< May 27	May 29 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussions on Cat:Fictional character with ___ ability. Pentasyllabic 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was a previous afd in which this type of category was deleted, there is no reason to re-create it. Spellcast 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See here for the cfd (and previous cfd/deletion review) in question. --Pentasyllabic 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per March 14th decision to listify similar category into List of fictional characters who can manipulate earth.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 05:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. --Beloved freak 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT for keeping up with current events. --TeaDrinker 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not Wikinews. Spellcast 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being a textbook example of WP:NOT#INFO. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:OC. Wryspy 07:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the above. It isn't even clear which Top 40 it relates to. - fchd 08:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Beloved freak 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a bullet per all of the above. The creator of this category has also created Category:List Of Number One Singles, as well as 2007 1's and PopFusion Top 40, which appear to be about music lists from Popfusion, a message board site which appears to be of questionable notability at best from what I've seen so far. --Finngall ^talk 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Un-official, un-sourced record chart with no assertion of notability. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of content deleted on March 15th 2007. Consensus found category ill defined in a significant body of cases. "Genius" is an ill-defined term which required a POV judgment call in being assigned as a label.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Pirates of the Caribbean ships to Category:Fictional ships. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I merged all of the irrelevant and non-notable ships into List_of_minor_characters_in_Pirates_of_the_Caribbean#Ships in an attempt to reduce the amazing amount of piratecruft. With this, only two articles occupy this category. ' 19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional ships.~Zythe^{Talk to me!}20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Speedy Keep Apostrophe's merge was completely undiscussed (no tags, no talk page discussion, see WP:MERGE) and has been reverted. Don't change the category until after the merge has been discussed properly and either moves forwards properly or is abandoned. Georgewilliamherbert 03:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- George has failed to actually read the page he refers to. "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below." Further, he is treating the page as policy, when it quite clearly isn't. Merging is frequently done without discussion; this complaint is not used for other categories emptied by discussionless merging (such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_26#Category:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_locations). ' 09:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bold ends when another editor or admin tells you forcefully to stop. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that WP:MERGE doesn't have any policy standing is disruption. While WP:BOLD is valid, it rather loudly says "...but don't be reckless". You can't empty a category full of real articles; whether the articles are there or not is not resolved yet. This nomination is premature until that is resolved. Georgewilliamherbert 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then feel free to annoy other people who perform merges without discussion. I gave you an example. I assure you, there are many, and your tunnel vision with both pages and users is not very productive. Or am I to assume that "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed." does not apply to articles you have some personal involvement in? WP:BOLD has no bearing on this discussion, so please stop throwing that in my face. You refer to me as "disruptive" and "rules-lawyering", but I find you even more disruptive by referring to me as such instead of simply debating this and willfully ignoring key sentences when they don't suit your agenda. ' 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The very next sentence of WP:MERGE is: "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, are not sure where or how to merge, or believe it might be controversial, you should propose it on the affected pages.". In what way is having re-done a merge after being reverted and asked to discuss it first not disruptive? Georgewilliamherbert 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed on WP:ANI, this so-called "procedural speedy keep" is invalid because it invokes rules that do not, in fact, exist. See also WP:NOBOOK. >Radiant< 11:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Fictional ships per Xythe, no need for the category to group three articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:Cruisers of the United States and Category:Cruisers of the United States Navy are redundant enough. TomTheHand 19:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BrownHairedGirl asked me to post a link to WP:SHIPS' categorization guidelines. Here they are! TomTheHand 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. Emoscopes ^Talk 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. Carom 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep for now~~. This one is not underpopulated, and heavy cruisers are a historically significant type of warship, as a 1930s product of arms control agreements; a Category:Heavy cruisers could usefully be created to include heavy cruisers of the Japanese Navy etc.
Additionally, I have just taken a quick look at Category:Cruisers, and it's mess: Category:Cruisers by country appears to have little intersection with Category:Cruisers by navy. I don't know how far into the problems extend, but it seems to me that this area could do with some urgent attention (e.g. Category:Ships by navy appears to be a parallel hirarchy with little intersection with Category:Naval ships by country). I suggest that we hold off any deletions and ask the folks at the WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Ships to review all the categories of naval ships. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - On the topic of this category's current population, it appears that all 38 member pages were added by the category's creator within 90 minutes of the category being started. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #2 - In regard to the mess with Category:Ships by navy and Category:Naval ships by country, we at WP:SHIPS have been aware of the issue for some time, but it is extremely complicated and we have not yet been able to achieve consensus. Our most recent discussion on the issue is here. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The WP:SHIPS categorization policy no longer categorizes by navy, but man, there are thousands of articles out there that need categorization or recategorization. I'm working on submarines right now, which had never received a categorization pass in the first place, but the ship types that were worked on first need another pass. We've got a categorization policy, and it's being implemented, but it's a giant work in progress. TomTheHand 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd also like to point out that WP:SHIPS categorization guidelines no longer put "by country" categories on ship articles in favor of putting them on ship class categories instead, to prevent overcategorization. List of United States Navy cruisers performs the function of maintaining a list of cruisers, and is divided into the various different types of cruiser. There is no need to do this by category when lists are better suited. TomTheHand 12:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Naval ships are arranged by type. this is NOT an overcategorization. All ship types should have a category. Battleships, torpedo boats, and cruisers are traditionally subdivided into heavy and light. the category "cruiser" is too large and too vague. --Prof .Woodruff 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Heavy" and "Light" cruisers are not "traditional" subdivisions, but they are specifically a treaty subdivision that covers a period in history of just over 20 years. These are rather arbitrary categories that grossly over-simplify the evolution of the cruiser as a type of warship. Emoscopes ^Talk 07:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Neither battleships, nor torpedo boats, nor cruisers are traditionally divided into heavy and light. As Emoscopes says, the division of cruisers into heavy and light is entirely a product of the Washington and London Naval Treaties, and it's based around the size of the guns, not the size of the ships, a highly arbitrary classification. TomTheHand 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Should we also include the newly created Category:United States Navy armored cruisers, Category:United States Navy scout cruisers, and Category:United States Navy light cruisers in this CfD, as the same criteria would assumably apply to all four of these categories? --Kralizec! (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. Their purpose is connected, so it seems sensible to evaluate them simultaneously. Carom 05:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aw man, I didn't even notice those. Yes, they need to be evaluated as well; what's the proper procedure? Start a new CFD? TomTheHand 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - New CFD for those three is here. TomTheHand 12:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Victor12 13:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changing my !vote after reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization. More detailed explanation in my changed !vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 29#Category:United_States_Navy_cruiser_subtypes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per TomTheHand and Emoscopes reasonings. Martocticvs 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in order to provide consistency with Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Categorization. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity category that consists of one single dubious article, and could not possibly expand. Ford MF 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Beloved freak 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Seems like an overcategorization. WP:OC says to "avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated". Spellcast 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, overcategorisation. --Beloved freak 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced cat. And Cantabria national team is not a FIFA member. Matthew_hk t c 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-affilated national team; overcategorisation. ArtVandelay13 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ArtVandelay13 - fchd 18:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Equatoguinean-Spaniard footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Equatoguinean-Spaniard athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Equatoguinean-Spaniard handball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not useful cat, all person in the cat were by descent, but unsourced. Matthew_hk t c 16:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case likes Category:Players who have played for FC Barcelona and Real Madrid, but differ from Category:Dual Irish international footballers. Matthew_hk t c 16:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely NOT! - These are all valid categories as they group people by nationality and occupation. I had David Davis under Category:Equatoguinean handball players, yet you changed that... He's an athlete of Equatorial Guinean descent, he needs to be found in relation to his ancestry, nationality and his occupation. These men are of Equatorial Guinean ancestry and they need to be found in relation to their ancestries and the sport. Perhaps you should try being more specific with what you have an issue with instead of just deleting stuff without discussing it.

Initially, everyone was categorized as just Equatoguinean, but I realized with your edit to one of my category descriptions that some of these players need to be categorized as Equatoguinean-Spaniards as some of them are Spanish by nationality and/or bloodline. I am committed to expanding this section, as I am of Equatoguinean heritage/identity, and can contribute a lot to the section. There are a slew of people that are not even mentioned. So, I did take the initiative of making more specific categories and I know they will be needed in the immediate future. Furthermore, you're the one, Matthew_hk, that had the gripe about me putting people under the general Category:Equatoguinean people. You need to let people know what's going on in your brain and quit deleting my input without validating why, because as far I'm concerned you are vandalizing my efforts; and I have dedicated many hours both today and yesterday to finally contribute. And if I'm in error, you should give me the courtesy of discussing things before abruptly deleting stuff, especially for unfounded reasons. You directed me to read the Wikipedia Category tutorial, but you didn't point out what I did wrong (as far as I decipher, nothing), and now you've nominated the categories I created for deletion based on claim that the info in these articles is un-sourced? But the info about each of these players was there, created by someone else, before I started making new categories. You're full of it Matthew_hk. Relir 17:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. The sports people actually not represent both countries in the international events. The will be thousand of possible combinations. Such as Bosnian-Serbian footballers, Croatian-Serbian footballers, Bosnian-Croatian footballers, Angolan-Portuguese footballers, Italian-Argentine footballers, Spanish Argentine footballers, Spanish Brazilian footballers, Portuguese Brazilian footballers.

To me, i will support a cat for Players who have played for Argentina and Italy national football team, but not this case.

2. There is not sufficient source to support their ancestry. Matthew_hk t c 17:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A close example is the Category:African Americans and their sub-cat. Matthew_hk t c 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - unnecessary over-categorisation. Fine to have categories of descent, nationality and sport speciality, but to need to link all three in a category seems way over the top to me. - fchd 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per fchd. These triple intersections are gross overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - there is a distinction between an Equatoguinean and Equatoguinean-Spaniard. Some Equatoguineans have nothing to do with Spanish identity other than speaking the language. Other are either Spanish nationals by birth, residency or by parentage. Matthew hk kept removing athletes of both Spanish and Equatoguinean origin, ancestry, or nationality from the Equatoguinean Category for specific sports. So I created new ones under Equatoguinean-Spanairds, since he didn't have an issue with these people being classified under Equatoguinea-Spanairds. And even though he now claims that these articles do not have sufficient resources to support the dual identity/heritage of these players. I'd like to keep all the athletes categorized together so that they are easy to find, relative to Equatorial Guinea. Relir 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Excessively precise categories. Really it would be better if ethnicity subcategories were not subdivided at all. Haddiscoe 19:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep all~~ I don't understand Haddiscoe, you claim this category is excessively precise, yet I have another category above up for deletion where the claim is that it is too ambiguous. According to the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guidelines this category was done correctly and is not too precise. Please, according to the guidelines, how is this category too precise? Thanks. Relir 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, this is no different from Category:Footballers from Birmingham. Category:Equatoguinean-Spaniards is more than enough for these people. Under no circumstances whatsoever should they be included in the Equatoguinean footballers category if they never represented the country (like Vicente Engonga). Punkmorten 20:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep All~~ Punkmorten, playing football as an English national or descendant (in whole or in part) is significantly different than playing as an Equatorial Guinean national or descendant (in whole or in part). You're right, they should not be included under Equatoguinean fooballers if they aren't nationals of EG and/or do not represent the country, but they should be under a category that denotes their tie to the country of which their recent ancestors came - whatever country that is. And in most of these cases the player himself or his parents were born in Equatorial Guinea and are descendants of indigenous Equatoguinean groups. This should be noted especially since many athletes, and people of other professions, share that same distinction. Vicente Engonga did not represent EG, but he is recent EG descent. He is Equatoguinean by blood/ancestry. This is significant, and there should be a category to help make this distinction where all alike can be grouped together. Relir 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Note - this is Relir's third "Keep All" in this debate. - fchd 06:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ethnicity has nothing to do with how one plays sports, improper intersection. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Spaniard" is a noun - the correct adjective is "Spanish". Thus, while Category:Equatoguinean Spaniards is correct, the others- if required - should be in the form Category:Equatoguinean-Spanish footballers +c. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46 and others. Craig.Scott 12:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move articles to Category:Equatoguinean-Spaniards, and then either Keep or Delete the category. --FateClub 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Can't we just treat all people the same, instead of making a big deal of race at every opportunity? Mowsbury 08:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Rename to Equatoguinean xxx" - and, given the history here, recommend discussion before deletion. It sounds like these were shifted from a national category (easily defensible) to a triple intersection as a result of the nominator's prior edits. Let's go back to the national category.A Musing 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - categorization run amok. Completely unnecessary. --Ezeu 15:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ezeu Greg Grahame 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all there's no relation between etnicity and sports activity. --Angelo 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per others above. I would also refer Relir to the wikipedia policy on no personal attacks with regard to your initial comments aimed at Matthew_HK. In addition, voting three times in the same debate does not make your vote any more valid. Vote once. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated Category:Equatoguinean-Spaniard musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Matthew_hk t c 03:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated Category:Equatoguinean-Spaniard actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Matthew_hk t c 07:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Controversial, ambiguous, unnecessary cat. Jinxmchue 16:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Generally opposed to "stance" cats that are difficult to verify, and easy to abuse. - Crockspot 16:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, I first saw this category when I saw that it had been added to some pages on my watchlist. Then I went there to see if anyone had commented on the obvious flaws in it and I saw there was already a deletion discussion.

First of all, the category includes an organization and a web site, as well as people. I find it hard to believe that Little Green Footballs has posted a message saying "as a web site, we officially support the Iraq war". I'm aware that putting something in a category doesn't necessarily mean they have that belief, but in this case, it seems obvious that that's what's happening.

Second, exactly what it means to support a war is vague. It could mean "supports the idea of removing Saddam Hussein". It could also mean "supports the idea of staying in Iraq now as a continuation of the 2003 war", which is probably what the creator of the category *intended* it to mean. There are a whole range of things it could mean; for instance, "believes that the WMD justification was a valid reason to start the war at the time". I don't think we can tell if someone supports the war unless we can pin down exactly what it means to support the war first, and I don't think that's possible. (I could even argue, though that obviously wasn't intended, that someone who supports the insurgents "supports the conflict".) Ken Arromdee 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oversimplistic. Haddiscoe 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much everyone above me. --Ybbor ^Talk 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political issue categories should be avoided, since these 'issue' is rarely black or white.-- Finnegans wake 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Finnegans wake. "Supporters" is far too simple a term to use for political issues, and is particularly inappropriate for this one, where many politicians who initially supported the war have changed their view (one notable example in the UK is Clare Short). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simplistic and unreliable. Mowsbury 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simplistic and POV. --Beloved freak 19:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUseless unencyclopedic category. Madhava 1947 (talk) 08:22, 1 June 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 Category:Turkish people of Azeri descent to Category:Azerbaijani Turkish. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Azerbaijani Turkish, or the reverse. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Bulldog123 07:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Beloved freak 19:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nomination. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:14, 2 June 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 Category:Super Smash Bros. games to Category:Super Smash Bros.. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Super Smash Bros. games to Category:Super Smash Bros.

Merge - the games are linked to each other through their text and a navtemplate. Segregating them with a layer of categorization separate from the general category seems very unnecessary. Otto4711 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Beloved freak 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Villages in Saddleworth to Category:Villages in Greater Manchester. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Villages in Greater Manchester, convention of Category:Villages in England, Saddleworth is just a district. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Johnbod 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Overprecise. Haddiscoe 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Beloved freak 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Big Brother presenters to Category:Game show hosts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Performers by performance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Game show hosts. We appear to classify reality TV presenters as game show hosts for categorization purposes and from there they can be distributed out to an appropriate nationality sub-cat. Otto4711 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree, very little room for expansion. Bulldog123 07:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pretenders to the Albanian throne
Category:Pretenders to the Austrian throne
Category:Pretenders to the Bohemian throne
Category:Pretenders to the Brazilian throne
Category:Pretenders to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones
Category:Pretenders to the Haitian throne
Category:Pretenders to the Hungarian throne
Category:Pretenders to the Italian throne
Category:Pretenders to the Polish throne
Category:Pretenders to the Portuguese throne
Category:Pretenders to the Russian throne
Category:Pretenders to the Serbian throne
Category:Pretenders to the throne of Andorra
Category:Pretenders to the throne of Romania
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the Empire of China
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the German Empire
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the Mexican Empire
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the grand duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the grand duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of Bavaria
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of Hanover
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of Iraq
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of Montenegro
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of Prussia
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of Württemberg
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Calabria)
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Castro)
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the principality of Schaumburg-Lippe
Category:Pretenders to the throne of the principality of Waldeck und Pyrmont

Delete Many of these categories were not populated, held one person better categorized elsewhere, split up territories that always shared the same pretender (e.g. Prussia and the German Empire, or the two Mecklenburgs) or would have never had a pretender. Most of the pretenders seem to be properly categorized and best fall under the main category. These categories ought to be deleted as they are not necessary at this point in time. Charles 14:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending return of members to categories so claims can be assessed. It appears as if you have already moved all the entries populating many of these categories - please do not do that while these nominations are pending. I'm willing to revisit this after those changes are undone.A Musing 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some were moved today and re-categorized under the main heading and some were recategorized to other subcategories (for instance, Jacobitism, English and French claims to each others' thrones). Others are pending categorization to Rival successions, and so on. Edits were not made to any of the categories following nomination. Charles 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Charles, but you depopulated the categories before making the nominations, which prevents other editors from assessing the significance of the categories. Valid categories should not just be emptied; please repopulate them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BHG, you cannot just "assess" these categories as valid and them elsewhere state that they need to be assessed. It seems like you have already made up your mind. As someone who works almost exclusively on royalty-related articles, I can tell you that they were de-populated as they were discovered and then more were discovered in mass. It has been discussed before, among editors of mostly royalty related articles, that these categories are just too much. If I find the discussion I will most assuredly post a link here. Charles 04:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I have not made up my mind (in fact I am inclined to think that most of these cats are too small and/or simplistic). However, those categories appear to be "valid" in the technical sense: they were not recreations of deleted material. The articles in them do not appear to have been inaccurately categorised, so the categories should not have been depopulated. There is no problem with adding other categories which you find more appropriate, but per WP:CFD "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision". I'm sure that you made a mistake in good faith, but the policy is clear: don't depopulate before a CfD. As already requested, please repopulate the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as is only inclusive of, but not limited to vandalism or duplication. I work on royalty related articles and so do others and over a period of time, but not with the intent then of having the categories deleted, these categories were depopulated. Technically, the idea of them may not be wrong, but as you spoke of your inclination... It was a fair amount of work bringing the pretender articles to the same level of categorization and I will not go back and reapply these pointless categories. Is there a golden rule as to how long one must wait between depopulation and deletion? Because I will wait for it simply because I cannot be brought to put articles back into pointless categories. The majority of them were already empty. Charles 09:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such time limit. The rule is simply: don't depopulate a category just because you don't like the existence of the category. It doesn't matter whether you do that over 5 minutes or five years: the rule is don't do it. Please demonstrate your good faith by undoing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that you repopulate to where things stood 24 hours before your nomination - easy to do from your history file. I can see good reason for deleting a number of these, and don't tend to think we need a comprehensive scheme for categorizing "Pretenders", but I could easily see the Chinese cases, for example, as best being dealt with in their own category. It's just real hard to assess without seeing them.A Musing 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these are best treated in articles not in categories. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now until categories are repopulated so that we can assess their usefulness. I think that articles may be the best way of handling this, but I don't want to guess until I see what the categories contain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These categories were all created by one individual and their usefulness has been deemed absolutely minimal. Over a period of time, they were depopulated until it was discovered that there was a very large amount of these categories. It's a text book example of over-categorization for over-catergorization's sake. Charles 04:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, you don't seem to get the problem. You may be right to view the categories as being of minimal usefulness, but in that case the appropriate action is to nominate them at CfD, not to depopulate them. Passive phrases like "has been deemed" obscure the issue: it is for CfD to make such judgments, not for individual editors of ad-hoc groups of editors. Please respect wikipedia's processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wouldn't the term "Claimants" be more neutral than "Pretenders"? Grutness...wha? 01:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because not all pretenders are claimants, while most claimants are pretenders. The article Pretender notes this. Charles 04:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This debate has been improperly pre-empted by the emptying of the cats prior to the start of the debate. I suggest the current nom is withdrawn, the cats repopulated, and then re-open this debate. It will be much easier for editors to contribute meaningfully if they can see what they are debating. DuncanHill 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate then nominate on an individual basis. --FateClub 18:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & repopulate, then assess, per BHG Johnbod 03:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Comment The tracking of royal and noble lines even after the abolishment(?) of titles is a valid and popular field of study, and pertinent as these lines do occasionally make comebacks (see Spain). These "pretenders" sometimes also affect the politics of their nations. My comment is that I agree that re-naming the cat from "pretenders" to "claimants" may be a good idea. I disagree with Charles who says that all not pretenders are claimants. What would one be pretending if not a claimant to a throne? --Cjs56 16:15, 4 June 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 that the category is already deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category is not needed anymore. Wikipeditor 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

delete - controversial and thus prone to abuse. Besides, ALL population groups are of mixed ancestry according to some. Blockinblox 13:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's like saying, "Let's stuff it in a box and bury it." Sorry, but I would like to see Wikipedia explore these issues in a mature manner. The tools that help us do that also encourage abuse, as you mentioned. That's the price we pay.... Ling.Nut 14:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- depending on how far back in time, all populations are of mixed ancestry. The inability to define mixed then renders this category invalid. mixed ancestry people are present in every society and community, thus do we list every population. Muntuwandi 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all population groups are of mixed ancestry. Francis Tyers · 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All population groups are of mixed ancestry. Besides, someone is confusing ethnicity with racial issues. In present days, people with different skin color may belong to the same ethnic group; people within the same racial group may belong to different ethnic groups. Ten Islands 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename maybe to Category:Population groups of mixed cultural heritage, or of "recent mixed ancestry" or defined by mixed ancestry. This is clearly a distinct and very useful category. It should not be removed by supposed political correctness. At worst, listify. Johnbod 17:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be far worse. People really seem to be muddled between ancestry and heritage nowadays, using the latter when they mean the former. Craig.Scott 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too vague to work as a category. Seems to be based on arbitary choices and personal musings. Why couldn't I add Scottish people, or English people, or European American or indeed any article about population groups?--Nydas^(Talk) 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - there are no population groups of unmixed descent on this planet, so what is the point? I really can't think of any useful inclusion (or exclusion) criteria here. There may be some ethnicities that are more obviously mixed than others, but even such a distinction would be hard to define rationally. At least one editor is already adding (and agressively defending) every article he can find that is even remotely related to ethnicity (yes, I'm exaggerating here, but only a little). --Latebird 18:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are currently too many articles in the category, but the core is ones like mulatto, pointee , Cape coloured, which are defined by being mixed, as English and Scottish are certainly not. Johnbod 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've never heard of the English being referred to as 'Anglo-Saxon'?--Nydas^(Talk) 20:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Angles and Saxons: there is also a strong Norman strain in England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)

Where are the Angles? "Strong Norman strain" is just romanticism, I'm afraid. There are no existing population groups of which the English (as a whole) are a mixture. Johnbod 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a quote about the English being 'the mongrels of Europe' which I've always enjoyed. DuncanHill 09:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(contribs) 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, since nearly every population group has mixed ancestry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Delete Based on fallacious assumptions. There is far, far too much emphasis on ethnicity in the category system. It is a gross systemic bias. Haddiscoe 19:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete What is the point of this? I see none. As per above I agree. (XGustaX 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep - If all populations have mixed ancestry, why does the Multiracial article have any significance? And if we're all mixed, what's the uses of the article on Race? Wouldn't everyone being mixed mean that we're all the same? Haven't there been distinct genetic frequencies that make each of these groups difference from one another? Besides, most people aren't aware of the vastly different groups and why they are different. It's very interesting how the nominator didn't even sign his nomination. In looking at the Wikipedia:Category deletion policy I don't see any valid reason for this category being nominated. I think this is just based simply on the individual sentiment/opinions. Francis Tyers, If all populations groups being mixed would deem this category as obsolete, then it seems as if articles like Race and intelligence would be more suitable for deletion, since the article's implications would be erroneous and out of date. Blockinblox, what do you consider abuse, when groups of people are denoted beyond nationality, social race, nationality and/or geographic region? To only offer this type of perspective on population groups on Wikipedia is pretty narrow minded. This is the type of Nordicist attitude that many editors on here are tired of, as it perpetuates the implications of old, and out dated social systems. The category indicates racial mixing beyond social systems, why should that not be noted? If this distinction should not be made, then what does that say about articles such as Multiracial, Demographics of India. Just because the world is mix doesn't mean the that existence of these people, their ancestries and how they identified can't be noted. Their being goes far beyond mixed ancestry was there are linguistic, social, cultural and geographic implications as well. Furthermore, it's irrational to indicate that this category will incite abuse, as any article or category on Wikipedia is subject to abuse at any given time. You speak of ambiguity, most articles written about any demographic group (among other topics) are pretty ambiguous.

Muntuwandi, what do you mean by an inability to define mixed? Each of the articles under the category clearly indicated how each group is mixed and whether the mixture is defined by social or genetic/scientific concept. Yes, mixed people are present globally; however, the category is significant because the groups indicated represent a distinct path of human/racial evolution. The current global admixture didn't just happen, this category of groups reveals how. Collectively they explain this - How and why the world is mixed. For people who use Wikipedia as a tool for learning/research (well, at least as a start), the category makes these groups easier to find.

All the articles under the category have the subject of "Mixed ancestry" in common. And to link this to the Multiracial article will enhance it as it needs a more global perspective than what it currently offers. If the category is deemed worthless based on "the world is mixed, so what?", then the same can be said for each article within the category. The same can be determined concerning the significance/importance of making distinction between one mixed race group from the the next, throughout history.

The people existed, their admixture was noted back then; they were considered mixed back then and are considered mixed now. The groups under this category were/are distinguished as a unique groups. Their ancestry had significant social implications during the time they evolved. Mixed ancestry is a significant aspect of the human history, psychology, sociology, natural history and culture. The Category:Population groups of mixed ancestry is highly significant and should not be deleted.

I agree with Ling.Nut, it's just like trying to bury information, making it hard or impossible for people to find - for people to make the connection. If you're acknowledging that the world is mixed, what's wrong with making that connection? What is wrong with having this category?

Nydas - Your point-of-view is very 'Anglo-Saxon'. What's wrong with adding the Scottish people, or English people, or European American if those articles offer incite on the true ethnic/racial make up of those groups and how they became the way - if they were known by formal names during this evolution. The opposers have indicated that All people are mixed, but it's interesting that in a world where the social concept of race reigns dominant over the scientific concept of race, most people don't readily view the world as mixed. So, the average Wikipedia user scouring for research/educational leads this lesser acknowledged aspect of human heritage is readily noted via this particular category. It will serve as a useful tool, and will not lack population. It should not be deleted. Relir 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying amounts to a desire to have Wikipedia perpetuate ignorance. I don't think that is one of wikipedia's core principals, is it? Craig.Scott 12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wryspy 07:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every population group is mixed. Eventually it might be discussed the appropiateness of making a more focused Category:Population groups self-defined by mixed ancestry as suggested by Johnbod, to include groups self-defined as such, like the Mestizos, Griqua, Cape Coloured and others. A category that would note the social self-identification, the only possible reason to make selections in this field, to present the people who self-identify as mixed ancestry and construct their identity by comparing themselves to other supposed pure groups, presenting their identity by saying we are not pure like them. Just the self-perception. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like most white Australians I am of mixed ancestry. So mixed I can't even begin to account for all of it. Craig.Scott 12:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Relir. Note to Craig.Scott, this is not about individuals but about groups of people. --FateClub 18:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? It was already said that every population group is mixed. The purpose and the coverage of such category would be the same as for a supposed Category:Population groups living on Planet Earth. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Divisive and misleading. Mowsbury 08:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Population groups! Ha! Betcha didn't think of that! :) Xtifr _tälk 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly because it would be pointless and redundant? Greg Grahame 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misleading. Greg Grahame 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and its uselessness as a meaningful category given some of the arguments above. I think almost every person nowadays is of mixed ancestry. Orderinchaos 02:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very controversial. This category has been used more than once to refer to groups that have one region of origin, putting such groups on the same level as e.g. the Mulattos who originate from two regions. --Kuaichik 00:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category is utterly absurd. Dahn 12:54, 4 June 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absent the several dozen improperly categorized articles for contestants and personnel, the remaining articles are extensively interlinked and well covered by the navtemplate. There is no need for this category for navigational purposes. Otto4711 13:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. This isn't a standard performers-by-performance category, because most (like other reality TV shows), the contestants are notable primarily for their involvement in the show. If the contestants were categorised appropriately, we could see what's left, but just deleting the category now will leave many of the contestant articles with a "The Apprentice" category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contestants belong in Category:The Apprentice contestants. Otto4711 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the contestants in this category are also in one of the Apprentice contestants categories. Some are in two and some are in three. That whole structure needs to be cleaned up. Otto4711 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (changing my !vote after Otto clarified the contestants issue). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move contestants to Category:The Apprentice contestants then delete this category As above the contestant currently in this category are misplaced. Put them in Category:The Apprentice contestants instead of here, then delete this category (since it will be virtually empty far as I can tell. Dugwiki 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of the contestant articles in the cat following BHG's comment and confirmed that they are all in at least one of the contestant categories already. Otto4711 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulate - useful container category, just put all the miscats into the appropriate places, and remove them from this one. 81.104.175.145 02:50, 3 June 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 move/merge per nom, to avoid confusion with Apple Records, of course. — CharlotteWebb 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Apple Inc. employees, to match Apple Inc.. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Beloved freak 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see nothing to merge. This is non-defining characteristic on pair with Playboy Girls or Actor in XYZ. Pavel Vozenilek 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The reason these categories exist is because some people are notable only for their stint in a particular job.-choster 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "notable only for their stint in a particular job". If someone is purportedly included only for that reason, then they are in fact not notable at all. 81.104.175.145 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for consistency, but recommended the target be discussed. 81.104.175.145 01:45, 5 June 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) 11:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - following cleanup of inappropriately categorized articles, the remaining material does not require an eponymous category in light of the extensive interlinks through the material and the navtemplate. Otto4711 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not hurting anything, has enough members and subcats. Blockinblox 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not hurting anything is not a particularly compelling argument. Nor does your argument address why the navtemplate and the links between the articles are not sufficient for tying these contents together. Otto4711 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a compelling argument in my opinion, not yours. It isn't hurting anything, why do violence to it if others find it useful; and the potential objections to the argument raised in that private essay you linked do not seem to apply in this case. Blockinblox 13:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that deleting a category in some way equates to "doing violence" is ridiculous. Nor, again, have you addressed why the navtemplate and text links aren't sufficient. Otto4711 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. another unnecessary tv show cat. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty cat, redundant against Category:Closed Victoria railway stations. A previous CFD preserved this category, but it was part of a mass nomination. Orderinchaos 12:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant and empty, the populated cat wording is more succinct. Blockinblox 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and repopulate. This is an essential intersection of Category:Regional railway stations in Victoria and Category:Closed Victoria railway stations (which I have nominated for renaming to Category:Closed railway stations in Victoria in a separate listing). Depopulation has wrecked the accuracy and utility of both categories. If it was done by the nominator in preparation for this nomination, that was highly improper. Craig.Scott 12:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. With both plurals being correct, the weight goes to the one most editors support. Also, the rename is less likely to encourage people to create categories like "fictional firefighter."--Mike Selinker 13:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fictional ninja to Category:Fictional ninjas

Nominator's Rationale: A previous nomination for renaming this article was withdrawn by the nominator, as several responders claimed that ninja was the correct plural and ninjas was "a silly word". This is untrue: the plural ninjas is recognized by the Oxford English Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Dictionary.com, and it is clearly the more commonly used plural in English, regardless of how it may have been in the original Japanese. --Ptcamn 10:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 12:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ because the sources say that either is acceptable, and no evidence has been offered that "Ninjas" is the more widely-used form in English. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd check by googling, but there's no way to distinguish between singular and plural uses. However, there's plenty of examples of ninjas being used in titles: 3 Ninjas, Surf Ninjas, Ninjas and Superspies, New Haven Ninjas, Teen Ninjas, Ninjas in Pyjamas, Five Element Ninjas, Cheerleader Ninjas, Monkey Ninjas in Space, Ah! A Goddess's Love Can Save the Ninjas!... conversely, I can find only a handful of examples that might be using ninja as the plural (Vanilla Ninja, Naruto: Clash of Ninja, Neko Ninja). --Ptcamn 12:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, objection withdrawn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Let's follow English grammar rules if the word is recognized as English now - not Japanese grammar rules or whatever. Blockinblox 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The movies I watched used plural of ninjas as ninjas, not ninja. TheBlazikenMaster 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The number of examples of "ninjas" doesn't matter, even if we could create a comprehensive list of all usages of "ninjas" and plural "ninja." What really matters is which one is correct and I think the fact that "ninja" is used as a plural sometimes makes that perfectly clear. People tend to put an "s" on the end of a plural as default behaviour if they don't know the correct plural, but if you don't put an "s" on the end it must mean that you know the real rule for that word. I infer from that alone that "ninja" is the correct plural. Even if its not correct it sure looks correct and I think Wikipedia should look correct. -- Lilwik 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's some really strange logic you've got going there. a) It is, believe it or not, possible for words to have more than one plural. Brother, for example, can pluralize as brothers or brethren in different contexts; hoof can pluralize as either hooves or hoofs depending on the speaker/writer. Just because there are multiple plurals in use doesn't mean only one of them is correct and the rest must be wrong. b) People who know that ninja is correct use ninja, therefore ninja is correct? That's circular logic. c) It doesn't look correct. Most people will think (as TheBlazikenMaster did in the original nomination) that we've mistakenly used a singular instead of a plural. --Ptcamn 06:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should use the normal plural, which ever it is; sometimes English adopts the plural of the donating language when borrowing their word, "data" from Latin "datum", "kibbutzim" from Hebew "kibbutz", "ravioli" from Italian "raviolo", etc. Then sometimes English has two plurals: stadiums & stadia; octopuses, octopi and even octopodes from the Greek. Let's find out what English uses for the plural of Ninja and use that one, if there are two and one includes "Ninja" then the default is to keep; we don't undo an editors choice of terminology between or among 2 or more valid choices (like British vs. American usage debates). Carlossuarez46 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category was originally created with "ninjas", and subsequently renamed to "ninja" under the mistaken belief that "ninjas" was wrong. So following the "don't undo an editor's choice of terminology" rule, it should be "ninjas". --Ptcamn 06:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If both are correct plurals, I agree. I note that our sister project Wiktionary allows both plurals, as does Encarta, and dictionary.reference.com. Since it seems that both plurals are correct, the first one prevails. Carlossuarez46 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ninja without the s is the plural form, according to the Oxford English dictionary, and the quotations used in the OED (see here: http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00324925 - subscription required). 132.205.44.134 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note sources at OED are American and British, like Ian Flemming, Business Week. 132.205.44.134 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The OED lists both ninja and ninjas as plural forms, and includes quotations where ninjas is used. --Ptcamn 06:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and the evidence provided by Ptcamn, which also matches my own experience and knowledge, and finally because "ninjas" was the original cat name, and we should stick with the original if there's no other real preference—although I believe that "ninjas" should be preferred in this case. Finally, a side comment on "octopus" and "correctness": the most common plural in English is "octopuses". From an etymological POV, "octopi" is completely wrong, since that applies a Latin rule to a Greek word; it should be "octopodes". Nevertheless, "octopi" is so widely used, and "octopodes" so rarely, that Webster's only lists the former (although the OED has all three). Just something to think about. :) --Xtifr _tälk 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite all the talk of correctness, that is still an argument from usage. Wikipedia is best when it is a source of knowledge, not a reflection of what people tend to already think. (Could someone carefully study the origin of the word "ninja" and help us make an informed decision, rather than one based on movie titles?) -- Lilwik 13:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is circular logic — knowledge is only knowledge if it's true. If it's not true that ninjas is incorrect, then there's nothing wrong with reflecting what people already think (since it's true) and we don't need to enlighten anybody about anything (since they already know). (There probably should be a note in the ninja article that the plural can be either ninja or ninjas, though.)

There's not much to study: ninja comes from Japanese, a language with no grammatical number. It's Sino-Japanese, meaning it (or its parts) came into Japanese from Chinese, another language without grammatical number. However, English is a language with grammatical number, and this particular word has been given an English plural. What else is there to know? --Ptcamn 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how it first came into the English language. Have people been calling them ninjas from the very beginning, or did "ninjas" just come about because someone didn't know the correct plural and used "ninjas" in a movie title. I admit that they are both correct, but one might be more correct than the other. -- Lilwik 23:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way. Even if ninja is older than ninjas, that doesn't make it "more correct". Fishes is several centuries older than fish as a plural. The plural of ship was originally formed by adding -u! Wikipedia is written in modern English, not the English that might have been used when the word first entered the language.

And again, this is circular logic! You have to assume that ninjas is incorrect to make statements like "did "ninjas" just come about because someone didn't know the correct plural", and then you use that as justification for calling ninjas less correct! --Ptcamn 08:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja is more correct if ninjas comes from a mistake. (I don't know if it does. I'm not assuming that it does; I'm just being hypothetical.) I don't know why you call everything I say circular logic; there is nothing circular about it. You are just in danger of confusing people who don't know what circular logic is. "Did 'ninjas' just come about..." wasn't a statement; it was a question, and I didn't need to assume anything to ask it; I would really like to know the answer. (My mistake was not using a question mark, just a typo, not circular logic.) -- Lilwik 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion "X is more correct if Y came from a mistake" is simply not true. Correctness and/or degrees of correctness are completely unrelated to origins! Whether circular logic is involved or not, your premise is incorrect, which is a pretty good reason for dismissing your argument. Oh, and no, it didn't come from a mistake. It came from applying standard English rules to a foreign import word, which is done all the time (see "octopuses" and "stadiums"). Xtifr _tälk 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that ninjas has always been correct for as long as English speakers have been using the word ninja? If ninjas is as old as ninja then I withdraw my opposition. -- Lilwik 03:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, how long it's been used is just as irrelevant as whether it "comes from a mistake". Correct usage changes over time! Second of all, when it was initially used, there were no correct uses of it in English, except as a quotation of a foreign word. Should we declare it not-English for all time because of that? That makes just as much sense as your proposal. Anyway, by the time it had achieved enough currency to be considered an English word, I'm sure both pluralizations were in wide usage, so I suspect the answer to your question is yes. Not that it matters. Xtifr _tälk 10:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the notion of correctness through usage. A word has a history that has real value and tells us how a word should be used and what it means. Your way of looking at this suggests that a word is correctly used if and only if it is used, and that means nothing is incorrectly used. Your attitude makes me worry about your authority as a source on the history of this word, so lacking authoritative evidence I will continue to go the safer way and assume that ninja is the more correct plural. -- Lilwik 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All there is to look at is usage. You can look at present-day usage or you can look at historical usage, it's still usage. ...but this isn't really the place for yet another prescriptivism vs. descriptivism debate, what with this constant indenting. The rename crowd looks to have a clear majority already anyway. --Ptcamn 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting way, way, off-topic here, but I just want to clarify: I am not saying that because some random person says something, that makes it correct English. I'm saying that usage is how the people who write dictionaries decide what to include, and when both the OED and Webster's agree, I think there can be little doubt that "ninjas" is perfectly correct. Xtifr _tälk 12:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We did investigate. The OED lists both (and Webster's agrees). English is defined by usage! There is no greater authority. Thus "octopi" is a correct pluralization in English, even though it follows the rules of neither English nor Greek, and "ninjas" is a correct pluralization as well. And, no, I don't think we need a note in the article. Language usage is best documented by dictionaries, and WP:WINAD. Xtifr _tälk 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 17:42, 29 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 don't merge. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aztec nobility to Category:Aztec people

Merge, I initially created this category, but so many of the known Aztecs were nobles (almost all of them) that it seems redundant. Ptcamn 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ per nom. Blockinblox 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Keep - changed my vote; again, the argument of BHG has prevailed upon me. Blockinblox 11:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if it means that Category:Aztec people is almost empty. If this category is deleted, then the Aztec nobility get removed from Category:Nobility by nation, which would make our systemic bias appear worse than it is. If all we have are articles on Aztec nobility (rather than ordinary people), what's the problem with the categories reflecting that fact? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Ling.Nut 14:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of larger scheme, per BHG Johnbod 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of a wider scheme. Craig.Scott 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per BHG. --FateClub 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. — CharlotteWebb 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Georgian articles by importance to Category:WikiProject Georgia (country) articles by importance
Category:Unknown-importance Georgia (country) articles to Category:WikiProject Georgia (country) unknown-importance articles
Category:Georgian articles by quality to Category:WikiProject Georgia (country) articles by quality
Category:B-Class Georgia (country) articles to Category:WikiProject Georgia (country) B-class articles
Category:Start-Class Georgia (country) articles to Category:WikiProject Georgia (country) start-class articles
Category:Stub-Class Georgian articles to Category:WikiProject Georgia (country) stub-class articles
Category:Unassessed Georgia (country) articles to Category:WikiProject Georgia (country) unassessed articles

Nominator's Rationale: These are maintenance categories used by WikiProject Georgia (country), and should all be renamed for consistency with the name format used by other wikiproject maintenance categories. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_26#Category:Georgian_articles, which discusses the parent category Category:Georgian articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom -- note that I have taken the liberty of correcting one instance of 'artcles' above to read 'articles'. Blockinblox 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 21:26, 3 June 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. — CharlotteWebb 08:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Athletes to play in the National Basketball Association & Major League Baseball to Category:Athletes who have played in the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, the suggested new name is more standard English usage. YechielMan 03:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per WP:CSD#General_criteria#4 as a recreation of deleted material. This is a recreation of Category:Athletes to play in National Football League & Major League Baseball, which was deleted in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Athletes to play in National Football League_.26_Major_League_Baseball. Note that both categories were created by the same editor, Hirolovesswords. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a counter measure against category clutter. Osomec 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Greg Grahame 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Mike Selinker 04:39, 7 June 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 as recreation, and per the below. >Radiant< 08:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, procedural nomination, see discussion of February 14th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Fictional_Sociopaths. Previous discussion does not apply to current category anymore. -- =CJK= 00:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreation. The articles included in the category already demonstrate my previous point about how these terms simply will not be applied accurately. The categorized articles do not meet the criteria listed on the category's article page. (1) Sociopath is NOT the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic term. In fact, the official stance of the American Psychiatric Association is that both psychopathy and sociopathy are obsolete terms, as mentioned by the Wikipedia article on psychopathy. (2) Few Wikipedians will apply it correctly. (3) In fact, professionals can't even agree among ourselves when we should apply the term. Some say it's synonymous with antisocial personality disorder, some say both are synonymous with psychopath, but some say they absolutely are not. (4) Why aren't there any citations to back up all the claims the writer makes about what sociopathy and psychopathy are? Doczilla 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_14#Category:Fictional_sociopaths. Otherwise delete per Doczilla. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is the recreation of deleted comment. Besides, the term "sociopath" is too open to interpretation, which means that articles will be placed in this category based on people's subjective interpretations of the characters. Dr. Submillimeter 11:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Blockinblox 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the last time, my comments last time, per Doczilla, and Dr. Submillimeter, and per common sense. Carlossuarez46 22:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nobody Wikipedia cannot be qualified to apply this label.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:52, 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.

May 28

Category:Fictional characters with sand powers

Category:Current Top 40

Category:Fictional geniuses

Category:Pirates of the Caribbean ships

Category:United States Navy heavy cruisers

Category:Sabit İnce

Category:Rapper/actors

Category:Cantabria international footballers

Equatoguinean-Spaniard

Category:Supporters of the 2003 Iraq conflict

Category:Turkish people of Azeri descent

Category:Super Smash Bros. games

Category:Villages in Saddleworth

Category:Big Brother presenters

Pretender categories

Category:Articles needing Hangul

Category:Population groups of mixed ancestry

Category:The Apprentice

Category:Apple employees

Category:The Naked Brothers Band

Category:Closed regional railway stations in Victoria

Category:Fictional ninja

Category:Aztec nobility

Wikiproject Georgia (country) articles

Category:Athletes to play in the National Basketball Association & Major League Baseball

Category:Fictional sociopaths