoebat being secular, why have you opened this change of name attempt without notifying me? Jaakobou 04:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Otto; not all Islamists (or ex-Islamists) are (were) terrorists. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Islamists per Otto; it is grossly inaccurate to suggest that all Islamists are or were terrorists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reject - Obviously, not all Islamists are terrorists, and obviously not all the people on the group are Arabs.. Ed Husain, is a prime example of a british Ex-Islamist (recruiter for an Islamist group) who does not have Arab origins. also, Walid Shoebat was a mamber of a terror group, highly connected with Islam, there's many examples (written, speechs, videos, documentries) of him talking about his religious related studies... the PLO might be secular in comparisment to the Hamas movement, but they are by no means a true secular movement... i'm guessing we could rename the category into "reformed Islamists and/or Islam affiliated terrorists" but i think that making the category dissappear by merging these people with "Islamists" is a gross mistake/suggestion .. it would be like merging anti-zionsts into the category zionists. and btw, it's allready a subcategory on "islamists". Jaakobou 04:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:GCarty - has changed the category^{cat removals and change of category} before submitting his request for change, i've reverted what seems to be a mistake. Jaakobou 08:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you opposed to a different renaming? How about the "Former Islamists", as several people have suggested? --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to Category:Former Islamists. Some of these people, like Walid Shoebat, are more well-known for their anti-Islamist work than for the former Islamism. I think it's important to highlight that, rather than mislead the reader into thinking they are still Islamists. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- note the current category is: "ex-islamists" - Category intended to include all known reformed Islamists or Islam-affiliated reformed Terrorists. shoebat is an 'Islam affiliated' reformed terrorist. Jaakobou 08:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename per Ynhockey, as not all Islamists are terrorists. The current scoping seems to fit the Category:People by former religion hierarchy just fine, though I wouldn't oppose a more encyclopaedic name like Category:Former Islamists; the same would be true of Category:Ex-atheists/agnostics. Tewfik^Talk 06:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Former Islamists. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What would differentiate Category:Former Islamists from Category:Former Muslims ? Tarc 21:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - huge difference, Muslims in general don't promote suicide civillian assasiantions as valid tactic and they don't hold an ideaology of Jihad against the world, dar al-harb/dar al-Islam type of modus operandi... Ex-Islamists are people who come from this violent Islmaist political ideaology background and are criticizing it (the ideaology, not neccesarily Islam) publicly. Jaakobou 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As Jaakobou said, and as I too see it, "Islamists" describes a political position - Former Islamists are those who have turned away from terrorist activities, membership in related associated organizations, or advocacy of certain political views. Former Muslims are those who, regardless of their political views or associations, have formally converted to another religion or otherwise abandoned their Muslim identity. LordAmeth 22:46, 30 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. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Conscious 10:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article Bundesliga explains that there although Bundesliga usually refers to the premier division competition, the term 2nd Bundesliga may be used for the next division. The inclusion of "first" in this category name seems like a useful way of removing any ambiguity in the category's purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not follow international soccer, but I infer that this would be like merging various major league baseball categories into professional baseball categories. This seems wrong. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I have never heard it referred to as anything but the Bundesliga. That is what it is known as in English. Haddiscoe 01:06, 23 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, CSD G7 by creator request. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category misses suffix, appropriate category is already in use. Pvosta 09:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Please can you explain more clearly what the problem is, and what you are proposing? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I accidently created the category without the suffix "alumni", which it should have to bring it in line with the other Belgian alumni categories. Unable to move it, I created the proper category, so this one can be removed without any harm.Pvosta 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Category:Free University of Brussels alumni was the intended category creation. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:19, 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 rename x2. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FC Spartak Vladikavkaz players to Category:FC Alania Vladikavkaz players

Nominator's Rationale: The club has been renamed... yet again. We have to follow the change. Conscious 08:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and redirect. The renaming is obviously needed, but if the club name has only changed recently, readers may be looking for a categ with the old name, so a redirect would be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Category:FC Spartak Vladikavkaz to this nomination, to be renamed to Category:FC Alania Vladikavkaz. Conscious 07:36, 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 rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indigenous Australian sports people to Category:Indigenous Australian sportspeople

Nominator's Rationale: Rename for consistency, all sportspeople cats on wikipedia use the term sportspeople. Peta 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename Honbicot 01:47, 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 delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the international holidays categories were discussed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays talk page and generally agreed as superfluous.Some thing 04:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vaguely named category per nom. Doczilla 12:37, 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 rename all to "X" executions. This was a mightily confusing nomination, and I do think there were some procedural errors made in how information was presented, both in the nominations and the debate. But it is all capable of being sorted out, and when it is, the tide is clearly in favor (12 to 3) of the shortened format, which avoids the problem of whether a state or nation committed the execution. This should not have been taken to DRV, as there was no impropriety in the closing rationale per se. It is simply a change of group will. (Side note: There were several errors in the wordings of the nominations. "Romanian" was misspelled, "Russia" should have been "Russian," "Italian" and "Irish" were conflated, and "in Germany," while mentioned above, was not on the list below. As they would clearly have been supported by the consensus, I have smoothed out these problems on the Working page. I also added Category:People executed by Mexico, which was not in any form of this nomination, but is clearly in line with this conclusion.)--Mike Selinker 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polish executions to Category:Executions by Poland

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, standard format for executions by a nation. Peta 04:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following further categories were added by another editor three days' after the CfD opened, and proposed for an inverse renaming. The terms "support", "oppose", "rename" etc used by participants in in this Cfd therefore have no consistent meaning or extent --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only four comments which present any difficulties of interpretation, and I think that an intelligent admin could work out what even those meant. However I will add clarificatory comments after them. Alex Middleton 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Polish executions to Category:Executions by Poland or retain

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Australia to Category:Australian executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Austria to Category:Austrian executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Britain to Category:British executions (note that this one was misnamed in any case. There is no succinct and accurate "by" form, it would have to be something like "People executed by governments based in Great Britain or Northern Ireland or by British controlled governments ruling All-Ireland")

Propose renaming Category:People executed by the People's Republic of China to Category:Chinese executions (this one would then need some subcategories for different entities, but that is a separate issue)

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Denmark to Category:Danish executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by England to Category:English executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by France to Category:French executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Germany to Category:German executions Closer: added "in Germany" as noted above

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Hungary to Category:Hungarian executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Indonesia to Category:Indonesian executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Iran to Category:Iranian executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Iraq to Category:Iraqi executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Ireland to Category:Italy executions Closer: changed to Irish, added Italy to Italian change

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Japan to Category:Japanese executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Korea to Category:Korean executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by the Netherlands to Category:Dutch executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by New Zealand to Category:New Zealand executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Nigeria to Category:Nigerian executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Norway to Category:Norwegian executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by the Ottoman Empire to Category:Ottoman executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Romania to Category:Rormania executions Closer: changed to Romanian

Propose renaming Category:Executed Romans to Category:Ancient Roman executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Russia to Category:Russia executions Closer: changed to Russian

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Scotland to Category:Scottish executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed in Singapore to Category:Singaporean executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by the Soviet Union to Category:Soviet executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Spain to Category:Spanish executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Sudan to Category:Sudanese executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Sweden to Category:Swedish executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Switzerland to Category:Swiss executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed by Taiwan to Category:Taiwanese executions

Propose renaming Category:People executed in the United States to Category:American executions

Comment - group nomination This has been extended into a group nomination, as first suggested on 22 May. Please leave open until at least 27 May. Please note that there was never a consensus to change to the current prevalent form. The original form "Fooian executions", which was changed without consensus, allows all the related executions to be grouped together without creating multiple confusing and cluttersome categories for each country. Alex Middleton 12:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG PROCEDURAL OBJECTION to addition of extra categories, which I have struck out above. This nomination had been open for three days when the nomination was extended in this edit by Alex Middleton. The addition of the extra categories after three days (with a proposal which inverts the nomination) completely changes the nature of the discussion, more than half way through its allotted time, and is likely to be missed by interested editors who will already have made their contributions.
  If editors are concerned that a previous CfD was improperly closed, the issue should be raised at WP:DRV, for a possible new CfD, but the worst possible way to address these issues issues is by tacking onto an existing CfD a new proposal.
  I hope that the closing admin will discount the late addition of the extra categories as a mistaken attempt to use CfD as a substitute for DRV; any other solution risks confusing the "support" or "rename" !votes for the initial proposal with the "support" or "rename" !votes for the new proposal, which in fact mean exactly the opposite. If there is a case for re-opening the previous CfD, this is the worst possible way to do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong (but not shouted) objection to procedural objection . It is fine to expand a discussion to cover related issues, that is the way to achieve consistency. Alex properly asked for this to be kept open for five days from the time of the additional nominations. The tagging of the extra categories will have encouraged more users to participate, rather than less. It is not appropriate for a particpant in the discussion to edit another user's contributions. Decisions on how to deal with this discussion should be made by the closing nominator, not by a participant. The closing admin may chose to leave this open for yet another five days if he or she wishes. Honbicot 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply This was not the extension of a nomination, it was the extension and inversion of a nomination.
      For the first three days of this CfD, the proposal was to "rename to Category:Executions by Poland", and many participants !voted to support or oppose on that basis. The tacking on of a whole load of unrelated categories to be renamed in the opposite direction means that the !votes which have already been made to "suppport" or "oppose" or "rename" have two completely opposite meanings.
      The way in which the extra categories were added also made it unclear what the original nomination had been, and appeared to cast the original nominator as a supporter of the inverted nomination. I have tried to clarify the situation above; please do not remove the clarification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please could you explain which of the categories are "unrelated"? Alex Middleton 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All of those added, because they did not share the attribute identified in the initial nomination, and because the extra categories were added in an improper attempt to use WP:CFD in a situation where WP:DRV is the proper route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to convention agreed in group CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#Category:X_executions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarificatory comment This user was supporting the "by" form. Alex Middleton 22:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the many different regimes that have ruled various parts of Poland, this is not a good idea. Mowsbury 10:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply "Polish executions" is ambiguous, because it is unclear whether it applies to executions under the authority of a Polish state, executions on de facto Polish territory, executions on de jure Polish territory, or executions of Polish people by whatever state. Poland is an unusual country, which has moved around and at times disappeared entirely, so a category name such as "Polish executions" (or the alternative "Executions in Poland") raises big historical problems. The clearest way of defining this category is to restrict it to executions carried out under the authority of the Polish state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - History is ambiguous. "Polish executions" can cope with that ambiguity, but "Executions by Poland" is an obstacle to grouping related articles. Alex Middleton 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the history of Poland covers a lot of different phases, but it is not particularly ambiguous, and does not require an ambiguous category which could include a Polish person executed in Argentina or even a Fijian person executed in Spain by a Polish executioner. A solution has already been implemented for Germany, by creating Category:People executed in Germany; for Poland, which had unstable borders and twice disappeared as a nation, it would be better to create Category:Executions of Polish people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no need to be patronising. You don't seem to get the point that the ambiguity of the category is its merit, because it covers all the related executions, which should be the point of the category. The number of death related categories on articles is already ridiculous, so the last thing we need is several sets of country or nationality related execution categories to cover each possible variation. Alex Middleton 11:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So what exactly are the inclusion criteria you would advocate for a category called "Polish executions"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        All that is needed is a note on each category along the lines of "This category contains articles about Fooian people who were executed, executions in Foo, and executions carried out on behalf of Foo (adding "and its predecessor states" if appropriate). Alex Middleton 09:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How do you define Poland's predecessor states? Does that include Germany?
        Categories are supposed to group related items, and your proposal would group together a French person executed in the United States, a Japanese person executed in France and an execution by French authorities in a colony such as Chad. There is very little commonality between those people, which I find "Fooish executions" hopelessly vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarificatory comment This user was objecting to the "By" form. Alex Middleton 22:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The discussion of 27 March had not reached a consensus so it should have been kept open for longer. This case shows just what an ill-advised system this hasty renaming created. Why would one want to have half the Polish people that have been executed in categories for Tsarist Russia, Nazi Germany etc? It just doesn't fit into the overall scheme of Category:History by country, but "Fooian executions" does. Call it ambiguous if you must, but wouldn't "flexible" be more appropriate? Honbicot 22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I think that this reasoning is mistaken; Category:Executions by Poland fits very clearly into Category:Executions by Poland. As I suggested at CfD, in the case of countries such as Poland it may be helpful to also have a second Category:Executions of Polish people; the tangled history of Poland makes "Polish executions" or Category:Executions in Poland not just ambiguous, but downright vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support reversion to use of "Fooian executions" in all cases. There are too many countries such as Poland. Everything possible should be done to keep the number of categories related to execution on each article to two (one would be even better, but an attempt to get the execution by method categories deleted failed). Honbicot 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As stated above Poland has been ruled over by numerous nations, therefore many executions of Poles in Poland were not ordered by Poland or a Polish state or kingdom. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Category:People executed by Germany now has a parent category Category:People executed in Germany to allow for a very similar problem. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which I created as a work around for a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place, so would not like to see it quoted as a reason to spread the problem, especially as it has been correctly pointed out that there was no consensus for the global change. Alex Middleton 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Clarificatory comment This user was objecting to the "By" form. Alex Middleton 22:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename to Category:Executions by Poland~~ - Given that most other categories were renamed to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#Category:X_executions, this category should not be an exception. The proposed name, as stated above, is less ambiguous, as it indicates specifically how Poland was involved in the execution. Given the current name, it is unclear whether the individuals are Polish people executed anywhere, people executed in "Poland" (which has shifted its boundaries over the years), people executed by the Polish government, or people who are executed "Polish style" (whatever that might mean). Further discussion on the category tree as a whole may be appropriate, but in that case, a new nomination should be made. Dr. Submillimeter 11:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been pointed out, there was no consensus for that change, and as one of the few people who supported it at that time, I am now reversing my position as it was clearly a mistake. Haddiscoe 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you believe that a CfD was improperly closed, take it to WP:DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "Executions by" categories may be precise, but as they also pretty useless, that is a poor reason to keep them. Rename all the others Alex Middleton 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Fooian executions" per my several comments and the arguments for this comprehensive form made by others. Alex Middleton 09:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The "Executions by" categories work very well, but may not cover all angles of the issue. I note that none of the advocates of keeping Category:Polish executions have offered a definition of what a category of that name is actually for. Categories need clear inclusion criteria; what are the inclusion criteria for Category:Polish executions?. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just what it means, which is perfectly clear: all executions with Polish involvement. Alex Middleton 12:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which means that the "Polish executions" category would include:
      1. executions under the authority of a Polish state (in Poland or, for example)
      2. executions on de facto Polish territory by other authorities
      3. executions on de jure Polish territory, by a de facto authority which might not be the government of Poland
      4. executions of Polish people by other states (e.g. France or the USA)
      5. executions of non-Polish people by Polish people (e.g. a Polish soldier in the service of another nation, or a Polish executioner)
      6. people of whatever country executed by whatever authority in a Polish style
    - And what about Gdanzig? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to clean up the ambiguities pointed out by BHG. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As discussed, there are limitations to any form, but those of "by" are far worse than those of "Fooian" and this is one of the categories that makes that plain. I wish to withdraw my previous support for renaming as it was hasty and ill-considered. Revert all to "Fooian executions." Haddiscoe 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. If the convention is to be revisited, it should be revisited as a group nomination, if we agree a convention and then ignore it because some editors don't like it, we will create a cycle of unstable category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was no agreement. The change was made without consensus. It should not be imposed regardless of this lack of consensus, just because a minority of users like it. Alex Middleton 12:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply If you believe that the previous CfD was improperly closed, take it to WP:DRV, but the CfD process will be useless unless decisions are accepted until overturned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: historically, being executed was not an uncommon fate. I wonder what value is in such category. Pavel Vozenilek 11:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - There are a great many people in history who were executed but not by a national or federal government. In many lands, a given government or a given state under the name currently used did not even exist X years ago. I shall take some examples from the Japanese case, but the same concept truly applies across the board. (1) It is quite arguable that "Japan" did not exist as a unified nation-state entity until 1868, which means anyone executed before then was not "executed by Japan". (2) Many were killed in the course of war upon the orders of enemy warlords, or in peacetime at the orders of a local or regional authority such as a feudal lord, and again not by any State or Republic or Empire of Japan. Of the eight entries currently listed in the category, several were killed upon the orders of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and the remainder as a result of the policies of the Tokugawa shogunate; none were formally convicted and executed by the modern state of Japan post-1868. My point is not to nitpick about which rulers or regimes do or do not count as "Japan", as this is an issue hotly debated in scholarship as well and remains unresolved, but rather simply to intimate that situations across history can be quite complicated, and a category like "Japanese executions" is a loose enough term to cover them all quite nicely. Japanese people executed in Japan by one form of Japanese authority or another, but not by "Japan" per se, will still fit, and that idea, that logic, surely applies across the board to the cases of many of the other countries listed. LordAmeth 21:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarificatory comment This comment was added after the group nomination was made, and is clearly in favour of it. Alex Middleton 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - LordAmeth makes some good points about the limitations of the "by" format, but the alternative does not seem to have been fully thought through. Note that LordAmeth's suggested definition of "Japanese executions" is much narrower than that offered by Alex Middleton for "Polish executions".
    LordAmeth suggests "Japanese people executed in Japan by one form of Japanese authority or another", and translating that to "Polish people executed in Poland by one form of Polish authority or another" would not include e.g. Polish people executed in Poland under German authority or executions under Soviet authority in the Polish Autonomous Districts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My intention was never to create a narrower definition, but rather a freer more open one which could be flexible and adaptable to the needs of the complex histories of different countries. If a Pole was executed within the borders of what was then Germany (or Prussia, or some other German state), it seems fine to me to label that as either a "Polish execution" or a "German execution" or both. The point of my argument was simply to say that, if a Pole were killed by Prussian authorities, that would be neither an "execution by Poland" nor an "execution by Germany", and this is why looser terms need to be used. LordAmeth 21:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming all to "Fooian executions", as any other form will fail to encompass various relevant examples for some countries, eg as outlined by LordAmeth. Indeed there cannot be many countries that are not complex, as these categories actually or potentially cover people who lived before the rise of the modern nation state. Ravenhurst 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Fooian executions, as this is the least problematic of the various forms the names could take. --tjstrf talk 09:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (preference) or use "Executions by X" - As I stated in the last debate, an endless number of categories can be created describing people's deaths, and many of them are not necessary. These categories have difficult interpretation problems; some people want them to indicate the location of the execution, while other people want to use them to indicate the governing authority, while other people may want to use them to indicate the nationalities of the executed people. This is complicated by the fact that political borders have shifted over the centuries and that people may have been executed by governments that were operating outside their borders. Moreover, it is difficult to contend that executions by the government entities that existed a few centuries ago is comparable to executions by their modern counterparts. For example, executions by the pre-20th century Austro-Hungarian Empire probably are not comparable to executions in post-WWII Austria and Hungary. Ultimately, these categories become too difficult to deal with. I suggest deleting them all and possibly using lists to explain who was executed by which regime in which location. Dr. Submillimeter 09:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Fooian executions, as that is the most useful, all-encompassing option. "Executions by" sounds rather accusatory, so it could be taken to imply disapproval of capital punishment. Postlebury 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It could equally plausibly be taken to imply support of capital punishment, so I don't think that the accusatory suggestion stacks up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Fooian executions per arguments by LordAmeth, tjstrf et al. RegRCN 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (or keep as) all to Fooian executions per Lord Ameth. Johnbod 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:Fooian executions Most all of the categories of people are at "Fooian ...." so there needs to be a good reason to deviate from that. I don't see the reason here as there are at least as many problems with other options, probably more. Jamie Mercer 23:04, 27 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. Suggest adding information on particular specific veggies to the articles about Fooian Cuisine for comprehensiveness. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of vegetables based on the cuisines that they are used in is not useful for the readers of an encyclopedia; especially for common fruits and vegetables; like those included in the Mexican category. They might be useful as a list. This deletion request applies to the following categories:

Category:Japanese sea vegetables

Category:Fruits and vegetables of Mexico

Category:Korean vegetables

Category:Japanese vegetables

Category:Indian vegetables

Category:Chinese vegetables. Peta 03:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a difficult one, because it seems to me that the vegetables categorised here fall into different groups. At one end we have the likes of the welsh onion, which is widely used the cuisine of lots of different countries, and it's hardly a distinguishing characteristic of it that it's used in a particular country. However, I think that its use in Japanese cuisine is a distinguishing characteristic of wakame, and similarly fat choy is very much a Chinese vegetable.
I'm inclined to suggest that these categories should be retained, but redefined to exclude common fruits and vegetables, and to include only those vegetables which are known primarily for their use a particular national cuisine. Any other ideas? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vegetables botanically unique to a region would ideally appear in the flora of foo categroy in addition to the cuisine of foo category. --Peta 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete per nom. I'm persauded by Peta's reply and by TonyTheTiger's point on the difficulties of policing a category with non-obvious inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible to police actual use versus intende. If kept a renaming to Category:Vegetables common to Fooian cuisine might help. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hesperian 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC as a ~~trivial intersection~~ non-defining characteristic. Those vegetables which do have a unique link to a particular cuisine (or cuisines) should be filed under "Fooian cuisine." -- Visviva 12:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a very useful category for those looking for vegetables typical of Chinese cuisine; deleting will greatly hamper searches by users looking for this information. Badagnani 05:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BrownHairedGirl's comments. There are plenty of foods (vegetables, specifically) which are strongly associated directly with a given culture's cuisine. Eliminating this category would be a major step backwards away from more extensive categorization. LordAmeth 07:55, 30 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. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beans to Category:Edible legumes

Nominator's Rationale: Merge and rename, Category:Beans and Category:Peas to Category:Edible legumes. There is no botanical definition that separates peas and beans; I suggest merging these and making a more useful category for the categorization of edible legume species, they already overlap eg. Black-eyed pea is in category beans. Peta 03:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ There may not be a botanical difference, but "edible" is not a botanical categorisaton either, and since there seems to be a reasonably clear culinary distinction we don't have to be bound to follow solely botanical category structures. The article pea defines it as a type of bean, so maybe the solution is to have Category:Peas as a sub-category of Category:Beans? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A pea isn't a type of bean; just like a rat isn't a type of mouse. Pea and bean are common names for edible legumes that are often used interchangeably - thus having both in one category reduces confusion. Edible is a useful human distinction, all the species in categories peas and beans are species grown for human consumption.--Peta 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename per nom (changing my !vote) and redirect. I'm persuaded by the arguments that my suggestion was a bad one and that Category:Edible legumes is better; but "edible legumes" is not a very obvious category name, so please keep Category:Peas and Category:Beans as redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and support the sub-cat proposal. Mangoe 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I can't see any culinary distinction here: green beans are eaten pod and all; peas are not; but snow peas are, and broad beans are not. The chickpea is also known as the garbanzo bean. And please tell me: is the lentil a pea or a bean? I think what BrownHairedGirl calls a "culinary distinction" is actually a "naming distinction", but this would lead to the inclusion of cocoa beans and coffee beans, which bear only the most superficial relationship to true beans. I don't like the idea of letting Category:Beans be defined as "small round edible things that some people call beans, as opposed to small round edible things that some people call peas". PDH's proposal makes a lot of sense to me. Hesperian 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (But note that the proposed rename will allow for the inclusion of leguminous plants that provide a food source other than their fruit, such as alfalfa, the young shoots of which are eaten in salads.) Hesperian 02:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Category:Peas and beans. Keep both the Peas and Beans as redirects. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a really uninformative name for the category; my proposal makes the combined category more useful since it adds information on the use of these species. --Peta 04:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. A category that permits cocoa beans and coffee beans to be grouped with various legumes is poorly defined indeed. Hesperian 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that we already have Category:Edible plants and Category:Edible nuts and seeds.--Peta 04:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This does remind me of that godawful mess we had with rats and mice a few months back. -- Visviva 06:01, 23 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. >Radiant< 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wilt Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Loaded with improperly categorized finals series, schools, and movies. Only three articles in this set belong here: Career achievements of Wilt Chamberlain, Wilt Chamberlain, and Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. I doubt that's worth it.--Mike Selinker 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete eponymous category per many precedents. Doczilla 04:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievably, keep - Career achievements of Wilt Chamberlain would be orphaned by the deletion of this category. In the absence of a suitable replacement, we may have to keep this category for it. Otto4711 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to delete - in light of the creation of the category for achievements by sportsperson, the eponymous category has become unnecessary. Otto4711 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you support pruning the heck out of it, though, right? Actually, to your point, there's also Career achievements of Dwyane Wade, Career achievements of LeBron James, and Career achievements of Michael Jordan. Maybe all of these deserve their own category?--Mike Selinker 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, everything but those three articles should be removed. If these career achievement type articles are going to proliferate and they're seen as encyclopedic then yes, they should be categorized. If such a category is established and the Chamberlain article is placed in it, then I support deleting the eponymous category. Otto4711 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Category:Career achievements of sportspeople. (By the way, I don't support the deletion of category:Michael Jordan, who has a ton of articles that are about him.)--Mike Selinker 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per eponymous category precedent. They can be reached adequately from the main Wilt article. Mangoe 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the articles are about things related to Wilt Chamberlain (and umpteen other people and things) not about aspects of Wilt Chamberlain. Postlebury 22:11, 25 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 alternative and clearer title Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Obsolete groups of creatures to Category:Obsolete taxa

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, "Groups of creatures" is too vague, as the wording does not necessarily relate to alpha taxonomy. +A.0u 00:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While my initial nomination was to rename to Category:Obsolete taxa, I am quite willing to support Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups, which consensus clearly favors. +A.0u 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Taxa" strikes me as a little jargonistic. Is there another way of phrasing it that's a little more accessible? Also, the category needs a description. Otto4711 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Taxa" is the scientific term. Some alternatives: "Obsolete taxonomic groups", "Obsolete classifications of organisms", "Obsolete groups of organisms". I'm open to suggestions. +A.0u 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. --Peta 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. The name does not make sense at face value. This is a case in which the jargon is more clear. It's definitely more accurate because the creatures themselves are not necessarily obsolete. Doczilla 05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Preferred rename would be Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups. Doczilla 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak support rename~~. I agree that the current name is simply wrong, but "taxa" is appallingly opaque to the lay reader. Surely there must be some English-language phrase which could convey the meaning without recourse to a dictionary of scientific latin? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, preferably to the much clearer "Obsolete taxonomic groups" Johnbod 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename to Category:Obsolete scientific classification~~ (changing my !vote), to match the parent category Category:Scientific classification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are too many kinds of scientific classification. This means something more specific than that. Doczilla 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename to Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups. Changing my !vote per Doczilla, for greater precision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to ~~Category:Obsolete taxa as concise and accurate~~Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups as the consensus choice. The category page would obviously link to taxon. There's really no way to go for lay language on this, because the issue is precisely about taxonomic history. Mangoe 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. In what way is "taxa" more accurate than Doczilla's suggestion of "taxonomic groups" other than using jargon? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't say it's more accurate or less techincal, but as the consensus seems to be for "taxonomic groups" I can go with that. Mangoe 17:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups. --GCarty 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Obsolete taxa. "Obsolete taxonomic groups" is clumsy. Hesperian 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups. It's a perfectly valid construction, and has the distinct advantage of being clear and to-the-point. Frankly, I think "taxa" is clumsier, albeit shorter. Xtifr _tälk 08:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, preferably to the concise Category:Obsolete taxa. There is no difference between a taxon and a taxonomic group, so why not use the shorter form? We may as well do our part to reduce carpal tunnel syndrome among Wikipedes. -- Visviva 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply because to the layperson, a taxon sounds like a revenue-collecting version of a klingon, and a taxa sounds like a taxi. The extra 12 characters in the name of a lightly-populated category are not going to give anyone carpal tunnel tunnel syndrome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Obsolete taxa. I would not oppose Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups, but I want to add a !vote for "taxa" to indicate that "groups" is not yet the "consensus". (Six taxa to six taxonomic groups right now, FWIW.) BrownHairedGirl, what do you think Agnotozoa, Aschelminth, and Coelenterata would sound like to the layman? Do you think the layman would be more confused by the word "taxa" at the bottom of the page, in this context? --Quuxplusone 05:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! - If they don't know what the article title is about, at least the category should give them a pointer. Johnbod 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Obsolete taxa, taxa's the right word, if a user's vocabulary is limited, this gives them impetus to improve it, or perhaps the user should be consulting the "Simple English" Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Postlebury 22:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is clearly consensus that some change needs to be made. However, it's really difficult to follow which change is preferred here. Perhaps this needs to be relisted? Mangoe 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By my count: 1) everyone favours a change. 2) For Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups: Johnbod, Doczilla, Bhg, GCarty, Xtifr = 5. 3) For Category:Obsolete taxa: Hesperian, Visvisa, Quux, Carlos = 4. 4) Willing to go to either with consensus: Aou, Mangoe, Postlebury =3. 5) No name mentioned favourably: Peta, Otto =2. Maybe relist; I think I'll ask Otto to revisit. Johnbod 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to "taxonomic groups" and my only concern with "taxa" was that it may not be the most accessible or recognizable descriptor. I don't feel strongly enough about it one way or the other to raise a great stink to whatever gets selected. Otto4711 22:23, 29 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.

May 21

Category:Dreamgirls

Category:Anime-related websites

Category:Anime fandom

Italian dukes

Category:Recipients of the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award

Category:Armigers

Category:Jaina mathematics

Category:Female superheroes

Category:Vox Humana 8'/Photos

Category:Ex-Islamists

Category:First Bundesliga footballers

Category:Free University of Brussels

Category:FC Spartak Vladikavkaz players

Category:Indigenous Australian sports people

Category:International days

Category:Executions by country

Fooian vegetables

Category:Beans

Category:Wilt Chamberlain

Category:Obsolete groups of creatures