< May 21	May 23 >

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, as duplicate and for consistency with similarly-scoped category names. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parishes on the Isle of Wight to Category:Parishes of the Isle of Wight

Merge, An editor has created the new category and is making single moves. We need to eliminate duplicate categories and Parishes of is the more common formulation. TerriersFan 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and per convention of Category:Parishes of England. --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 merge, as duplicate and for consistency with similarly-scoped category names. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parishes in Lancashire to Category:Parishes of Lancashire

Merge, Parishes of is a more common formulation than Parishes in and we most certainly don't need both. TerriersFan 23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and per convention of Category:Parishes of England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Merge per nom. Ravenhurst 01:36, 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 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: keep.--Mike Selinker 07:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively a promotion for a website; nonencyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - effectively categorization by special feature, even if the special feature isn't on the DVD. Otto4711 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; How is this different from Category:MST3K movies? Should that category be deleted too? This category was created to parallel the other. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The MST3K category is for a television series that ran for 10 seasons and is highly notable. Many of the films in the MST3K category would probably not be notable were it not for the show. The RiffTrax category is for movies that some guys talk about on a website. It is not a defining characteristic of the riffed items. Otto4711 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - RiffTrax is highly notable for having many of these same "guys" from MST3K working on it. The defining characteristic of the films in the RiffTrax category is that these guys riffed it, much the same as MST3K. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but the Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, etc. films are not defined by having been riffed by RiffTrax. Otto4711 12:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But what about films like Over the Top and Troll 2? I think they are.- Douglin 13:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then there should be multiple independent sources that discuss the film in relation to the riffing that explain how the films have been so defined. And even then if these two films or even several films that have been riffed do gain some notability as a result, a couple or a handful of exceptions don't justify a category. A list exists in the main RiffTrax article and it looks to be updated as the tracks are released. The list sufficiently ties the films to the project; the category isn't needed. Otto4711 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, good point. Douglin 18:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No different than Category:MST3K movies. Same guys doing the same thing, also commercially available from Rhino_Entertainment, and in this case the special feature is on the DVD. Category:RiffTrax movies is a list of otherwise unrelated movies that have been riffed on, by Michael_J._Nelson, Kevin Murphy, Bill Corbett, and Mary_Jo_Pehl of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and Guests.BathTub 00:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list in the article is a list, so if the films should be listed together, they are even without the category. Not every aspect of everything requires a category, even when that aspect involves the MST3K people. Otto4711 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The lone reason that MST3K did not make episodes on block busters like Titantic, Star Trek, etc was there was no way they could either afford, or be allowed to have, the licensing rights for the films. Due to their MP3 format for their commentary, this is no longer an issue and they are free to riff on anything now. Blockbusters and grade B (e.g. Troll 2, Glitter, etc) are now prime candidates. Is RiffTrax movies notable enough to keep as a designation? I say yes. MST3K was a long running TV show that put out a little under 200 episodes. RiffTrax, while only being around a year has released over 30 episodes with more to come. The RiffTrax movies catagory is a growing list that will soon have a catalog to rival MST3K. It is as valid as a category as the MST3K movies. --Robertpreed 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential hugeness of a category has nothing to do with whether it should exist. Category:DVDs with director commentary tracks would be enormous, but it would be deleted, because DVDs and films are not defined by having been released with a commentary track. The reasons why MST3K chose the films it did has no relevance to this category. Otto4711 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Many people on the RiffTrax forum say that this isn't MST3K 2.0 but it does feature some of the same people. And sure they don't riff on b-movies all the time but during the MST3K days, fans would often dream of the day when Mike and crew could lay the smackdown on bloated Hollywood movies like The Matrix and the "new" Star Wars movies.Invasionbmovies 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the fervent wishes of the fans has what bearing exactly on the category? Otto4711 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Non notable? I guess professional interviews with media outlets such as radio stations don't count... http://www.wjbc.com/wire2/podsteveid/00252_MikeJNelson_143445.htm and you can listen to the interview at http://www.rifftrax.com/blog/audio/00253_0517MikeNelson.mp3 71.212.176.97 19:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no one is suggesting that RiffTrax doesn't meet notability guidelines (although your bloggy sources certainly don't establish it). The question is whether the category for films they have riffed is worthwhile. Otto4711 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the New York Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/arts/television/06newm.html?ref=technology

Well, again, no one is suggesting that the website itself is not notable. That does not mean that the films themselves are notable because they were riffed. Otto4711 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe on each movie in the category's talk page could come to a concensus on whether to include it or not. Is there anyone else opposed to this category?? 64.213.64.146 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't any different from Category:MST3K movies at all. These films have been riffed just as much by the RiffTrax crew as the MST3K movies were riffed by the MST crew. Just because the riff track is not permanently affixed to the film, does not nullify that status. I'm not really sure I understand why this is being fought against so fervently. (And, primarily, only by one person, it would seem.) And let's keep the attitudes in check, people. Yourwalletphotograph 08:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is different from MST3K movies. As I've noted, a number of the films in the MST3K categories would not be notable were it not for the MST3K connection. Few or none, most likely none, of the films that get riffed by RiffTrax are notable because of it. I doubt that, if one were to list off the top ten or top 100 notable things about, say, the Star Wars films, "RiffTrax riffed it" would make the list. We can't categorize everything based on every aspect of its existence or circumstances. Otto4711 15:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were looking at an entry for a movie, I would find it interesting to know that RiffTrax had riffed it. While I understand what you're saying and agree with it to an extent, I fail to see how your argument is all that revelant. It's petty. This is the sort of information that a wiki should include. As RiffTrax increases in popularity - and it is, immensely - it is becoming an increasingly relevant category. I would also like to point out that you're virtually alone on this one, and one-man crusades don't really belong in wikis. Please make sure this is worth battling for so fervently. Yourwalletphotograph 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting is not a particularly compelling argument, and neither is popular. One might even call them "petty" if one wanted to be uncivil about it. All sorts of things are interesting and popular; doesn't mean they belong on Wikipedia. Now, if you could explain ever how these films are defined by being a RiffTrax subject or even that it's in any way relevant to the films that they were riffed then you might have a non-petty argument, instead of one based on the weak foundation of how interesting or how popular or like another category it is. Whether I'm alone or not, I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and CFD is not a vote. Otto4711 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and current. Mcgonigle 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rename with Category:MST3K movies. If it features the same cast and does the same thing MST3K does, why should it get it's own category? I agree this is notable, but not as its own cagtegory. Perhaps a merge and rename a la Category:MST3K and RiffTrax movies would be appropriate. AGraveeni 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.126.202 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 31 May 2007.

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 rename to Category:Stop-motion animated films. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stop motion-animated films to Category:Stop-motion animated films

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, incorrect hyphenation. —tregoweth (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Why would anyone want to stop these films? Grutness...wha? 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I laughed anyway. Nick mallory 04:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Personally, I like motion-animated films. Why stop them? Doczilla 05:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - for the reason that it's not actually incorrectly hyphenated. The reader shall note that the article stop motion does not use hyphenation in the proposed place ("stop-motion" is not used), and in any case, a hyphen is needed after "motion". See also Category:Computer-animated films. If you are in favour of changing "stop motion" to "stop-motion", I propose changing the name of that article first, and then changing the name of this category to Category:Stop-motion-animated films. This editor prefers the spelling "stop-motion" himself, actually, which is why this is a Weak oppose. Esn 10:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nom's proposal looks better than current, current looks more correct if the article is at stop motion, and stop-motion-animated looks weird. What about Category:Stop motion animated films? 132.205.44.134 17:49, 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are NOT for researchers on LGBT academia. The NOTE on Category:LGBT philosophers makes that clear. These categories are for academics, such as philosophers, social scientists, etc who just happen to be gay or lesbian or transexual. I have not seen anything anywhere to suggest that being any one of those and being an academic is any rarity, article-worthy peculiarity, nor is there any reason to assume any discrimination within the field. Bulldog123 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT philosophers

Category:LGBT social scientists

Very Strong Delete as nom, to combat obvious systematic bias and refusal to address arguments. Bulldog123 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep as I struggle to assume good faith in the wake of what appears to be the start of a campaign against LGBT categories - It is unclear why the nominator believes that discrimination in a particular field is required before a category for LGBT people by occupation is allowed. Openly LGBT people in any professional field are a comparative rarity and an academic's sexuality frequently has an impact on his or her choice of field of study. Otto4711 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rarities" in a field do not designate notability. Grey-eyed philosophers are a rarity. You have NO, WHATSOEVER, evidence that an academic's sexuality has an impact on their choice of being a philosopher or social scientist when NEITHER that social science or philosophy is on sexuality. Apparently you are not familiar with Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which is unusual since you use it a lot on other CFD !votes. Unfortunately, I think this is a case of systematic bias and favoritism on your part. Instead of addressing the reasons for deletion and the VERY obvious precedents, including the DEFAULT EXAMPLE of Secular Jewish philosophers, you resort to personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Bulldog123 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A 2-second google search on "lgbt in academia" turns up any number of sources that discuss the issues faced by LGBT people in academia, including for example LGBT scientists must chart their own course
    - Read the article closely though. Here's a quote "However, the audience for this event--around 50 graduate students, postdocs, faculty, and staff--also wanted to know how much personal lives really count in hiring, tenure, and promotion processes. Is being LGBT different in academia than it is in industry?" The articles addresses the possibility of there being a PROBLEM with aspects of a person's personal life and them getting hired. The fact that the article even poses these questions shows it is not a well-established truth, but instead something to be pondered. This could apply to race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality too, and we don't categorize by many of those divisions. ie: A staunchly religious Catholic might not want to hire an atheist, and we already established intersections by religion like this are improper. Bulldog123 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Otto: and what about your "campaign" against many of the family categories? --Wassermann 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? Otto4711 12:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I simply don't believe the claim above that this is necessarily a defining attribute. Haddiscoe 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I agree with Otto, it's hard to assume AGF here, more so when the nom has put up 3 LGBT XfD debates (this one included).--Whstchy 03:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The intents of the nominator are NOT pertinent to the reasons for deletion. Keeping on that basis seems like an excuse from reading the actual reasons. If it fits the overcategorization guideline, I will nominate it, even if it's your favorite category on wikipedia. Bulldog123 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The intent of the nominator certainly is relevant, if the nominator is acting in bad faith or to make a point. Otto4711 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adolf Hitler could rise from the dead, get a wikipedia account, nominate a category on Jews, LGBT people, African-Americans, etc, and if he gives a legitimate argument for deleting it, I would delete. So no, the intents of the nominator are not relevant, unless the reason is something like "I hate gays" Bulldog123 14:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would welcome a clear statement of why all the arguments used in the recent pogroms of "profession etc by religion" categories do not apply here. Johnbod 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning towards delete. The relevant guideline here is WP:CATGRS, which offers a a test of whether a substantive head article can be written on the topic. I think that one could, just, be written; the history of discrimination against LGBT people has made it difficult for LGBT people to be out publicly, and although academia has tended to provide a more inclusive space than other fields of employment, that inclusivity has not always extended to LGBT people. However, there are many groups of people who have endured discrimination (including women, ethnic minorities and some religions), and per our discussions on Jewish mathematicians, I am wary of any intersection category which does not justify why that particular intersection is notable. (LGBT people have endured widespread discrimination everywhere, but the uniquity of that discrim doesn't mean that the intersection with any particular profession is notable).
There are some academics who are notable for their LGBT status, but the most notable case I can think of is Stephen Whittle, a transsexual man who has studied the law as it applies to trans people. I would recommend a strong keep for a category of "academics of LGBT issues", but I'm struggling to see the justification for this category.
I will follow the debate, and may change my !vote, but so far I don't see any persuasive reason to keep this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding the whole ethnic/national/sexuality/religious pride categorization a problem, but in this case I've looked at the members, and most of them are researchers in sexuality, plus Foucault (who is already categorized as a philosopher) and Turing, whose sexuality problems are certainly notable but have nothing to do with mathematics or computer science. Most of these people can be better categorized under specific disciplines; I would suggest that if the best we can say about them is that they are academics, then they aren't notable. Mangoe 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The connections between encyclopedic achievements of two of these people must often be tenuous in the extreme. Greg Grahame 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the all, not a useful intersection of descriptors. --Peta 23:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 11:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why does WP categorize people on ethnic/sex/sexual orientation/religious bases anyway? Carlossuarez46 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of intersections, it makes absolutely no sense. Why have the category Category:LGBT philosophers. Category:LGBT people, and Category:philosophers, when you don't need that many. A lot of people just think intersections should be made for everything. Almost no other foreign-language wikipedia does that. Bulldog123 23:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category for academics who studied these issues would be relevant, but this one is not. Jamie Mercer 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Judgment call here. Generally we don't subcategorize members of some office between "current" and "former"; indeed, the current members of a parliament are best covered in a list, which gives a lot more context and could be sortable by e.g. party or origin or both. It would seem that most objectors here do not want the information to be lost - but in fact changing a category to a list doesn't lose the information, and may well make it more comprehensive and/or accessible. Of course, canvassing (both at the article and a dozen or so talk pages) to obtain a bunch of "me too" votes really doesn't help matters. And yes, we will be here until christmas, and yes, sortable lists work as advertised these days. So the end result is Listify. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This CfD has been WP:CANVASSed at Talk:Scottish National Party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Current British MPs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

National sub-categories

Merge Category:Current members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies
Merge Category:Current members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies
Merge Category:Current members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Welsh constituencies to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Welsh constituencies
Merge Category:Current members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Irish constituencies to Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Ireland constituencies

Party sub-categories

Merge Category:Current Labour MPs (UK) to Category:Labour MPs (UK)
Merge Category:Current Conservative MPs (UK) to Category:Conservative MPs (UK)
Merge Category:Current Liberal Democrat MPs (UK) to Category:Liberal Democrat MPs (UK)
Merge Category:Current Democratic Unionist Party MPs to Category:Democratic Unionist Party MPs
Merge Category:Current Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs to Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs
Merge Category:Current independent MPs (UK) to Category:Independent MPs (UK)

Nominators rationale Category:Current British MPs is superfluous as a near-duplicate of Category:UK MPs 2005- (the difference is that Category:Current British MPs excludes MPs who have died or resigned since the 2005 general election.
The national subcategories (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) and the party sub-categories would all be more usefully replaced by lists, which could be sorted by the reader under various headings (I undertake to create all the lists which do not already exist).
Note that the party categories have all existed since January, but only the small Current DUP MPs and Current SNP MPs are fully populated; the national subcategories have all existed for over a year, and only the smallest (i.e. Current Northern Irish MPs is fully populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It is not usual to separate current postholders from former postholders, and as pointed out in this particular case, Current British MPs and UK MPs 2005 - perform virtually the same function. Tim! 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge current British MPs into Category:UK MPs 2005-, but Keep the national and party subcategories. The nominator has failed to provide a cogent reason to delete. Every single category in Wikipedia could be "replaced by lists"; and if we were to delete all the underpopulated categories we would be here til Christmas. An awful lot of work has gone into them already; they should not just be deleted on a whim. (I would however possibly be open to a snappier rename of the subcats, using the "2005-" element.) An awful lot of people are interested in, for example, Scottish politics. It is tremendously useful to have quick access to all the articles for Scottish MPs from a certain period, especially the current session. --Mais oui! 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I reject the suggestion that this was done on a whim, but I know that Mais Oui is a thoughtful and knowledgeable editor in his area, and I think that these important concerns should be discussed; I had already considered these points, and I'm sorry for not explaining my thinking more fully in the nomination. (In summary, the solution lies in easy access to the lists in Category:Lists of UK MPs 2005-)
The sub-categories are all problematic because they are triple intersections, leading to a risk o category clutter.

If we agree that Category:Current British MPs should be merged into Category:UK MPs 2005-, then the by-party and by-nation categories should logically become sub-categories of Category:UK MPs 2005-, and per the WP:CAT convention of not including an article in both a category and its sub-category, we will split Category:UK MPs 2005-, undermining the usefulness of that series a single categories which each contain all the MPs who served in that parliament (Category:UK MPs 2005- and the other MPs-by-Parliament categories are particularly useful as maintenance categories).

On the other hand, if we keep the party and national sub-categories as "current MPs", then they will have to be altered at the next general election, losing the data on the 2005 parliament.
Additionally, if we subdivide the by-parliament categories, then we will generate massive category clutter. A previous CfD recently agreed that the MPs-by-parliament categories are viable because although MPs may end up in a lot of them, the category names are short; but look what would happen to an MP such Ian Davidson first elected in 1992 if we subdivided the by-parliament categories by both party and nation
- Davidson's current MPs-by-Parl categories are:
  UK MPs 1992-1997 | UK MPs 1997-2001 | UK MPs 2001-2005 | UK MPs 2005-
- ... but if we subdivide those categories by Parliament and by party, they become:
  Scottish MPs 1992-1997 | Scottish MPs 1997-2001 | Scottish MPs 2001-2005 | Scottish MPs 2005- | Labour MPs (UK) 1992-1997 | Labour MPs (UK) 1997-2001 | Labour MPs (UK) 2001-2005 | Labour MPs (UK) 2005-
If we extended back further in time, the situation would become even worse (consider what it woukd do to Gavin Strang, first elected in 1970): he'd end up in an extra 11 categories, like this:
Scottish MPs 1970-1974 | Scottish MPs 1974 | Scottish MPs 1974-1979 | Scottish MPs 1979-1983 | Scottish MPs 1983-1987 | Scottish MPs 1987-1992 | Scottish MPs 1992-1997 | Scottish MPs 1997-2001 | Scottish MPs 2001-2005 | Scottish MPs 2005- | Labour MPs (UK) 1970-1974 | Labour MPs (UK) 1974 | Labour MPs (UK) 1974-1979 | Labour MPs (UK) 1979-1983 | Labour MPs (UK) 1983-1987 | Labour MPs (UK) 1987-1992 | Labour MPs (UK) 1992-1997 | Labour MPs (UK) 1997-2001 | Labour MPs (UK) 2001-2005 | Labour MPs (UK) 2005-

I believe that all of Mais Oui's concerns can be better addressed by lists rather than categories, without causing any of the problems listed above.
1. I quite agree that it is very useful to have quick access to the articles on, for example, MPs by country in a particular parliament, or those by parliament. However, that be achieved more effectively by the lists in Category:Lists of UK MPs 2005- (I have just created the category).
2. Example: List of MPs for Scottish constituencies 2005- is accessible through Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies and Category:UK MPs 2005-. In each case, it requires two extra steps, but the end result is a list which provides a lot more information than a category, and is sortable under several headings.
3. Example: List of United Kingdom Conservative MPs 2005- is accessible through Category:Conservative MPs (UK) and Category:UK MPs 2005-. In each case, it requires two extra steps, but the end result is a list which provides a lot more information than a category, and is sortable under several headings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge current British MPs into Category:UK MPs 2005-, but Keep the national and party subcategories. I agree with Mais oui. --Guinnog 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge as noted above this change makes it harder to find subsections of current MPs, and my experience of sortable lists in wikipedia is that they seldom work as advertisied. Catchpole 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any problems in the lists in Category:Lists of UK MPs 2005-? So far as I can see, they all sort perfectly. List-sorting doesn't work where there are rowspans or colspans, but these lists neither need nor use rowspans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)*[reply]

Merge current British MPs into Category:UK MPs 2005-. Keep national and party subcategories. Same reasoning as above. Kanaye 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge current British MPs into Category:UK MPs 2005- and Keep the others, per Mais oui's reasoning. Seems logical to me. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge current British MPs into Category:UK MPs 2005-, but Keep the national and party subcategories per Mais oui! Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I would strongly oppose just merging current British MPs into Category:UK MPs 2005-, because it would result in the subdivision of the very useful Category:UK MPs 2005-. If we are going to have categories of current MPs by party and/or by nation, they should remain under the parent Category:Current British MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and listify per nom. Regan123 22:51, 30 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 as nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Corvus cornix 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense, though this technically should be on WP:UCFD. --tjstrf talk 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know there was such a page. :) Corvus cornix 20:32, 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Elected Hereditary Peers in UK House of Lords to Category:Hereditary Peers elected under the House of Lords Act

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, present category title is ambiguous - could potentially refer to old Representative Peers (already have own cats), and UK would need unabbreviating. New Progressive 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to remove ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 23:00, 27 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 merge --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series to Category:The Legend of Zelda series

Merge. Now that weapons and items have been consolidated into Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series, this category is not useful. Pagra shtak 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete, not enough to warrant a category for it. Axem Titanium 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per nominator. ~I'm anonymous

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

The following 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: keep for now, but I suspect there isn't truly a consensus here and it will be relisted in a month or so. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons presented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople. To summarize, this is a non-notable intersection as there is no relationship between how a person handglides and who they have sex with. Though homosexuality or transgenderness may be taboo in sports, this is not a strong enough reason to maintain it. In addition, WP:BLP problems could erupt with a severe lack of sourcing. The only foreseeable reason for keeping is if someone was discriminated against strongly in there respective sport because they were LGBT. This applies to at most a handful of people and lists and categories for them would be overkill. Delete subcategories. Bulldog123 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag and list any sub-categories included. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep - Given the low numbers of openly LGBT sportspeople and given the attention that it garners when a pro athlete comes out even years after his/her career is over and given the attitude prevalent in every level of sports competition, given the books written on the topic (including Jocks and Jocks 2 by Dan Woog and the biographies of such athletes as David Kopay, Greg Louganis, Billy Bean and others which discuss the impact of being LGBT in a sports environment) and given the existence of international sports festivals for LGBT athletes, the notability of this intersection is unquestionable. I have no objection to upmerging the subcats but the parent cat must be kept. Otto4711 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this is a valid intersection & per Otto. Carlossuarez46 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Otto4711's very persuasive arguments of how much attention is paid to sexuality of sports people; these categories reflect the actual notability of sexuality of sports, and it is inappropriate to delete it because of a POV that it should not be a notable attribute. These categories also meet WP:CATGRS, because it is clearly possible to write a substantive haed article on the subject.
Also, the nominator is mistaken in the assumption that these categories are solely about who people have sex with, because the subcategories also include Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transgenderness in sports seems even LESS relevant, as I haven't seen a single article or analytical mention of that anywhere. Again taboo doesn't designate notability. Lots of things are taboo in sports. Foreigners playing on an American teams is sometimes considered taboo. Obviously something like a sex change will cause controversy just as steroid-use would cause controversy, but by highlighting it, we're giving it way more attention that it deserves as a sports phenomena. You're making a faulty analogy between the relationship of, lets say, scientology and celebritism and sexuality and sports. Bulldog123 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. A 0.44 second google search for "transgender sports" turns up this report from the Australian Sports Commission, which itself cites "Comben, Lisa, 1996, "Transgender Issues in Sport. Problems, Solutions and the Future", Research Paper, Master of Laws, University of Melbourne". So it looks like an academic article can be written on this topic after all. Otto4711 19:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unquestionably notable.--Mike Selinker 23:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sexuality does not effect sporting performance. This category is simply a matter of promoting an issue that matters to a small number of activists. Haddiscoe 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Activists do not control the news media, who have ensured that the sexuality of LGB athletes Billie Jean King and Justin Fashanu have received intense national publicity. Fasnanu's career was badly damaged when he came out (although the damage was exacerbated by his own misconduct), and most transsexual and transgender atheletes (e.g. Michelle Dumaresq and Mianne Bagger) have had their careers disrupted because of their trans status. It's clearly false to say that this matters only to activists; as Dumaresq's article makes clear, the IOC and many other sporting bodies have had a long history of formulating and revising policies on the exclusion or inclusion of trans athltes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because trans-athletes are seen as having unaffair advantages in leagues of a different gender, but that DOES NOT highlight their trans-status, simply the question of GENDER in sports. No academic article could be written on it, and so I cannot accept it as an intersection so notable that it deserve this type of highlighting. Bulldog123 16:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no requirement or standard that an academic article can be written on a topic for there to be a category. Even if there were, I strongly dispute the notion that transgenderism and sport could not be the subject of such an article. Otto4711 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bulldog, I'm afraid that you are splitting hairs here, and not very successfully. Gender in sports is in most regards an issue which generates only relatively low-level controversy, largely confined to those who challenge the single-sex nature of some sports or perceived inequalities in issues such as prize money and access to facilities. However the specific situation of transsexual people in sports has caused conflicts at the highest levels of sport for several decades, and trans athletes such as Michelle Dumaresq and Mianne Bagger have frequently been prevented from participating in sports. The issue was debated at great length in the House of Lords a few years back: see for example Lord Moynihan's contribution to this debate in the house of Lords; his campaign on the subject generated a lot of publicity at the time. The result of his campaign was that UK's Gender Recognition Act 2004 contains a clause dealing specifically with transsexual people in sport. Regardless of their merits as competitors, transsexual sports people since Renee Richards have been unable to avoid their trans status being one of the most discussed aspects of their careers. Whatever view anyone takes of the merits of different sides of those disputes, being transsexual remains a defining attribute of any transsexual sports person. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the other keeps. --Whs tc hy 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indisputably non-notable in an ever rising proportion of cases. The argument for retention supposes that this is always important, and will continue to be important in every case forever, no matter how many examples there are. That is not correct. The well known examples can be covered in an article. Greg Grahame 19:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Greg, please can you list the athletes in Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople for whom their trans status has been, as you put it, "indisputably non-notable"? It seems to me that the list will be empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is irrelevant as the category under discussion is not a Transgender and transsexual category but a LGBT category (and LGBT is a POV term that should not be used in Wikipedia due to Wikipedia:Neutrality). Sexual orientation is of no known relevance for all the non-heterosexuals who have competed in sport without the public knowing that they were not heterosexual. Please make a list of them if you can, as it would be more relevant than the list you have requested. Greg Grahame 11:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Greg, have you checked the sub-categories? The category under discussion is esssentially a container category for Category:Bisexual sportspeople, Category:Gay sportspeople, Category:Lesbian sportspeople and Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 11:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion at list deletion -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone. This is a notable intersection. Kolindigo 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, culturally significant and notable intersection. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Secular States
Category:List of Former Secular States

Delete both, not every list should become a category. Contents should be maintained as lists in Secular state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete true. Bulldog123 16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (if kept at least rename to Secular states). Tim! 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, and because there are no other countries-by-official-religion-or-lack-thereof categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a well developed category...there is no need to delete it. Categories are easier to keep up with and build than lists. --Wassermann 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you not referring to category:Secularism, which does not seem to have been nominated, though the presentation could be clearer. Ravenhurst 01:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wasserman, have you read the guidelines for categories vs. lists? Lists can be properly annotated. Categories cannot. Doczilla 05:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. --Peta 02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subcategories, but not Category:Secularism. Ravenhurst 01:38, 25 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 delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,With the advent of CGI there are very few feature films that don't have some form of animation in them. The category has become too generic (I see no connection between Spider-Man and Bedknobs and Broomsticks)-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as similar to the previously deleted category for live-action films with animated sequences, although this category pre-dates that one. Otto4711 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per Otto. Carlossuarez46 19:59, 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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-ruling Austrian royalty to Category:Austrian royalty

Merge, The categories for Austrian royalty were arranged very differently from all other countries, and I am in half way through rectifying this. I have created category:Austrian royalty as the hold-all category. No other country that I can see has a separate category for non-ruling royalty, and it is not needed, as the rulers are in category:Rulers of Austria, and the other subcategories will never number more than a handful. I am in the process of moving everyone to the relevant precise category for Archdukes, Archduchesses etc, which can be fitted into the overall categories by type of royalty. Alex Middleton 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Haddiscoe 01:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Doczilla 05:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There was no such a distinction inside House of Habsburg (a well defined and structured group) and not ending as a ruler was a result of historical events, not a defining characteristic of one. Pavel Vozenilek 11:40, 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 rename to Category:Ender's Game series characters --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Enderverse characters to Category:Ender's Game series characters

Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_11#Category:Enderverse, which converted the neologism "Enderverse" to "Ender's Game series".--Mike Selinker 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Tim! 17:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and also per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 6#Category:Enderverse novels and short stories. Xtifr _tälk 22:25, 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Applications which use Growl to Category:Software using Growl

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name isn't the best English, the newly proposed name covers all forms of software.. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom or delete as overcategorization. I'm not convinced that using a system library or resource—even a nice, flexible one—is really a defining characteristic (and if it is, perhaps we should also add Category:Software using syslog, which would include most OS/X, Unix and Linux daemons). Xtifr _tälk 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it may not be obvious from the above, and since it may potentially help a closer, I'd like to say that deletion would be my preference here. Xtifr _tälk 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcategorization. Pavel Vozenilek 11:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Would suggest a new nomination to debate the suggested rename. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category doesn't seem warranted to me. Anything in it would nicely and adequately fit into already existing Scientology hierarchy categories. meco 10:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wow. That was fast. This category was nominated for deletion a mere 26 minutes after it was created. It helps to categorize articles related to the Xenu mythology story, and is relevant and already contains interesting highly related articles. Smee 10:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I can see that some readers would find this useful. Axl 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The overall Scientology category needs subdivision, and indeed most of the articles are already in various subcategories. Alex Middleton 14:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given all the aspects of this subject, a category seems appropriate. Anynobody 01:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category that doesn't seem to have a clear need to be independent from a general Scientology category. Doczilla 05:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing here that isn't already categorized in at least one additional Scientology category, with the exception of Xenu's Link Sleuth, which should not be in this category anyway as it is overcategorization by common name. Deleting this category will not cause the parent category to swell in size, and "useful" and "interesting" are not particularly strong arguments. Otto4711 13:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As I understand it (not being an expert on the subject), the real topic is Space opera (Scientology), in which Xenu is one character. He is not important enough to have his own category, I don't think so anyway. Steve Dufour 16:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename as per Steve Dufour. Xenu himself hasn't shown a need for a category all his own, but a Scientology Space Opera category would be lovely, and could include not only Xenu but the whole fun-loving gang down at Galactic Confederacy headquarters. wikipediatrix 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The title is taken from a book by Frances Yates concerning the emergence of Rosicrucianism in the 17th century, but it is clear from the talk page that the editor wishes to list a large number of writers as part of "secret" organizations dating back to the 14th century. The subject is inherently POV an liable to create edit wars. Paul B 09:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was not expecting any other action from such a materialistic mind, as readers may find from my previous words at the Category's talk page. What I could say to you is already well expressed in Prof. Neal Grossman's article (IONS, 2002):

« My colleague believed in materialism not as a scientific hypothesis that, qua scientific hypothesis, might be false, but rather as dogma and ideology that "must" be true, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. For him, materialism is the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which is not itself open to doubt. I shall coin the term "fundamaterialist" to refer to those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence. I call it fundamaterialism to make explicit comparison with fundamentalism in religion. Fundamentalism connotes an attitude of certainty towards one's core belief. Just as the fundamentalist Christian is absolutely certain that the world was created in the manner described by The Bible (fossil evidence notwithstanding), so also the fundamaterialist is absolutely certain that there exists nothing that is not made up of matter or physical energy (NDE and other evidence notwithstanding). In fact, and this is the crucial point, their respective beliefs have nothing to do with evidence. As my fundamaterialist colleague put it, "There can't be evidence for something that's false." -- With respect to (a), materialism held as an empirical hypothesis about the world, the evidence against it is overwhelming. With respect to (b), materialism held as an ideology, evidence against it is logically impossible. »

Anything more i could here state in defense of the category nominated to supression by you would be in vain, as the majority of our readers and fellow editors seem to be still too immersed sleeping the illusions, created by materialism dogma that you are so keen to adhere to, in order to make a clear defense stand in the issue brought into here (am i wrong?). Regards. --Lusitanian 10:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this editor's response speaks for itself. Paul B 11:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lusitanian's reply makes it clear that the concept of a "Rosicrucian Enlightenment" has been developed by one author, and it does not appear to be more widely accepted. It might be useful to have an article discussing the concept, but it is not appropriate to use the category system to classify articles according to a analysis which appears to be supported by one lone author. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase was coined by Yates (in 1972), but is often used or referred to by other writers (of varying kinds) - try a google scholar search. Her analysis (in this book), however referred to, is not controversial. These are not good reasons to delete the category, which however might be difficult to keep on topic, as defined by Yates, involving a very specific period & a largely anonymous group of writers. A few of the people now in the category are not menioned in the index of the book, though many others have long index entries. Johnbod 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined and unnecessary offspring of Category:flowers. Flowering plants that grow in Mexico should be in Category:Flora of Mexico, delete. Peta 06:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Flora of Mexico for consistency with other Flora of X categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG. I thought we were trying to do flora/fauna by region rather than country. but even so, this is at least a step in a better direction. Xtifr _tälk 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge the lot of them. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1971 arcade games
Category:1972 arcade games
Category:1973 arcade games
Category:1974 arcade games
Category:1975 arcade games
Category:1976 arcade games
Category:1977 arcade games
Category:1978 arcade games
Category:1979 arcade games

Category:1980 arcade games
Category:1981 arcade games
Category:1982 arcade games
Category:1983 arcade games
Category:1984 arcade games
Category:1985 arcade games
Category:1986 arcade games
Category:1987 arcade games
Category:1988 arcade games
Category:1989 arcade games

Category:1990 arcade games
Category:1991 arcade games
Category:1992 arcade games
Category:1993 arcade games
Category:1994 arcade games
Category:1995 arcade games
Category:1996 arcade games
Category:1997 arcade games
Category:1998 arcade games
Category:1999 arcade games

Category:2000 arcade games
Category:2001 arcade games
Category:2002 arcade games
Category:2003 arcade games
Category:2004 arcade games
Category:2005 arcade games
Category:2006 arcade games
Category:2007 arcade games

Merge to the corresponding year subcategories of Category:20th century video games and Category:21st century video games. These categories overcategorize video games by one particular platform (arcade). For any video game article in both arcade and video game year categories, use the earliest year. This way, there'll only be one year category at the bottom of every video game article, and then subsequent categories for the various platforms it has appeared on.

If consensus is to keep, Category:Arcade games by year should be reinstated, and it should be considered whether Category:DOS games by year, Category:Super NES games by year, etc will also exist.

Note about the history of these categories: The parent category had a CfD on March 8 and the result was merge. What happened was that got deleted, and all the subcategories got moved over to Category:Video games by year. However, this was not the intention of the nomination. From the nomination statement and an archived discussion at WikiProject Video games, the argument was for every subcategory to be merged then deleted. However, the nom was technically incomplete - none of the subcategories in question was actually tagged, though SeizureDog did say that he wanted help in tagging the few dozen of them. Recently, there has also been a somewhat-related discussion on year categories at WT:VG. –Pomte 05:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom, as a piece of overlooked housekeeping after the previous CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom Good catch. Dugwiki 16:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Tim! 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all Glad someone's getting around to getting it fixed up.--SeizureDog 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all It's about time! -Jacquismo 02:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Hołek ҉ 19:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: per the below. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional coffeeshops to Category:Fictional coffee shops

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, see the coffee shop renaming discussion. This should be renamed accordingly.Peta 05:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, I have always seen coffee shops as two seperate words, never as one. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: my opinion is that this category, if kept, should follow whatever decision is made for the discussion immediately below about Category:Coffeeshops. It's probably too late to suggest a merger of the debates, but a merger of the debates is what should have happened. Xtifr _tälk 20:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to "houses" as suggested. If necessary, create cats for the other things that "coffeeshop" disambiguates to. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Coffeeshops to Category:Coffee shops

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, the wikipedia article is at coffee shop. I think the creator intended for this category to include only coffee chains (not coffeehouse), so something else may be more appropriate to accurately reflect the contents of the category Peta 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Coffee houses. I see that coffee shop is a disambiguation page, not an article, but coffeehouse seems like an unusual term. However, it's probably better than the clearly ambiguous coffee shop. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that be Category:Coffeehouses to follow the spelling in the main article? BTW, Coffeehouse gets 5,540,000 Google hits vs 2,100,000 for coffee shop. Vegaswikian 05:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Coffeehouses to follow the article. If it seems unusual, propose renaming the article, but "coffeehouse" does appear to be more widely used than "coffee house". While most of the articles are chains, it also contains Cannabis coffee shops, Manga cafe etc. Perhaps separate the chains into Category:Coffeehouse chains. –Pomte 16:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: egrem. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Soy and delete. The two categories overlap, products seems the less useful of the two. Category:Coffee doesn't have a subcat for things made with coffee. Peta 05:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, although I don't think the coffee analogy useful - I could imagine Category:Coffee products Johnbod 10:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking reverse merge here as Spy products better describes the contents of the category than Soy. It appears most of the contents of Soy are Soy products. Tim! 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That works too. --Peta 10:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The category is clear and needs no change or merge. Badagnani 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge for clarity. Soy is an ingredient of those products. One might expect a category called Soy to contain only soy varieties and articles about aspects of soy. –Pomte 15:50, 30 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 keep, part of a valid categorisation scheme, and per precedent of other "by <period>" cats.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Natural disasters in 1138 doesn't need a category of its own. JeffyP 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Awesome, a category of one. Probably goes without saying that the "no room for expansion/growth" guidelines applies here. Tarc 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename to Category:12th century natural disasters~~. Categorising disasters by time period is a good idea, but in view of the lack of articles so far, by-century-categorisation would be better. (While we're at it, the parent category [:Category:Natural disasters by year]] would be better sub-divided by century). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (changing my !vote). Carlossuarez46's explanation below that these categories are still being populated means that it is better to keep the by-year categories for now, and review the situation after 6 months or a year. It will be easier to upmerge later if needed than than to split again after a merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of nearly 200 by-year categories, some of which contain dozens of articles, so the inference that this system hasn't begun to be implemented on a significant scale yet is incorrect. Alex Middleton 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but should consider subdividing parent by decade and century There doesn't appear to be anything wrong off-hand with the intended scheme of Category:Disasters by year to divide disasters by year. Therefore keep this category as part of that scheme. However, that being said, I would recommend that Category:Disasters by year be subdivided into "Disasters by decade" and "Disasters by century" in a similar fashion to other events-by-year such as Category:Births by year and Category:Books by year. That would make the scheme more consistent with similar categories. Dugwiki 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder if there is some cut-off point before which natural disasters should be categorised by a larger time period, i.e. decades or centuries. I initiated a by-year breakdown of earthquakes for years 2001 to 2007 in Category:Earthquakes in the 21st century, but deliberately left 20th century and prior categories alone because of the numbers of articles involved. Tim! 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't recommend a cut off date, per se, because theoretically these by-year categories are meant to work in conjunction with other by-year categories. So you can, for example, compare disasters that happened in a specific year with other types of historical events and works that occured or were created in that same year. Thus even if the number of disasters in a particular year was low, it could still be useful to keep it by-year if there are non-disaster by-year articles for that same year for comparison.

So rather than have a cut-off point, I'd say that if the exact year of the disaster is verifiable then it should be categorized by year. However, if the exact year isn't verifiable, but rather we can only verify the decade or century the disaster occured, then that would be an article where having parent categories for decades and centuries are useful. Dugwiki 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of a overall scheme in the process of being populated; if in the end these need to be collapsed into centuries, so be it. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this single-member category. Doczilla 05:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It's part of a series, so under-population is not a reason for deletion: see WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also the wider renaming proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 23#By-year subcats of Category:Natural disasters by year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is commendable that people work on getting articles into accurate categories. Greg Grahame 19:56, 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overcategorization (non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference; narrow intersection; small with no potential for growth). The topic "massacres by Mormons" applies (so far as I know) only to a single event (the Mountain Meadows massacre), and only that article belongs to the category. There might also be WP:POINT and WP:NPOV issues with the category (see the creator's recent contributions), but I'll leave that for others to decide for themselves. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (Bad faith nomination, the nominator has already stated 1) the event was a massacre and 2) it was perpetrated by mormons) There were several massacres commited by mormons in Utah, including a massacre of paiute men and children near Santaguin, Utah. Please note nominated for deletion by Mormon church member. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to push a POV here, despite the insinuation based on my religious membership. I believe the category deserves deletion on its merits, as I have stated above. If enough historical events qualify (according to reliable sources) as massacres by Mormons, and if WP has articles on those (again, reliably sourced), then I will gladly withdraw this nomination. At this point it's not a useful category, and suggests a POV due to its lack of notability. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am researching the other massacres committed by mormons and will soon post these stories. If this category is deleted I will simply recreate it when I add the other stories. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but be mindful of the POV concerns that others have expressed here too. You may need to overcome those objections before you re-create the category, or else it will most likely be speedily deleted. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that very much. There do not appear to be legitmate POV concerns related to this label, only image issues and marketing issues with the Mormon Church being classified as a group who committs massacres~~, and meat puppet votes from Mormon Church members.~~ Do you deny the Mountain Meadows Event was not a Massacre? I think it clearly was, and it was committed by mormons. Now where is the POV there? Stop trying to blame it on Native Americans. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Indent reset.] You are implying that everyone who has expressed concern with the category on this page is a meatpuppet. That violates WP:AGF. Please retract your statement. The concerns are legitimate, and I think you should not dismiss them so readily. Makes it look like you have no faith that you'll prevail in a serious, substantive debate, so you question others' motives and make wild accusations instead. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself have already stated 1) this was indeed a massacre 2) it was committed by mormons. Where is the POV? Given these two facts, I can only state my belief this was a bad faith nomination. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Overcategorization: "Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category." My nomination is based on that; see my original rationale for deletion. You have once again accused me of acting in bad faith without grounds for doing so. I categorically deny that I am acting in bad faith, or to promote a Mormon POV, or for any other reason incompatible with WP. I ask that you accept this statement as the truth and, once again, retract your accusation of bad faith. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid based upon the evidence, this appears to be a bad faith nomination. I also visited the user pages of the other voters (with the exception of Dan T) all advertise they are mormon church members. I believe this is a bad faith nomination. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There don't seem to be categories for massacres by Muslims, Jews, Christians, or any other religion that I know of... why have one for Mormons (with only one entry)? *Dan T.* 04:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

inaccurate statement. See [[Category:Massacres by Native Americans]]. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Native Americans" is not a religion, and in any case that category does not appear to exist. Haddiscoe 01:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the kind of category that makes all the good work we do as editors to be viewed as lacking. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. If additional articles are created then the category can always be brought back later. MkDoyle 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV pushing at its finest. I don't see a category for "Massacres by Missourians" either...nor should there be one. Bochica 14:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as flaming PoV. Else next we'll have "Murders by Congregationalists" Gwen Gale 16:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a category for one article, that's not part of an established system, and invites horrible POV classifications. (I am not a Mormon.) --tjstrf talk 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Massacres of Native Americans" is an accepted as a category. The "incident" in which Native American were killed by US military is contained in the article Massacre at Wounded Knee. The Mormons of Utah and adjoining areas of the period was not merely a religious faith but an organized military entity. If JVM can generate additional relevant articles the category should be kept. Edivorce 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single-member category lacking room for growth or any usefulness. Anyone who finds the category has already found the article. Doczilla 05:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single-member category per Doczilla.Proabivouac 20:57, 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anime games to ~~Category:Anime and manga games~~ Category:Video games based on anime and manga

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, see below. It covers both already, and it matches the naming convention used by numerous similar categories in the same system. --tjstrf talk 03:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --tjstrf talk 03:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How about renaming it in line with List of computer and video games based on anime and manga instead of just Anime and manga games? --Squilibob 06:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something like Category:Video games based on anime and manga? (WP:CVG changed their convention, and are now simply WP:VG.) I'd be fine with that, since it would clarify the category's definition nicely at the same time. --tjstrf talk 06:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename - Yes that's a better name. --Squilibob 05:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per updated nom. –Pomte 15:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, it covers both anime and manga already 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. --tjstrf talk 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. --tjstrf talk 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename - per nom to establish consistent naming. --Squilibob 06:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename - Some of these lists are clearly involve manga as well. –Pomte 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Haitian Churches to Category:Haitian churches in the United States

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I first thought this was meant to be a category for churches in Haiti (in which case of course we should rename to Churches in Haiti but in fact the category was intended for Haitian churches in the US. Now I'll admit I'm not quite what constitutes a Haitian church but clearly the category name is too ambiguous as it is. Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There s no sign of a definition of what constitutes a "Haitian church", and the category only contains two churches plus one minister (who should not be in a "church" category). The articles could be interlinked, and if there are more them it would be best to start with a list in an article defining the term "Haitian church". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Greg Grahame 11:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: voided by closure of other nomination.--Mike Selinker 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split: I'd propose split the category into the category Category:Characters in written fiction (under the category Category:Fictional characters by medium) and create the category Category:Protagonists (together with Category:Deuteragonists and Category:Tritagonists under Category:Fictional characters by importance? under Category:Fictional characters) --Brz7 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - the "Literature protagonists" category is already under consideration for merger to "characters in written fiction." We have a strong consensus against categorizing fictional characters as "protagonsists," "antagonists," "heroes," "villains" and the like because of the POV issues in making the categorization. Categorizing characters as deuteragonists or tritagonists would not only be confusing for those who have no idea what the terms mean but would be a POV nightmare as editors tried to decide who the second-most or third-most important character in a given work is. Where does such a scheme end? How far down the rungs of "importance" do we go, why choose that point to stop and not another, and how do we decide which characters rank at what level? Otto4711 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, indeed the character's importance is not always clear; good to read that there's support for the merger to Category:Characters in written fiction --Brz7 10:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Characters should not be "judged" by us. We've eliminated all use of antagonist, and protagonist and any other -agonist should go too.--Mike Selinker 06:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Classifying characters as "protagonists" or "antagonists" (or similar names) has caused problems in the past, so most such categories have been deleted. Such names suffer from POV problems, which require editors to make subjective judgments about whether characters belong within the categories. Dr. Submillimeter 11:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close - The original discussion on this category already closed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_15#Category:Literature_protagonists. This second discussion will just confuse people like me. Dr. Submillimeter 14:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the CFD for the literature protagonists category has now closed with a result of merge to Category:Characters in written fiction. Otto4711 12:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The already-agreed merger to Category:Characters in written fiction seems like the best solution, per the well-argued objections of Dr S and others to labelling caharcters as "protagonists" etc. These concepts are too vague to make for useful distinctions in categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed reorganization would create maximum hassle and confusion for minimal gain. Alex Middleton 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Dr. S. Doczilla 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Dr. S. I would also oppose this proposal in favor of the proposal already settled at the other CfD if it weren't moot at this point. Xtifr _tälk 19:15, 24 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 moved to WP:UCFD --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:WikiProject Irish Music members, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment shouldn't this be a user cats for discussion? Carlossuarez46 20:07, 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 Category:WikiProject Religion articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:WikiProject Religion articles, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment shouldn't this be a user cats for discussion? Carlossuarez46 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Following the multiple chain; probably not, so:[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:06, 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Beck: Soundtracks to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - current name invites ambiguity that the category has something to do with one of the musicians or composers listed at Beck (disambiguation). Since it's both a manga and an anime series I'm not sure what the best rename would be. Otto4711 00:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Beck: Mongolian Chop Squad soundtracks, since that's the title of the anime series. (I'm assuming the manga doesn't actually have a soundtrack.) --tjstrf talk 04:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As above. I'd also vote to merge into the main article if someone proposes, the 4 articles in this category are quite small. MkDoyle
Rename to Category:BECK: Mongolian Chop Squad soundtracks. The title of the anime and article is BECK: Mongolian Chop Squad. If BECK should be uncapitalized, then all the other articles should be too. –Pomte 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so they should, per WP:MOS-TM. --tjstrf talk 16:53, 30 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.

May 22

Category:Parishes on the Isle of Wight

Category:Parishes in Lancashire

Category:RiffTrax movies

Category:Stop motion-animated films

Category:LGBT academics

Category:Current British MPs

Category:Users names that are Vancyon

Category:Elected Hereditary Peers in UK House of Lords

Category:Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series

Category:LGBT sportspeople

Category:Secularism

Category:Live-action/animated films

Category:Non-ruling Austrian royalty

Category:Enderverse characters

Category:Applications which use Growl

Category:Xenu

Category:Rosicrucian Enlightenment

Category:Flowers of Mexico

Arcade games by year

Category:Fictional coffeeshops

Category:Coffeeshops

Category:Soy products

Category:Natural disasters in 1138

Category:Massacres by Mormons

Category:Anime games

Category:Anime lists

Category:Haitian Churches

Category:Literature protagonists

Category:WikiProject Irish Music participants

Category:WikiProject Religion pages

Category:Beck: Soundtracks