< May 29	May 31 >

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) 10:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absent the 160+ improperly categorized people, the small amount of remaining material does not require a category. Text links are more than sufficient. Otto4711 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all actors and guest stars, then delete if not enough left to keep It looks like you're right, Otto. Almost all these articles are for people who were actors or possibly guest stars on the show, and we don't categorize actors by films or series they performed in (that's what the actor's bios and show's cast lists do). Remove all the actors from this category, and then assuming there's nothing left to justify keeping this eponymous category delete it. Dugwiki 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, the remaining articles would be the show article, Ponderosa (TV series), Ponderosa Ranch and Ponderosa/Bonanza Steakhouse. Otto4711 17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Round 'em up and moooove 'em on out. Carlossuarez46 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Rawhide (TV series) Dugwiki 16:40, 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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one subcat, two linked articles, no need for the category for navigation. Otto4711 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - material in the categry is all interlinked through the article and a navtemplate. No need for the category for navigation. Otto4711 22:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe there is enough content in this category. Tim! 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the template, I don't see a reason not to follow the current consensus to delete this class of categories. Vegaswikian 19:19, 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! 07:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - following merge/redirect of a couple of stubs per WP:FICT all remaining material other than the show's article is an article for an episode. No need for the category for this material. Otto4711 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Group delete for all show categories CfDed by Otto4711, actually. Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the material in the category does not require a category to navigate it. The series and the theme song (not written for the show) are all interlinked and the character and episode subcats are in the appropriate trees. Otto4711 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absent articles on people associated with the series (improper performer by performance categorization) and following the removal of articles placed in the category for such tenuous connection as an episode took place there, the remaining material does not require a category. The main article and the navtemplate are more than sufficient. Otto4711 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deleting this will leave people of The Simple Life uncategorised. Tim! 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Category:Participants in American reality television series to that article. It will no longer be orphaned when this category is deleted. Dugwiki 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if this category is deleted. I note that this series is ongoing so has potential for growth. I still favour keeping this category. Tim! 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With the template, I don't see a reason not to follow the current consensus to delete this class of categories. Also, the reason for keeping has been addressed. Vegaswikian 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The seasons now have articles so they need to be in the category. The people and places can be taken out but all shows have a category. The list of episodes, People of the simple life, Paris, Nicole and the seasons should be in it. Russell29 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people have been removed now and it is just articles about the simple Life. The category is needed for there articles as they fall under "The Simple Life". There is nothing to gain from deleting it. I should be kept as these articles belong to "The Simple Life". Also Category:Participants in American reality television series is uncorrect as the series has been confirmed to be scripted. Russell29 21:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All shows don't have a category. In fact, the vast majority of TV shows don't have categories, because the vast majority of them don't need categories. People from the show should not be categorized under it because of the very strong consensus against categorizing people by performance. The episode list and seasonal summaries can be categorized in the episodes category and quite frankly the seasonal episodes could probably be deleted or redirected to the episode list as redundant. Otto4711 22:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:EPISODE says that season article should be created to break up the plot. Also what is to gain from deleting it? it just makes things more complicated. And if a show has been confirmed by the network to be scripted, they are fictional characters how are pretendin to be real and not actual people. There is also going to be two more seasons so there will be more articles. Russell29 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Vegaswikian, everything is going to be linked through a template, so we don't need a category. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:18, 8 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 speedily deleted per author request. Bencherlite 23:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Created by me in error. Contains no articles or sub cats. Have created (under correct name) Category:Settlements established in the 1890s Greenshed 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Election years templates and Category:Election results templates --Kbdank71 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories currently have confusingly similar names; renaming them would help clarify the differences between them. I'm not sure if it needs to be election date templates or election dates templates (similar for result vs. results), though. Mike Peel 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support Election years templates and Election result templates as the two options, as there are many years on the date ones but the result of only one election on the results ones. Number 5 7 22:19, 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous category without any purpose since it's not clear that it was ever meant to include more than a single article. Pascal.Tesson 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bencherlite 23:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 16:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, no prejudice against creation of "activist" category. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another people-by-opinion category, which we usually deprecate because of problems with verifiability and definition. See also discussion at Category talk:Supporters of apartheid and the May 27 CfD for Category:People opposed to apartheid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly being a member of the NP does not automatically mean support for Apartheid. Secondly, criteria (c) is totally misleading, as it would include black leaders of the Bantustans. Thirdly I'm sure some Israeli leaders will end up in it, another POV issue which needs avoiding. Number 5 7 20:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pro-apartheid activists and populate as appropriate. If we have Category:Anti-apartheid activists then we should categorize those who are activists in support of it per the way we categorize pro-choice and pro-life activists separately. In the alternative, selectively merge the pro- activists to the anti-apartheid activists cat and rename it to Category:Apartheid activists. Otto4711 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A Category:Pro-apartheid activists seems fair enough to me in principle, though I suspect that in practice its purpose may be a bit problematic, because activism is more likely to be a phenomenon of those outside government. But if there is a case or a Category:Pro-apartheid activists, it should be created separately, and populated with activists rather than supporters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a by-opinion category. Most of the category members are former members of the apartheid government, which is covered by Category:Apartheid government. Zaian 21:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename: First: How do you prove that someone is a Jew, Catholic, Muslim, Holocaust denier. You don't just add Marc Cohn because his surname sounds Jewish. You cite a reliable source. Second: at least this category has some criteria which is more than can be said for most others. Third: there are categories or lists for Muslims, Christian politicians, Holocaust deniers, Communists, Nazis, British fascists, Feminists, Jews etc. Fourth: With one or two exceptions, members of these categories have been discriminated against: Deniers by the Austrians; Communists by the Americans; British fascists by British socialists; feminists by the obvious, and Jews by pretty much everybody. Fifth: In this instance we are dealing with a group of people that took the lives of others and perpetrated the discrimination themselves. Yet Wikipedians are bending over backwards to protect them, just in case one gets mis-classified. Sixth: Since I doubt anyone supporting deletion of this category is a progressive black South African (a member of the 70%) or a victim of apartheid, this CfD can be considered especially inconsiderate if not downright malicious. Seventh: The concept secondary victimization might ring some bells. It is often used in the context of rape victims who first suffer physical invasion and then get 'raped' all over again by the criminal justice system. This CfD action is secondary victimization of the worst sought. In the criminal justice system there is at least the prospect of justice. Here all one has to look forward to is more denial. Eighth: For those worried about mis-classification, consider this fact. This category was created on 27 May 2007. Brownhairedgirl nominated it for deletion on 30 May 2007, a mere three days later. This proves that wikipedia is a self-correcting system. If someone is mis-classified is it likely that it will take more than 3 days to correct? Ninth: Wikipedians are hawk-eyed. They have categories like this in their watchlists. Any violation and they'll descend from 15,000 feet and throttle the life blood out of the violator. Trust me I've been there before and here I am again. Tenth: Apartheid government is too broad a category. Eleventh: Eugene Terreblanche supported apartheid but was never a member of the apartheid government. Eleventh: Just because you belong to the NP (which does not exist anymore by the way) does not mean you supported apartheid? Hello? Bonus reason...You're editors because you believe in this system. Trust the system. PS - did you spot the duplicate 'eleventh'. See! Nothing gets past you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suidafrikaan (talk • contribs)
- You're mistaken - you can't watchlist a category, so once a category is created, it is actually quite hard to watch and police. That's one reason why POV categories like people-by-opinion are frowned on. And regarding "Wikipedians are bending over backwards to protect them, just in case one gets mis-classified" - well, we're actually trying to protect against innocent parties from being mislabelled as apartheid supporters, not to protect apartheid supporters. Finally, please don't call this CfD malicious, as that claim violates WP:AGF. Zaian 13:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1) See Denying the antecedent for why your watchlist argument holds no water. Here's a clue: it still took 3 days to find it. 2) See Denying the antecedent for POV argument. A clue: ignoring the 8 existing so-called POV categories. 3) You failed to address the other 10 reasons. 3) AGF: Quite correct where Browneyedgirl is concerned. In other instances, one has to be floridly psychotic to continue assuming GF after the facts prove the contrary. Besides my Holocaust survivor genes are programmed to do as they do. I'm sure you wouldn't want to discriminate against me for ethnic reasons. Suidafrikaan 07:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New categories often get picked up and debated carefully, which is what we're doing here. Adding an individual Joe Bloggs page to the category later is not so easy to watch for. You seem to be determined to dislike me. It's hard not to construe your last comments as a personal attack on me (or if not me, someone else in this thread). You have absolutely no reason to assume that I or anyone else is discriminating against you for racial reasons, or is opposing this category for that reason. You are not helping your cause by that sort of comment. Kindly withdraw it. Zaian 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - supporting something is entirely different to being an activist. Non-activists can still be supporters, and activists are supporters de facto
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 13:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to the commentor before me... one could be a member of an Apartheid Government but not necessarily support Apartheid. Pik Botha is categorized both in favour and against Apartheid.
  — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's another reason against people-by-opinion categories. Opinions change over time. It looks plain silly to categorise one person as both a supporter and an opponent of apartheid. Zaian 13:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Categories-by-opinion are too simplistic to reflect complex realities. Greg Grahame 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and by-opinion categories as not defining and per Greg Grahame; and now the term "apartheid" seems to have morphed well beyond the South African setting, holders of this expanded opinion will have little in common with each other. Carlossuarez46 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deon Steyn 06:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categorizing by opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alex Middleton 23:08, 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 keep, except rename Category:Israeli television channels to Category:Television channels in Israel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television channels in Cyprus to Category:Television stations in Cyprus

Category:Television channels in Greece to Category:Television stations in Greece

Category:Israeli television channels to Category:Television stations in Israel

Category:Television channels in Nepal to Category:Television stations in Nepal

Category:Television channels in the Netherlands to Category:Television stations in the Netherlands

Category:Television channels in the United Kingdom to Category:Television stations in the United Kingdom

Move for standardisation with other categories in Category:Television stations by country. Number 5 7 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. --Shuki 12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 14:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all "Stations" is American English. Alex Middleton 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British and call them stations, so I don't think that's really an issue. Also, "channel" can be ambiguous as can refer to the wavelength as well as the station. Number 5 7 23:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all Whatever 5 7 may think, channel is correct in British English. Who ever heard BBC One referred to as one of the BBC's "stations"? Certainly not the BBC, which calls them channels. [1] The main article is List of British television channels.Perhaps 5 7 is referring to radio. There are more countries than these that should probably use "channel", eg Australia. However there is a precedent for eliminating the problem by using both terms in Category:Television channels and stations by year of establishment and its subcategories. Wimstead 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. They should be changed to fall within standards of the category. --myselfalso 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obviously. Where the British and American categories differ, and the reason for that is a difference between British and American English, no existing standard can be said to exist. Also the whole set of categories should be in the form, "Fooian television channels/stations/channels and stations" in line with the convention for cultural categories. Greg Grahame 16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wimstead and Greg Grahame. LukeHoC 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some of these countries (the ones where English isn't a primary language), it can be more or less a coin-toss as to whether "stations" or "channels" is more standard. For the UK, however, there's absolutely no question that "channels" is correct. Wikipedia standards do permit national dialect variations, so renaming isn't a burning issue here. Oppose as inappropriate attempt to impose an American English standard. Do, however, rename the Israeli category for word order. Bearcat 22:16, 6 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 upmerge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with its two parent categories. CMummert · talk 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: I am only nominating this category, not its subcats, which would be move up to the parent cats as appropriate. CMummert · talk 20:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or listify. It's subcategories appear to be extensive and well-organized. Though some of this information could be flattened out into the parent category or listified for easier navigation. Silly rabbit 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Neutral. (per Mummert's clarification.) Silly rabbit 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confustion- I meant that only this category should be deleted. Its subcategories should be moved up to the parent catgories as appropriate. One of the subcats, Theory of computation, already is in both of the parent categories. CMummert · talk 20:56, 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 Speedy deleted CSD G7 Tim! 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Created by mistake. Mattythewhite 16:51, 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 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: speedy delete as a user requested deletion. - auburnpilot talk 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - typo in name ("rquested"). Correctly named category has now been created: Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in British Virgin Islands. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and ((db-author)) tag added to the category accordingly. Bencherlite 16:41, 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 no real consensus, except perhaps for a renom of all cats --Kbdank71 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches to Category:Catholic primates

Merge. This is a redundant category containing only one item, Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. (Note that Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches is currently the only sub-category of Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome, which is the subject of a CFD on May 29). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait for result of other debate~~ changed- see below Johnbod 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC). I think this should be deleted, but feel strongly that both this and the other should not be deleted, which would leave the category Category:Primates of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church as a very misleading sub-cat of "Catholic primates", with no indication that they are not recognised by the RC church. If that nomination, which I oppose, is successful, I would oppose this one. But much better the other way round. Johnbod 22:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The indication that these are not recognised by the RC church is that they are not in Category:Roman Catholic primates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counter-reply No it isn't - nor are "Eastern Catholic Primates" , who certainly are recognised and in communion with Rome. In fact the best solution to this tangled mess, I would suggest, is to put the Old Catholics under the "not in communion with Rome" category, thus massively reducing the possibilities of confusion for most people. I note that of the 3 "Old Catholic" Primate sub-cats, the Poles (who are of course in America) are in "impaired communion" with the other 2. I would therefore suggest the Old Catholic sub-cat might be dispensed with, since the other 2 have "Old Catholic" in their name. You would then have "Catholic Primates" containing: Roman, Eastern, not in communion with. The not in communion with would go directly to the Brazilian, Polish etc sub-cats. Much clearer and simpler. Johnbod 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I take your point, and I was wrong to say that not being in Category:Roman Catholic primates was sufficiently clear. However, I'm still not persuaded that we actually need a Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome, particularly when the "Eastern Catholic Primates" are not in a "primates of churches in communion with Rome sub-cat. It seems to me to be sufficient to place a note in the category text of each category noting whether or not they are in Communion with Rome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I certainly don't agree with that. Few people read definitions. I can see further nominations ahead. Johnbod 12:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From my viewpoint, this is ultimately a discussion on whether Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches or Category:Catholic primates not in communion with Rome would be a better name for this category. Perhaps the merge discussions for both categories should be closed and a new discussion started? It is unfortunate that these three confusingly-named layers of categories have been created for one article (Carlos Duarte Costa). (I also sugggest just using "bishops" and "archbishops" rather than "primates", as these people are almost never referred to as "primates".) Dr. Submillimeter 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a merged discussion would be best. In my view, only one of the nominations should succeed (preferably this one); certainly not both. I would prefer a nomination that also covered removing the Old Catholic sub-cat, since only 2 of the 3 sub-cats of that are in full communion with each other - see above. Johnbod 16:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note jc37 has suggested a nomination of 'the entire primates category tree for CfD discussion' in this edit so perhaps this could be awaited. I agree to a large extent with Johnbod's remarks (here and elsewhere) otherwise - I think a case can be made for some (a few) of the primates categories and agree that the phrase 'tangled mess' applies to many of these pre-existing clerical categories. (Indeed wherever one looks there is confusion.) -- roundhouse 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to withdraw this CfD in favour of a nomination which considers all three categs together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other debate has ended keep, so I am changing to Delete, but agree with BHG just above that a wider nom might be best. Johnbod 23:10, 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 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) 10:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The correct category already exists Category:Counts of Urgell. Saltamarges 15:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Beloved freak 19:09, 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) 10:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is redundant with Category:Catholicoses and Patriarchs of Georgia, which uses the more common title for these people. All of the people in the "Primates" category are also in the "Catholicoses and Patriarchs" category, so the "Primates" category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another of the many redundant or horribly-misnamed sub-categories of Category:Primates (religion). This name makes my head hurt ("Primates of the Patriarchate"????), and is likely to do the same to other readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod 21:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be redundant with Category:Patriarchs of Eritrea, which uses the more common title for these people. The articles that are about Patriarch are already listed in Category:Patriarchs of Eritrea. This redundant category will just cause confusion and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. Another of the many redundant sub-categories of Category:Primates (religion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 21:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Space: 1999 - First Series Episodes to Category:Space: 1999 episodes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Space: 1999 episodes, convention of Category:Television episodes by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Otto4711 17:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Greg Grahame 16:27, 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is redundant with Category:Catholicoi of Armenia, which uses the title that is more commonly applied to these people. All of the people in the Primates category are also in Category:Catholicoi of Armenia, so the category beginning with "Primates" should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another of the dozens of redundant or horribly-misnamed sub-categories of Category:Primates (religion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is redundant with Category:Catholicoi of Cilicia. The title "Catholicoi" is more commonly used than "Primate of the Catholicosate" to refer to these people, so Category:Primates of the Catholicosate of the Holy See of Cilicia should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another of the dozens of redundant or horribly-misnamed sub-categories of Category:Primates (religion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a made-up alternate name for the Catholicoses of the East, and the one article in this category is already in Category:Catholicoses of the East. This extra category is confusing and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another of the dozens of redundant or horribly-misnamed sub-categories of Category:Primates (religion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Primates of the Catholicosate Patriarchate of Babylon of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East to Category:Catholicos Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Catholicosate Patriarchate of Babylon of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East to Category:Catholicos Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The title beginning with "Catholicos Patriarchs" is used to refer to these people, not the one beginning with "Primate of the Catholicosate Patriarchate". This category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 15:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added "Assyrian" to the suggested new category title, as the main article on the church is at Assyrian Church of the East (although Church of the East is an acceptable synonym). Dr. Submillimeter 13:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. Another of the dozens of redundant or horribly-misnamed sub-categories of Category:Primates (religion). The bizarre phrase "Primates of the Catholicosate Patriarchate" throws up only one Ghit, which is on wikipedia, and must be assumed to be a made-up term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unlike my other proposals on this page, this proposal is to rename, not delete. The equivalent "Catholicos Patriarchs" category does not yet exist in Wikipedia, so these people still need to be categorized together somewhere. Dr. Submillimeter 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rename per nom (changing my !vote). Thanks to Dr S for pointing out my mistake.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Batman episodes, season 1 to Category:Batman (TV series) episodes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Batman (TV series) episodes, to match Batman (TV series). -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom and to remove the unnecessary by season breakdown. Otto4711 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. LukeHoC 00:37, 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 rename to Category:Films without speech. There is clearly consensus for some kind of rename. In my opinion, "words" isn't specific enough, and dialogue is too specific, so I'm going with the middle ground.--Mike Selinker 15:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:None-language films to Category:Category:Film without words

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, None-language films is clearly wrong, gramatically. At the National Film Board of Canada, wherein I toil, we've tended to use the term "A film without words." Does my proposed rename work for people or is there a more obvious choice? Shawn in Montreal 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and while I don't want to get too artsy here, filmmakers would argue cinema is a language, albeit a visual one.Shawn in Montreal 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - why would "films without words" be somewhere other than Category:Silent films? Otto4711 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Because the films in this category, such as A Chairy Tale are not silent. They have music and sound effects. Just no dialogue or narration.Shawn in Montreal 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would Category:Films without dialogue be a better descriptor? Being perfectly pedantic, if the films have written credits, captions or intertitles they have "words." Or since we tend not to categorize by what things aren't, is this a useful categorization at all? Otto4711 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd considered Category:Films without dialogue, too. My only concern was that "narration" is not, strictly speaking, dialogue. But I agree for the reasons you give above that it may be preferable to Films without words (which we use at the NFB and so I'm simply more used to). Now, as for whether or not this is a useful cat., I really don't have a strong take on that either way. I just knew that None-language films couldn't stay as is. If you wish to widen this to a renaming OR deletion discussion please go ahead. I think my preference would be to keep and rename, somehow. Shawn in Montreal 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seem seems to me Category:Category:Film without words is not a bad name, but wouldn't Category:Category:Film without speech be better? These films may contain some captions or subtitles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could go with either Category:Films without dialogue or Category:Films without speech. Could we vote on these options as opposed to what I had originally proposed? Is that allowed by the rules? Shawn in Montreal 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with either, but I'd marginally prefer Category:Films without speech, because a pedant could say that an arty film with a long monologue (or even one with just a narrator's voice) would fit in Category:Films without dialogue . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to whichever option is deemed best by most people. LukeHoC 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films without speech for me, too then, for the reason mentioned above by BrownHairedGirl. Shawn in Montreal 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Films without speech" looks, I dunno, odd to me. What about Category:Films without spoken words? That addresses the issue of captions and credits and monologues/narration. Otto4711 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No category name is going to be perfect in this case, I suspect. Category:Films without spoken words looks more odd, to me. I'll stick with Category:Films without speech. It gets an extra point from me for being more succinct, i.e. using the one-word "speech" instead of "spoken words" Shawn in Montreal 21:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Films without speech per above. Johnbod 22:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films without dialogue because although a pedant might say that monologues / narration aren't dialogue, I think it's still more clear than "without speech" which makes me think any silent film also counts. gren グレン 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films without dialogue; however, getting even more pedantic, a film could have a musical or visual dialogue.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all of these options are vastly better than "none-language" and I have no qualms with "without dialogue," either.Shawn in Montreal 14:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, both are a lot better. gren グレン 06:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would a film done in sign language qualify as a film without speech? 132.205.44.134 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, since speech is considered oral communication (one definition uses Oral+gestures, but emphasis still on oral). gren グレン 06:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — just thought what about Category:Non-verbal films? Not sure how that deals with the sign language issue, but it certainly encompasses films with only a musical or ambient soundrack which might still have a "dialogue" in the way it is filmed/sound recorded.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to...whatever. Pretty much every suggestion made so far is an improvement on the original. I have no preference at present, but am willing to form one if necessary to help close. Xtifr _tälk 05:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Films without dialogue. Et n'oublie pas Les Triplettes de Belleville. Bearcat 22:24, 6 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles with large trivia sections to Category:Articles with trivia sections

Nominator's Rationale: Around the time the ((toomuchtrivia)) tag got renamed to ((trivia)) in early March, it no longer applied only to articles with large trivia sections, but rather any article with a trivia section of any size per WP:TRIVIA. The tracking category should be renamed accordingly. –Pomte 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is an editor's category, and renaming it to that duplicates what one can already tell by viewing the article's TOC. This is not the appropriate venue for making your case against this style guideline. -- nae'blis 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The template and category should have the same name as the category is embedded within the template. --myselfalso 15:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete - I'm not as completely un-enamored of trivia sections in articles as some are and I don't see the need to slap a template on every single article that has one. But if there's going to be a template and category then making it as POV-neutral as possible is a good thing, and "with trivia sections" is factual whereas "lrage trivia sections" is POV. Otto4711 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than tagging these articles, just fix 'em. If trivia sections are so bad (I note it is a guideline, not a policy, so maybe they aren't), just delete 'em, rather than tag them. I know that some editors just like to go and add clean-up tags where the clean-up is so easy to do, but must we categorize their output? Carlossuarez46 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the big problem that any attempt to wholesale delete trivia sections or even particular trivia sections is that it's a recipe for an edit war. Otto4711 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you realize how much time it takes to 'fix' some of these correctly.? This is a valid maintence classification that is now getting more attention. Maybe a rename is in order but not deletion. Vegaswikian 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Carlossuarez46, summary deletion of trivia sections does not have consensus support (in fact, it probably has consensus opposition). If the articles aren't tagged, how can the people working on this project know which articles are in need of attention (clicking "Random article" would work, but it's not an efficient mechanism). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per reasons above. Vegaswikian 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and myselfalso. The information that gets put in a trivia section is often more than trivial and should be integrated into the article (or in some cases, into a different article). Properly cleaning up a trivia section can be quite time-consuming and often contentious, requiring discussion with other editors. We have maintenance categories for a reason, and this seems like a perfectly valid one to me. Xtifr _tälk 00:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As i said on the talk page of WP:TRIVIA, Vince Russo got slapped with the tag and thrown into the category of "Category: Articles with large trivia sections". The article itself had a grand total of six bullet points in the trivia section. Sorry, but for me that doesn't represented a large trivia section. It should be renamed. --SteelersFan UK06 05:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Large" is subjective. Keep because this can be useful for cleaning those trivia sections up and incorporating their contents into more appropriate places in the text. Doczilla 06:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above; although I'm in favour of trivia items in articles.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to make it correspond with the guideline. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Content in a trivia section should be eventually integrated into the main text, regardless of how long the section is. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'delete* The whole trivia section removal stuff is nonsense and a harrassment for Wikipedia users. There are thousands of articles with a trivia section - so the trivia sections should be left where they are. --Maxl 11:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above.--Twintone 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per all of the above (minus oppose or delete comments). Sjones23 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there a very active bot (User:Android Mouse Bot 3)) that automatically puts the toomuchtrivia tag into articles (based on number of bytes in the section, I think). I had complained his owner, arguing that it makes bad situation even worse. Pavel Vozenilek 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- per nom. - Longhair\^talk 10:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a brilliant idea: Let ((trivia)) go into Category:Articles with trivia sections, and ((toomuchtrivia)) move into Category:Articles with large trivia sections. In fact, I've even considered doing this job myself. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would be a brilliant idea, if, em, those Templates were two different things...

If they were, I'd give you the Support tag. --SteelersFan UK06 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the controversy that currently exists on tagging articles with ((trivia)), I worry that separating the two templates could create edit wars about whether a given section has too little trivia, too much trivia, or just the right amount of trivia ;) My personal view is that content in any trivia section, regardless of length, should be integrated. So, for me, a second tag is unnecessary. Of course, people may and do disagree with me ... -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, all articles that contain trivia sections must have a "trivia" tag. And some Wikipedians (i.e. User:A Link to the Past) even hate trivia sections, no matter how much trivia it contains, from what I saw here. Also, some trivia is allowed. Sjones23 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: should apply to any trivia section. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:12, 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 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) 10:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles have been moved into separate categories for Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, in line with all similar categories. Honbicot 14:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is empty and is no longer needed. Dr. Submillimeter 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Speedy if possible. --myselfalso 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an empty, useless category. Acalamari 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Ex-atheists/agnostics to Category:Former atheists and agnostics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ex-atheists/agnostics to Category:Former atheists and agnostics

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to get rid of the slash and conform to the Category:People_by_former_religion hierarchy naming scheme. Flex (talk/contribs) 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --myselfalso 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Former..." sounds better, and conforms to parent category. --Beloved freak 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It sounds better and does fit the hierarchy of the parent category better. (When I saw this was CfD'd I'd worried that meant delete. Understand I support deleting all these "former" categories, I'm just not for picking and choosing on it)--T. Anthony 07:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining category clutter. Honbicot 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is uber-categorization. --myselfalso 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 24#Category:Canadians_who_spent_pre-adult_years_in_the_United_States). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & per my comments at the reciprocal cfd noted by BHG. Carlossuarez46 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems trivial. --Beloved freak 19:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 20:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia. Doczilla 04:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bazel 07:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an unnecessary category. Acalamari 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, To label a film "sadistic" is opinionated. Helltopay27 12:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it may be a new genre in terms of use, but it's still accurate and differentiaes itself from slasher films or such. I've seen the term used on on several areas. All Movie Guide, Video Detective, CD Japan (under description of hostel), MTV (describing saw and similar films), VH1, Filmsite.org, with Sadistic horror of the new millenium title, Answers.com on Last House on the Left, I think i've given plenty of examples. In fact, Strong Keep. Andrzejbanas 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just because others over-categorize doesn't mean we need to too. allmovie classifies Hostel as a Category:Sex Horror Films, do we need one for that too? Tarc 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not clear that this is an objectively defined term. It might be used in certain publications, but that doesn't mean the term is objective. For example, the phrases Fine dining and Cult film both receive common usage, but neither is appropriate as an objective method of dividing articles for categorization purposes (see [2] and [3] for relevant cfd discussions resulting in the deletion of such categories). So just because a term is vaguely definable and used subjectively doesn't mean it is objective enough for categorization. Dugwiki 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki etc. LukeHoC 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective category. Doczilla 04:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both subjective and anthropomorphic. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dug. (Any horror film is sadistic if you'd rather not be watching it...<g>) Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: are any of you reading the description of the cat or familiar with any of the films in question when deciding on deleting it? Might as well delete slasher films too cause that's subjective. Eugh. Andrzejbanas 04:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Slasher films" are an actual sub-genre of horror films. "Sadistic horror films" aren't. Helltopay27 23:24, 6 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) 10:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial intersection. Politicians come from all walks of life: lawyers, businessmen, soldiers, writers, actors, astronauts, sportspeople. I don't believe we need categories for each intersection of current and previous career. Note that we have no article on Musician politician. Xtifr _tälk 09:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Generally, categorization by the cross sections of two careers could become inane, especially for politicians. In the past, these types of categories have been deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, category math would serve this purpose better. -- nae'blis 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; and what's next musician politicians? Carlossuarez46 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, overcategorisation. --Beloved freak 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Political musicians and create corresponding article for Political musician, e.g. Bono, Billy Bragg, Bob Geldof
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bono, Billy Bragg, Bob Geldof are activists, not politicians. Anyone who has been involved in activism (or politics) to a significant degree should be in a suitable specialist category. This sort of category just encourages low utility category additions to articles about people who have made the odd political statement. Greg Grahame 15:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about people like Peter Garrett? There's surely no denying that he is a musician-politician... Grutness...wha? 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's a musician and he's a politician. But unless he routinely brings his guitar with him to House sessions and, I dunno, sings his votes or something, I don't think there's any justification for calling him a musician-politician. :) --Xtifr _tälk 06:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't Charlie Angus in this category, harrumph harrumph? Seriously, though, we've repeatedly determined that categories like this are not appropriate for any random intersection of traits that three or more Wikipedia articles happen to share — there has to be something encyclopedically notable about that intersection as a topic in its own right. Delete. Bearcat 22:21, 6 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 rename/merge as nominated, no redirect --Kbdank71 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fountain pen manufacturers to Category:Fountain pen and ink manufacturers

Category:Fountain pen ink manufacturers to Category:Fountain pen and ink manufacturers

Merge, going by the near-identical contents of these two cats, there are extremely few, if any, manufacturers of fountain pen ink who do not also make fountain pens, and vice versa. The only entries in the "ink" category not in the "pen" category are articles on inks themselves, not manufacturers, for eg. Perhaps there are those that do only make pens not ink, or ink not pens, but given that either end product is of little use without the other, there should be no problem to treat these together in a united category. (Explanatory note: it will appear that I am the creator of both of these cats; but that is only because I had completed a WP:CFDS request to speedy delete/rename them on the basis of improper caps. I thought it best to complete that action first before bringing this proposal forward.) cjllw ʘ TALK 08:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and keep both as redirects. Greg Grahame 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Nathanian 00:50, 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 keep --Kbdank71 19:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Queen (band) songs to Category:Queen songs

Nominator's Rationale: no purpose in disambiguating the categories, as there is no such thing as a category for Queen songs outside of the band's. As well, rename all related categories which use improper disambig to a similar proposed renaming. (added by User:A Link to the Past at 21:31, 27 May 2007 - sig was nowikied)

- Oppose. Parent category is, correctly, at Category:Queen (band), thus its subcategories should be as well. In any case, how do you know that this would be unambiguous? Queen Salote of Tonga was a very fine songwriter, for instance. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correctly? I see no Category:Queen. Why does the main category disambig when there is no reason to disambig in the first place? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two points there. Frst, plurals become singular when used as descriptors. That's why we have Category:Schools and Category:School examinations - and we do have Category:Queens. Second, if the problem is with the parent category, why not nominate that rather than one of its subcategories? In any case, as pointed out below, even as Category:Queen it might be overly ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose "Queen" and Category:Queen is overly ambiguous. You'll end up with things that should be in Category:Queens. Or to do with drag queens, or gay men. 132.205.44.134 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from speedy. Conscious 07:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Grutness. Doczilla 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Mowsbury 07:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and recommend moving the band category as well. We disambiguate using capitalization or single letter changes all the time. Just patrol the cats, like we do everything else. -- nae'blis 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename - It would be better to use the disambiguation in the category name, as is done for Category:Genesis (band) songs and Category:Yes (band) songs. It is easily conceivable that a Category:Queen songs would accumulate articles about queens rather than articles about music by Queen (band). If the category has a unambiguous name, it will be easier to maintain in the long term. (Patrolling categories to maintain them is generally not a practical solution.)Dr. Submillimeter 12:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose rename because of potential ambiguity
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 19:12, 6 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, not useful. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary and ridiculous category. Contains a Christmas bird count and ornamental plants linked to Christmas. Calliopejen1 07:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense. Doczilla 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bizarre. Any relevant pages can go in Category:Christmas. --Beloved freak 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sound like nonsense to me. Acalamari 22:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Pavel Vozenilek 22:36, 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 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: withdrawn by nominator. -- nae'blis 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as performer by performance per WP:OC and many precedents. Doczilla 05:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Um, no. Films by director is not the same as films by actor. There is typically one director and many actors per film.--Mike Selinker 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- withdrawn as nominator. Oops. Doczilla 07:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you meant "speedy keep"? If not, then count me as supporting keep per Mike S. :)
Keep per conventions of Category:Films by director. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:13, 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 rename/merge as nominated and add articles to Category:Serif typefaces --Kbdank71 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glyphic serif typefaces to Category:Incised typefaces

Merge, These two categories are basically the same thing. They were created roughly the same time by two different editors working together on categorizing typeface articles. I created the "Incised.." category. What these categories cover are typefaces that resemble engraving or incised glyphs. The words 'glyphic' and 'incised' are basically synonymous (my Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography says as much). The only difference is that the "Glyphic serif" category specifies that all the typefaces in the category have serifs. However, I believe a typeface like Lithos would fall under this category, even though it lacks serifs. Therefore, specifying "serif" is unnecessary, and we do not have enough typefaces to populate the category to the point that would necessitate splitting it based on serif/sans-serif distinction. I also wouldn't mind a reverse merge or a name change to Category:Glyphic typefaces, however, my preference, as noted above, would be to merge the articles in the two categories, and if possible, include sans-serifs. Andrew c 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge, reorganize. Put glyphic serif as a subcat of incised as well as serif. (Crossover/blend category, cf. blues-rock.) I think the basic serif/sans-serif distinction is one that most lay people associate with typefaces, and discarding that would be a mistake. Similarly, Lithos would belong to the analogous glyphic sans-serif cat, which itself would be incised as well as sans-serif. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that we currently do not have enough articles to necessitate these excessive subcats, nor do I think we ever will (I have a hard time thinking of any incised sans-serif faces, and we don't even have an article on Lithos yet). I feel that placing both Category:Incised typefaces and Category:Sans-serif typefaces on a typeface like Lithos (assuming the article gets created) is just as good as creating another layer of sub categorization. But, I could live with the alternative proposal.-Andrew c 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are in agreement. My point was that if a typeface could be described as serif then it should exist somewhere in the serif cat hierarchy (for example). If it exists in another hierarchy as well (e.g. incised), that's fine, of course. My intention is not to create unnecessary categories; I mentioned it as illustration of the concept. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar to the Pirates of the Carib. category up for deletion, this is a category for real locations used in a fictional setting or doubling for a fictional building. This is a bad categorization scheme. Popular filming locations could end up with dozens of fictional locale categories under this sort of categorization. A production or locations section in the show's article is a better way of handling this material. Otto4711 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. We sure can't categorize New York for every individual film in which it's been a location. Doczilla 07:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-defining. Mowsbury 07:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is completely trivial in relation to places like Somerset House. Greg Grahame 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 22:11, 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 upmerge 1963 and 1964 B&W films to both parent categories in each case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an unnecessary intersection category to me. Is there something that all these films have in common, that they wouldn't have in common with a black-and-white film made in 1962 or 1964? (Besides that. Yeah.) --Quuxplusone 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to both Category:1963 films and Category:Black and white films so that anything not already categorized gets captured in both. Otto4711 01:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This looks like it could be a useful way to sort Category:Black and white films, which currently contains possibly thousands of articles. (Really.) However, I do not know if its really useful to separate color and black and white films in the Category:Films by year hierarchy. Dr. Submillimeter 08:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as per Otto. I think someone started those cats off as a failed experiment sometime ago. Lugnuts 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can we add Category:1964 black and white films to this nomination? My !vote would be for a dual merge for that category as well. Otto4711 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dr Submillimeter.
— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Misguided category created based on misinterpretation of recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Table instead of a list? and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Distinguishing disambiguation non-articles from index list articles. Set Index articles are a recent exception to standard disambiguation page guidelines for specialized articles. The prototype for this sort of exception was Ship-related disambiguation pages, where there was an active Wikiproject that argued for pages that disambiguated between ships with the same name were better served by including more information that needed for a typical disambiguation page. A second type of exception arose with pages disambiguating Mountains with the same name. Both these special cases have active Wikiprojects supporting them and recommending guidelines for such pages. They each have templates ((Shipindex)) and ((Mountainindex)) which add the pages to specialized categories: Category:Disambiguation lists of ships and Category:Disambiguation lists of mountains. A generic category for what was intended to be exceptional is not a good thing, IMO. I have no objection to judiciously creating new types of exceptions, but I'd expect them to be more specific and have the support of an active Wikiproject. See related Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 30 older ≠ wiser 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the description of set index articles on WP:D is intentionally generic to cover the specific uses; there should not be a generic use unless there is a generic Wikiproject working on them, as BKonrad said. -- JHunterJ 11:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are only two set-index categories that are subcats of Category:Disambiguation at the moment. Should there ever be significantly more dedicated set-index cat exceptions such as from ((Mountainindex)) and ((Shipindex)), Category:Set index articles may/should be recreated as a holder for all those subcats. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CarolGray 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

May 30

Category:Bonanza

Category:Perfect Strangers

Category:Malcolm in the Middle

Category:Diagnosis: Murder

Category:Designing Women

Category:The Simple Life

Category:Settlements established in 1890s

Election(s) templates

Category:Mercader Saülo

Category:Supporters of apartheid

Category:Television stations

Category:Computation

Category:Peole from Nuneaton

Category:Wikipedia rquested photographs in the British Virgin Islands

Category:Primates of Independent Catholic Churches

Category:Counts of Urgel

Category:Primates of the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Catholicosate Patriarchate of All Georgia

Category:Primates of the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church

Category:Space: 1999 - First Series Episodes

Category:Primates of the Catholicosate of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and All Armenians

Category:Primates of the Catholicosate of the Holy See of Cilicia

Category:Primates of the Catholicosate of India of the Malankara Syriac Orthodox Church

Category:Primates of the Catholicosate Patriarchate of Babylon of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East

Category:Batman episodes, season 1

Category:None-language films

Category:Articles with large trivia sections

Category:Greek and Roman astrologers

Category:Ex-atheists/agnostics

Category:Americans who spent pre-adult years in Canada

Category:Sadistic horror films

Category:Musician politicians

Category:Fountain pen ink manufacturers

Category:Queen (band) songs

Category:Christmas-linked biology

Category:Films directed by Christopher Nolan

Category:Glyphic serif typefaces

Category:Spooks locations

Category:1963 black and white films

Category:Set index articles