< November 25	November 27 >

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 per WP:CSD#C1 as empty (contains only itself). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This duplicates a single article page, and is a subcategory of itself Dsp13 (talk) 00:04, 27 November 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:Words by language to Category:Words and phrases by language; No consensus to rename Category:English words. - jc37 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Words by language to Category:Words and phrases by language
Category:English words to Category:English words and phrases

Nominator's rationale: Rename to reflect general practice in this category. Eliyak T·C 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the first. I'm oddly cautious about the second - a surprisingly small group. Since this is the English WP, all other language categories are foreign here, and this is not, so there is no obligation to be consistent in my view. Several sub-cats also contain phrases, but there are thousands of articles in English WP that could end up here as "English phrases", and should not be encouraged to do so. If renamed, should be to Category:English words and phrases of linguistic interest or something. But at the moment I think it should stay as it is. Johnbod (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Sting_au Talk 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the first. Re-list the second as a merger with the larger category:English phrases. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I object to. This is a linguistic category, but the other is just a rag-bag of phrases with articles about them. Johnbod 20:17, 1 December 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, empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Due to recent deletions and merges, the category is small and still shrinking. It is too small to be useful and will not be expanded. Pagra shtak 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Category is now empty. Pagra shtak 15:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 22:31, 29 November 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. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: category created (apparently) to contain all articles about a particular companies products. It is doubtful that the company has sufficient notable products to populate the category. Mayalld (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Huawei is offering a lot of radio access network devices, including 3G, HSDPA, WiMax... modems, used by the more important and bigger cell phone operators (Vodafone, Orange and a long so on). --Nukeless 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep and erase the deletion tag. Huawei is similar to Cisco in mobile Internet equipment (and Cisco has more than one category). --Mac (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't and AfD on the article about the company. It is a CfD on a category Mayalld (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no equivalent Chinese language category on zh.wikipedia , so likelyhood of additional articles is low. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Also see it as unnecessary. Sting_au Talk 22:34, 29 November 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 not tagged for deletion = not going to delete it. I'm not a great one for process for the sake of it, but not tagging the category (especially bearing in mind Otto raised the point twice) makes it very difficult for editors with an interest in the category to know about the discussion and participate, whatever the outcome looks likely to be. Feel free to renominate. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Category:Charismatic religious leaders - isn't this POV? The Wild West guy (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please place the appropriate CFD tag on the category. Otto4711 (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Isn't this POV? - Yes, it is. I had assumed that this would be an unfortunately ambiguous title for leaders in the Charismatic movement, but, no; this is "religious leaders who have charismatic power" or something like that. (The definition on the category describes it as, This category contains religious leaders whose main basis of authority was or is based on charismatic authority, following Max Weber's classification of authority.) So it should be deleted, or completely redefined and renamed unambiguously to be Category:Leaders in the charismatic religious movement. --Lquilter (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly matches the religion section of List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority, which might be acceptable for a list - maybe- but certainly isn't for a category, especially without the explanation in the name. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lquilter. Snocrates 07:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this category is still not tagged. Otto4711 (talk) 22:19, 27 November 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. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation: people by opinion about a question or issue; the three articles are biographies. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Sentiment" is highly POV . --MChew (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Soman (talk) 10:56, 29 November 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) 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award. Already listified at Scottish Football Writers' Association to which Scottish Footballer of the Year redirects. Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 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) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by award. Already listified at Asian Footballer of the Year. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous cat for a band. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and multiple precedents. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:2006 establishments. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:2006 reestablishments to Category:2006 establishments

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Non-standard category; I can't see it serving any purpose that 2006 establishments doesn't already provide as an article can be in more than one establishments by year category. Tim! (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you look at how this might be used on National Airlines I think it would be confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 27 November 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:African Footballers of the Year. the wub "?!" 13:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - single-article category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might well be ok if populated with the winners, but it has been around since February without this seeming to happen, so delete without prejudice to recreation. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now populated. --Ezeu (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename to Category:African Footballers of the Year as per usual convention. Qwghlm (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Qwghlm; this is now populated and is a sufficiently notable award to pass CfD standards. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it is now populated it is still overcategorization by award. The award doesn't have an independent article and the award recipients are already listified at CAF Awards. Otto4711 16:33, 1 December 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. the wub "?!" 13:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Harry Potter fictional publishings to Category:Harry Potter fictional publications

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Publishings"? Really. In the alternative, merge to some other Potter category, perhaps one that's specifically for lists as these are both list articles. Otto4711 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom; there are in fact 3 articles (see list) which were initially just fictional, then actually written by JKR (or her goblins), so could be added. But no great objection to a merge. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Fictional television programming. - jc37 14:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - oddly-formed category that is capturing not fictional television shows (those are in Category:Fictional television programming) but instead films that share as a common plot element the existence of such a show. Similar to various films about and songs about categories that we've previously deleted. If kept, it needs to be renamed to something that clarifies its purpose so people stop miscategorizing actual fictional TV shows in it. Otto4711 (talk) 17:44, 26 November 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:Bad check recovery to Category:Payment systems. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. That's the last of today's crop from Special:Uncategorizedcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some upmerging to Banking & Debt cats may be needed. Upmerge to Category:Payment systems - see below. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Check processing and populate. Merge into Category:Payment systems(see below). There are already a number of articles out there that have not been put in this category yet, but could be (a brief look shows candidates from category "Negotiable instrument law", "Payment systems" and elsewhere that relate to US systems, I think there are others that relate to others & to European processing systems). Renaming it would still keep the current grouping but would allow for a more meaningful grouping Ephebi (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Or do that - though "payment processing" would be better; they are "cheques" in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Category:Payment systems already exists and might be a better candidate as it already has a myriad of entries. The rather clumsily-named Category:Negotiable instrument law is in there and already contains one of the current constituent articles. Ephebi (talk) 13:25, 27 November 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 (already in Category:Confederation of African Football). the wub "?!" 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#AWARD. Already listified at CAF Awards. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Confederation of African Football. I've merged a couple of the stub lists into the main article CAF Awards (they were not previously there). If someone more knowledgable than I about African football wants to have a whack at African Footballer of the Year, it looks like it may need some attention since it seems to be capturing multiple awards. Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 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 all to Category:Serie C2 clubs, which should mean simply deleting them unless some are missing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Keeping only the Category:Serie C2 clubs is fine. CapPixel (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all per nom. I rolled 3 identical noms into 1 here; hope no-one minds. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 26 November 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, no consensus to delete. Arguments to the effect that it constitutes a defining characteristic and is useful for navigational purposes are also persuasive. However, also rename to Category:Alumni of Easington Community Science College for consistency. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, non-notable school, not a defining attribute. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is this another test case? Do only the posh schools get categories? However the so-called list is a redirect to the category, which is wrong. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, another test case, and I should have labelled it as such, though since I found it in the orphanage I was working fast to get through that heap. It struck me as an example of a fairly ordinary ordinary school, like most in both the private and public sectors, with no special claim to fame other than the 1951 mining disaster in the area. I hold no particular brief for posh schools, but after one of them ended up being the previous test case, I thought that was probably a reasonable example of an ordinary school. It isn't even mentioned in the articles of the three people in the category, so it should really be emptied and speedy deleted, but I thought it would be a good idea to test the waters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it certainly shouldn't be emptied with that intention - see para 2 of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - school attended is an essential biographical detail like place and date of birth/death, college attended etc, and arguably more formative than anything else. The notability or otherwise of the school is immaterial - is Easington less formative than Eton? (I expect most Etonians would find Easington distinctly formative.) I would agree that their school ought to be mentioned in the articles - it can be difficult to establish the school attended by a well-known person if the school itself is not well-known and doesn't publish lists of former pupils. (John Cummings might well belong in the cat.) Ought these test cfds not be flagged at the Schools Wikiproject? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable attribute Mayalld (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a defining characteristic and there is already a list in the article. One issue is, should these be considered as a part of a series? I'd go with no since this is only defining for a small number of schools. In most cases it would be sufficient to include these alumni in the article itself. In this case, I believe that everyone is listed in the school article and this category. So why do we need the category? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My understanding is that categories are supposed to assist in navigation. It seems to me highly unsatisfactory that someone navigating within Category:People by schools in the United Kingdom can find Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas Home, David Cameron (all Old Etonians) but not Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, John Major; and Tony Blair (Fettes) but not Gordon Brown. I fail to see why tertiary education is 'defining' but secondary is only 'defining' if it is also elitist. (Easington School does seem to be notable for producing a remarkable number of professional footballers, as a little research turns up another 3 or 4, entitled to articles but not yet written.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least in the UK, secondary does seem to be defining, and I do not see that we should separate elite from the others--if there are enough for a category, there should be one. DGG (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (actually, rename to Category:Alumni of Easington Community Science College ~~Category:Former students of Easington Community Science College~~ to fix the misplaced capital) per the reasons that I used the last time BHG tried to delete a school category as a "test case": "The school attended is an important biographical detail and is eminently suitable for categorisation. The advantage over a list here is that one can easily navigate between different schools using the parent category. Once we have an article about the school and a sufficient number of verified names to make the category viable, I have no problem with having a category for those who attended. Drawing the line between schools would be an invidious process." Which is another way of saying keep per Roundhouse0 and DGG. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the name should be changed to Alumni of Easington Community Science College, to comply with the other schools on Category:People by school in England. Thanks.--Sunderland06 11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UK convention seems to be to use the actual name for the former students (if one exists, eg Old Etonians) and 'Alumni of' otherwise (or Alumnae). So I would support a change to 'Alumni of'. -- roundhouse0 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I have modified my comment according. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename - alumni. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:54, 6 December 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 - With no prejudice for recreation if/when a suffucient amount of articles exist for such categorisation. - jc37 15:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL. Bookbinder-fiction is not yet a huge genre. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the cat as many (if not most) fictional characters are categorized by their profession. I believe this is justifiable, though admittedly there is little chance that the category will be appreciably expanded. The guideline states that we should avoid cats that by their definition will never have more than a few members, but that isn't the case here. If it were "Fictional bookbinders in the Inkheart series" then yes, that cat could never hope to be expanded. But "Fictional (profession)" can always be expanded, even if it isn't terribly likely to happen. faithless (^speak) 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think Faithless needs to produce further "FB"s about whom articles could be written to demonstrate his point. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anna the Bookbinder, Peter Damage, these I found after a quick Google search, I'm pretty sure there are more out there. Oh, and Edward in Shriek: An Afterword. And my point was that there could be more, not necessarily that there are more at the moment. The guideline states that we shouldn't have categories that by their definition cannot be expanded; again, this is just not the case here. It will never be the most populated category, that's true, but I don't see any reason to delete it. faithless (^speak) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a bookbinder in the Septimus Heap series. I haven't read it, so I can't provide any additional information. I think he is simply referred to as "Bookbinder" and "the Bookbinder" and don't know if a proper name is ever given to him, though he is a legitimate character, with lines, etc. faithless (^speak) 21:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that amounts to an assesment that the possibilities from existing articles are about zero, and while there are other bookbinders in fiction, no evidence that they are of sufficient notability to need their own articles apart from the books. It seems to me that the chances of this category growing are minimal. Categories exist to facilitate navigation between related articles, but a category of one article hinders navigation rather than helping it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 26 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Orphaned maintenance category. Either Delete or repurpose to talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do either per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (a) a self-fulfilling prophecy per WP:BEANS for unprotected page, and (b) an inaccurate category once page protection is in place (and not even needed for consideration of whether to protect). Bencherlite ^Talk 19:39, 26 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, weird orphaned category for one person. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be personal cat for user. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 13:07, 27 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as trivia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arguably also small and unlikely to expand. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 26 November 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, salt. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete and salt as ambiguous, currently used as a pseudo-redirect, but too much ambiguity for that to be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete ... It's now been empty for four days, thats long enough for CSD C1. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty and salt. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I originally moved all the articles to Category:High schools in Jacksonville, Florida in order to disambiguate Jacksonville, Florida from other cities named Jacksonville and was waiting for the four day period to be up. Then I was going to tag it for CSD C1. Someone else had made the attempt to redirect as a temporary measure and put a comment for that edit to speedy delete on the 26th. This brings me to a question, is there a easier way to move or rename a category than renaming all the links to the new category and then deleting the old category? Subwayatrain (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes! Just nominate it for renaming (using ((cfr))), and when the debate here closes the bots will do all the work for you :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:44, 27 November 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, but perhaps it could have a name that means something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Possible delete (ISTR similar categories being deleted). If kept, parent cats need checking (it was orphaned, so I quickly added a a few). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Television series by network. What's been deleted in the recent past is some cats for shows by programming block, which blocks did not originate any new shows but instead syndicated previously existing programming. Otto4711 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:56, 6 December 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 both Category:Leftist parties and organizations in the United States and Category:Rightist parties and organizations in the United States; No consensus to delete Category:Libertarian parties and organizations in the United States. - jc37 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale:

Nominator says delete. These cats are of little aid to navigation, as left/right are variable terms and so are of little use to an international audience. They will only cause endless disputes about membership. This already happens in ((Infobox American Political Party)), where people argue "is this party 'right' enough to be marked right?", "yes it is", "no it is moderate", back and forth. Stop the insanity. There are already cats on political ideologies that are more meaningful than one-dimensional "left/right", which most of these parties belong to. I don't see that cross-categorization of pseudo-ideology with geography is beneficial. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
Delete all per nom and per WP:OCAT#SUBJECTIVE. The terms used are all too vague, and in any case, from a European perspective, all except a very few American political parties are rightist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps weeding. Bhg says what I thought until I saw the leftist category. So long as a "center" category is avoided, as it is, I don't believe subjectivity is too much of an issue, but if people object in any numbers to including a party in a category, it should be kept out. Nobody complains about Category:Political parties in France, which has similar sub-cats, as do other countries. Given that the policies of parties are often not what they imply on the tin (eg "National Socialist"), the categories are encyclopedic and helpful. Most minor parties are happy to self-identify as left or right - though a rename of "right" to "conservative" might perhaps be a goosd idea. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, may I suggest another look? The leftist parties include Human Rights Party (United States), Liberal Party (Utah), Liberty Party (United States), Conscience Whigs, plus ethnic parties such as Raza Unida Party and Black Radical Congress, and lumps them all in with the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and the communist and anarchist categories. Plenty of these parties have next to nothing in common.
  The more precise categories, such as the communist category, seem to be grouping similar entities, but the left/right/centre categories are a disparate collection of wildly different groups. This sort of material is much better handled by lists, which can explain the nuances and historical contexts involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point exactly! The Human Rights Party (United States) renamed itself the "Socialist Human Rights Party" before finally merging with the Socialist Party of Michigan. The Utah Liberals should probably not be there, nor the Conscience Whigs, but the others seem fine (for the 2nd Liberty Party - the article covers 2). Without the category, the names can be very misleading - look at the U.S. Labor Party and the People's Party (Utah). Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Party names are frequently misleading: in the UK, the Conservatives have been economic revolutionaries for 30 years, and the Labour Party's policy links to the Labour movement are slight, while in Jamaica the Labour party is the more economically conservative of the two main groupings. Simple labels can never the convey the complexity of a political party's stance and history, whether in those words are in the party name or in left/right labels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely. A "communist" category has a meaning, but "leftist" is vague and subjective. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the very category structure "left, right, and libertarian" reifies a particular view of politics. This sort of thing is just not helpful in a category scheme. If you want to define specific doctrines, like "socialist" or "anarchist" or "libertarian", go ahead; but "left/right" and "liberal/conservative" in the US are simply meaningless. --Lquilter (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete left & right; keep libertarian. --Lquilter (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Left/right is a meaningful distinction, and the argument here is really just about the place of individual parties. DGG (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only for those that have a simplistic view of politics. It may be encyclopedic to document this popular thumbnail sketch as a phenomenon, but there is so much variation and vagueness inherent in the terms that they add little value as categories. Especially in light of the much more precise categories that exist. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Left" and "right" can be measured on several different axes, such as economic collectivism vs laissez faire, authoritarianism vs libertarianism, social conservatism v social liberalism, or centralism vs decentralism. Compressing all those elments into three boxes modelled on an 18th-century seating arrangement is such a gross oversimplification as to be misleading, and should not form part of category system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I built several of these as one already existed and I was seeking full balance. Please read the inclusion description found in each category. It should be clear what parties should be included and what not. And this is dealing with the the American experience, not the European or other experience. Anyone who thinks these distinctions are meaningless should look more carefully at American history. Whether these would best be handled by categories or lists? I reserve judgment until I see the lists. Where are the lists? Whether more precise categories or subcategories would be helpful? I reserve judgment until I see the categories and their inclusion criteria. Hmains (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that there is one problem which I don't think can be fixed by more precise categorisation, and which precision would probably exacerbate: that parties change. The 19th century Republicans can't really be called rightist: the Radical Republicans and the Progressives were anything but rightists, the Radicals being better classed on this scale as leftists. I notice that the Reform Party has been excluded from this categorisation, presumably because of its difficulties with Buchanan.
  Additionally, does it really work to insist on an American definition of the terms right and left? Wikipedia is a worldwide venture, and I'm not sure that it makes sense to use category names which have different meanings in difft contexts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I voiced concern back in April 2007 about the overly simplistic notion of left/right "position" being used anywhere when there is already a more descriptive system in place. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what are the better categories based on ideology? Can you now create/put the American parties into them? Otherwise, we just end up with an undifferentiated Category:Political parties in the United States of 120 or more articles which is not much of a help at all to the reader. Hmains (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Political parties by ideology ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, nice categories for Europeans, certainly. Meanwhile, I don't see that you have done anything with these ideologies to create American subcats of them. Or will you just wait around so if someone else creates them you can nominate them also for deletion, with the same flawed logic used in this nomination. Result, we are going to be left with 120 some articles in this category thanks to you. Deletion with no improvment is unhelpful to WP. Hmains (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Started. ⇔ ChristTrekker 12:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks to your deletion nom, you only have 2 more days to find ideology categories for at least 75 more articles or they all go into the bucket. Not very helpful. Little chance you will get this done. Shame. More waste for WP to deal with. Hmains 05:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective. This is something for the Conservapedia, or Wikiality.com 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar Category:Right-wing organizations in the United States was deleted. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG. Too subjective to be of use and will be a POV and edit war magnet. Snocrates 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the leftist one is over a year old - have there been any wars? Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to know with just the edit history of the category to go by. Snocrates 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'impossible to know', but your crystal ball assertion is 'will be a POV and edit war magnet'. Make sense. Hmains (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One is opinion of future possibilities; the other is factual about past. I thought that was self-evident. My "vote" represents opinion, not fact. Snocrates 07:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Leftist and Rightist cats, Keep the Libertarian cat. Left/Right positioning is always highly subjective and contextual. I would suggest a more general CFD on all ideological categorization schemes applicable for all countries. --Soman (talk) 10:59, 29 November 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 err, don't do it. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Masked entertainers

Performers (excl. pro wrestlers) who, as part of their stage personna, have regulary worn masks or full-face make-up to conceal their identity. Examples: KISS, The Residents, Frank Sidebottom, David Soul (during his "Covered Man" phase), Val Valentino. {—Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.227.10 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2007

Note. This appears to be a proposal to create a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - clear-cut violation of WP:OC#Performers_by_action_or_appearance which mentions actresses who have performed veiled as an example. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose creation of category (delete if it already exists) per Otto4711's OCAT example, and the temporal nature of the category. --Lquilter (talk) 22:41, 26 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Pretenders (Transformers), to match Pretenders (Transformers). -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 26 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#AWARD. Se also Hec Crighton Award. (Note: currently orphaned, so it needs parent categories if kept). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be a fairly clear-cut case of WP:OCAT#AWARD which is already listified anyway. Snocrates 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; overcategorization by award. --Lquilter (talk) 22:40, 26 November 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) 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis alumni to Category:Indiana University alumni

Nominator's rationale: Merge, overly narrow category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the U.S., graduate students are not commonly referred to as alumni of their greater universities. I'm not certain, but I think we largely dodge this bullet by not categorizing most people by masters or phd program. We do have a fair number these subcategories for law schools [1] [2], though, and a few for medical schools too. ×Meegs 16:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the major universities, the chief professional schools are large enough to justify their own category. i am not sure whether this would apply to graduate students generally, but it would to at least Business, Law, and Medicine. In this case there's only one person now , but if more work were done on indiana politicians, there would undoubtedly be many more .DGG (talk) 00:35, 27 November 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 - jc37 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL, or ,maybe upmerge to somewhere. Currently orphaned, so if kept it needs parent categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is too narrow. All three members are already in Category:Skateboarding films, so merge to Category:Comedy films, I guess. ×Meegs 16:30, 26 November 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 - jc37 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Space simulators to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Orphaned category which doesn't appear to for anywhere in the existing hierarchy. No idea what to do with, whether to rename or delete or where to parent it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and place as a subcategory of Category:Human spaceflight and/or Category:Simulation software ?? Snocrates 13:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of simulation software. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 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 Category:Eagle Scouts and Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts; Listify Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts to Scouting in popular culture.

Note the introduction to the featured list, List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America):

This list of Eagle Scouts includes men who have become notable after earning Eagle Scout, the highest rank attainable in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Since it was first awarded in 1912, Eagle Scout has been earned by more than one and a half million young men.

So the members are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but for something else after earning Eagle Scout. AKA Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts. These fail as categories under several sections of WP:OCAT. - jc37 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: After examining a number of articles in the categories, I just can't bring myself to believe that the award is defining for any of them. And these awards are so common I have a hard time believing that under WP:OCAT#Award_winners these awards are of the "so notable" type that would justify having a category as opposed to a list. For example, only 650 people have been awarded the Scout's Silver Buffalo Award, and even it doesn't have a category. I also note that List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) exists, which seems to do a fine job at covering at least the first of these categories. Don't even get me started about the fictional ones: Snoopy, Hank Hill, and The Professor (Gilligan's Island)? The horror ... the horror ... Snocrates 13:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The horror, the horror?" there's no need for sarcasm. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there definitely is when Snoopy, Hank Hill, and The Professor are placed in a common Scouting category. If you can't stand the heat (CFD "humor"), stay out of the kitchen (CFD). Snocrates 07:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not humor, it's sarcasm and you should know the difference. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you fail to see the scare quotes around "humor"? In any case, for some with good senses of humor, sarcasm can be humorous, and if you are so petty to be offended by it, perhaps you should move on to less offensive pastures. Snocrates 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you should learn to be less offensive. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll leave it to you to learn how to be offended less by insignificant throw-away comments on the Internet. Snocrates 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#AWARD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Link to other debates a month or two ago please. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_20#Category:Eagle_Scouts --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - and also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#Category:Distinguished_Eagle_Scouts, which was also nominated in the first one. Both closed as no concensus. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous CfD. --evrik ^(talk) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per no consensus? Sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please! This is the third debate in as many months; people can refer to the copious arguments last time. By the way, you keep saying the arguments are different for the 2 RT cats. Now would be a good time to explain why. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow your lead, read the past discussions. The short story is the one is often an entry to opportunities early in ones career and that is notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts and Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts. These really should not be discussed as a group since the logic for keeping and deleting must be different for each. These two are simply not defining characteristics. And the award has no notable criteria that severs as defining for the individual who receives it. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vegas brings excellent points here and in the July 20th CfD when he said "Keep Category:Eagle Scouts, Delete or Listify Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts. Keep the former because it is something that is earned and has a positive impact on the early careers of those who earn it so it can very well be a defining characteristic. The latter is an award, and while the award may be notable, I'm not convinced that this is a defining characteristic for the individual" While being and Eagle Scout may not be so notable compared to being President of the USA and receiving the Congressional Gold Medal (for Gerald Ford) or being one of the 12 people who have walked on the moon (for Neil Armstrong), it is becoming an Eagle Scout that was probably more defining in their early lives to interest them in what became their careers, and advance them in the military. The "Distinguished Eagle Scout" award is an 'after-the-fact' award that recognizes someone for their accomplishments since (and usually unrelated to, I assume) becoming an Eagle Scout. I think "Distinguished" deserves a list, but not a category for those reasons. —Scouter Sig 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous CfD. --Jdurbach (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fictional category. Not defining of the characters. Delete Distinguished Eagle Scouts and Eagle Scouts. Handled in the FA List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). Otto4711 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my earlier comments - Categories cut both ways - while some may think that the ES award is not defining for some individuals (POV?), from the perspective of the Scouting movement its by-products are defining for it. Ephebi (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if this were a Scouting wiki then the weight given to it within the organization itself might be controlling. The weight given it by the BSA doesn't really reflect a global perspective. Otto4711 (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there already are plenty of scouting articles in WP, its not a "no-scout zone", so I'm afraid I don't see where your argument is leading... Like many other articles in WP, it is a US-specific item so I don't see why it needs to have a global perspective. Ephebi (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous CfD-Phips (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator) I personally would like to see better arguments presented than "Keep per previous CfDs" and the like. Some of us weren't around for that round, and arguing from precedence is not very convincing when we have other arguments in favor of deletion. Snocrates 07:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equally you have to accept that when a category is nominated for the third time in three months after, in particular, a very lengthy debate the first time, it is unreasonable to expect people to repeat themselves in full. You may think your arguments are strong, but I haven't noticed any new ones from the last two times. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for a repetition "in full". But if a comment is going to be made, it does little good to simply say "per last CFD", because it's not at all clear what/which arguments are being referenced, or if any are being referenced at all beyond the simple fact that there must have been no consensus. I have said nothing about the strength of my arguments, but I do ask that arguments are presented instead of formulaic "voting" with reference to who-knows-what. It doesn't take much more time for someone to type out a short phrase giving the reason for their vote. And perhaps the fact that the categories are repeatedly nominated should be a sign that perhaps they are not the best categories. I had no knowledge of the past nominations. You might also note that I prefaced my comment with saying that "I personally" would like to see, etc. etc. If you disagree with what I personally would like to see, I don't see any reason for you to comment on that. If people want to keep voting "per previous CFD", they can. Snocrates 12:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources often mention that notable people are Eagle Scouts, and clearly regard it as a defining characteristic. Mayalld (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mayalid and the others. If Snocrates doesn't want to go read the prior CFDs, too bad. We don't need to repeat ourselves. I find his arguments unconvincing. But I would not object to deleting the Fictional category. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So all of the keep votes in favor of the previous comments are in effect supporting the No Consensus decisions in the past. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse|, I have read the previous CFDs, but saying "Keep per previous CFD" gives absolutely zero information about what aspect of the CFDs you are referring to to back up your arguments, so it renders such votes pretty much useless for the purposes of this CFD. Although — as I have repeated above a number of times — I would prefer that editors did reference arguments there, at least in shorthand form, they don't have to. But as Vegaswikian points out, not doing so can only be interpreted as a message that you support keeping based simply on the general finding of no consensus from a previous CFD, which is even less convincing that my arguments for deleting. But hey, if you're offended by insignificant sarcastic comments made in the nomination that were intended to be humorous, to myself if no one else, then maybe your refusal to be accommodating shouldn't surprise anyone. Or perhaps you're upset at the nomination itself because you are lead coordinator of such and such scouting project. Whatever. All I ask for is arguments to be presented, but ultimately it's each editor's choice whether or not to do so. Snocrates 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Category:Eagle Scouts
delete Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts
keep Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts
- Fiction Eagle Scouts was discussed for deletion within the Scouting Project, but we had not really completed that discussion. This is better listed at Scouting in popular culture#Fictional Eagle Scouts.
- Nominator stated: "awards are so common"; numbers are documented in Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) that refute this— only 2% of Scouts over the last 100 years have received the award
- Nominator stated that the Silver Buffalo Award does not have a category; this is true now, as the category was deleted in favor of creating Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award (note that after creating this list, there was some discussion that it should be deleted and replace by a category)
- The big difference between Eagle Scout and Silver Buffalo in public perception is that few outside of the BSA have heard of the Silver Buffalo. Eagle Scout is firmly entrenched in Americana and is probably more notable outside of the BSA than within it. Many other awards are often noted as being "like" Eagle Scout, indeed, so many of these awards were stuck into the Eagle Scout article that we forked them into two separate lists. I think it safe to say that Eagle Scout is a personal defining moment for most of these men. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep of Eagle Scouts; a defining characteristic and award for anyone, due to its limited number of awardees, the fact that "what an Eagle Scout is" is well known (sometimes to a cliche level), and appropriate "browsing" functions--compare to Category:UK MPs 1924-1929 which is so limited that a page like Churchill's becomes cat-crufted. Listify Fictional Eagle Scouts as it is a pop culture reference only. Listify Distinguished Eagle Scouts as a hyper-specific category. It could also easily be misread to mean 'distinguished Eagle Scouts' (with a lower-case 'd'), which would mean that since it is not a proper noun, it is easily thought to be POV. —Scouter Sig 22:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/listify/listify per User:Scoutersig. ⇔ ChristTrekker 23:20, 28 November 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 - And suggest that someone nominate or at least investigate its only member, R. P. Richardson. Looks like it could be potential copyvio, as well as possibly COI or vanity. (See also: User talk:Radhatanaya, and contribution history.) - jc37 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, seems overly narrow. If kept, it needs parent categories and to be renamed to omit the punctuation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 26 November 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 - jc37 15:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Let's build consensus - Recently just under a dozen reality TV participant categories were brought to CFD and all were deleted after fairly light discussion with the reason given as "precedent." All of these deletions were overturned at DRV. Rather than dealing with these categories piecemeal as they come up, let's try to come to consensus on them. I selected these to serve as a discussion point because there are only a couple of them but they are for franchises that have multiple by-nation categories so I believe they serve well as representational of the entire Category:Reality television participants structure.

On the side for deletion or merger to a national parent cat (in this instance Category:Participants in Canadian reality television series) the argument that's been advanced is overcategorization of performers by performance. This is the argument that has led us to delete all of the actors by series, writer by series, films by actor, etc. categories. The reasoning behind this is that for many biography articles the categorization scheme led to many, many categories being added on the basis of a small handful of appearances or a single appearance on a show (infamously Hank Aaron was categorized as a "Happy Days actor"). It would also lead, on film and television articles, to vast category clutter as each notable person within the film or series got his or her own "Foo films" category.

Countering that argument is the notion that in most cases reality television participants are notable solely or mostly in connection with the specific show on which they appear. With some very rare exceptions like Rob Mariano the vast majority of reality show contestants are not going to appear on multiple reality shows nor are most of them going to go on to the sort of show business career that's going to lead to the impulse to create categories for their film or non-reality TV appearances. It is unlikely that a participant on CNTM is also going to be notable for an appearance on Canadian Idol and vice versa. Their notability in connection with the show is what defines them and it makes sense to categorize them based on that defining characteristic.

So with an eye to using this CFD as a template for the other reality-participant-by-show categories, let's open the discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hesitantly say Keep. I think these people are much more like athletes than actors. (Yes, I know some are actors. So are some athletes.) That is, they are defined more by the competition than their own merits. So I think it makes sense to categorize them by where they come from, but in this case where they come from is a show, not a country. I'm not taking a position on the notability of some of these people, but I do think that the ones that do have articles have both accurate and useful categorization.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 11:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also saying keep, at least to these two. For better or worse, we have lots of articles about participants in these show. For most of them, the appearance on the program is the sole reason that they have an article, and, Otto points out, very few of them have participated in more than one show . It makes sense to categorize these articles by what is basically their subjects' primary characteristic. I suspect that I would not favor similar cats for programs featuring already famous-people, though. ×Meegs 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we can allow an exception to Performer by performance in the case where appearing or winning a reality tv show is the reason that is they are notable. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So long as we have these articles, categories like these are clearly the most obvious and natural to put them in, and we should be aiming to categorise articles in the the most obvious and natural fashion. I'm not sure these qualify as either "permormers" or "performances", but even if they do, these should be a valid exception. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since there seems to be consensus that the people are worth articles, they should be categorized. (essentially per Johnbod.) DGG (talk) 17:11, 29 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Moncton, New Brunswick to Category:Moncton

Nominator's rationale: Article is at Moncton. All subcategories use "Moncton" without the provincial disambiguator. Snocrates 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency. I believe it's also the general precedent, though I'm not really a CfD regular. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 11:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per nom. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. We try to make the category match the article, whenever that is feasible. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:23, 26 November 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. the wub "?!" 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Whitehorse to Category:Buildings and structures in Whitehorse, Yukon

Category:Roads in Whitehorse to Category:Roads in Whitehorse, Yukon

Category:Transportation in Whitehorse to Category:Transportation in Whitehorse, Yukon

Category:Whitehorse media to Category:Whitehorse, Yukon media

Nominator's rationale: Article is at Whitehorse, Yukon and parent category is Category:Whitehorse, Yukon. Snocrates 11:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per nom. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all to Foo in/of St. John's, Newfoundland per article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:St. John's to Category:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Buildings and structures in St. John's to Category:Buildings and structures in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Culture of St. John's to Category:Culture of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Mayors of St. John's to Category:Mayors of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Municipal government of St. John's to Category:Municipal government of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Neighbourhoods in St. John's to Category:Neighbourhoods in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Parks in St. John's to Category:Parks in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:People from St. John's to Category:People from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Radio stations in St. John's to Category:Radio stations in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Sport in St. John's to Category:Sport in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Sports venues in St. John's to Category:Sports venues in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:St. John's media to Category:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador media

Category:Streets in St. John's to Category:Streets in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Transportation in St. John's to Category:Transportation in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

Nominator's rationale: Main article is wisely found at the DAB-friendly St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. Need to change all of the St. John's categories to reflect this. See Saint John's and Saint John for some of the possible confusions that could result. Snocrates 10:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the format St. John's, Newfoundland, which is where the main article should be. There is no need to add the full, verbose name of the province, when the city could be quite adequately disambiguated by using the name of the island on which it is located. (note 1.1 million ghits for "St. John's, Newfoundland" OR "St John's, Newfoundland", but only 400,000 ghits for "St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador" OR "St John's, Newfoundland and Labrador")/
WP:NAME says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature", and that principle has not been applied here. The proposed new category names are very long and cumbersome, and there is no need for this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you would find fairly stiff resistance to moving the article to St. John's, Newfoundland. People from St. John's, and Canadians in general, have been quite adamant about moving away from the name "Newfoundland" towards using "Newfoundland and Labrador". They went so far as to change the postal abbreviation for the province from "NF" to "NL". Your suggestion would be similar to saying it's OK to call the name of the article Honolulu, Oahu instead of Honolulu, Hawaii because Honolulu is located on the island of Oahu. Until the article is moved, I see little benefit in setting up yet another situation where the name of the categories and the name of the articles don't match. Snocrates 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The advantage is in not creating unnecessarily verbose category names. See also Talk:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador#Article_name_should_be_St._John.27s.2C_Newfoundland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of the non-historical categories I can see use the full "Newfoundland and Labrador". Categories with "Newfoundland" are limited to historical categories. When a country or other political entity chooses a name for itself, sometimes the world has to live with verbosity. We say San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago, even though it's more verbose than saying "San Fernando, Trinidad". Why? Because we tend to use the commonly accepted names of political entities, and "Newfoundland" is no longer such a name. Snocrates 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      These are not political categories, they are geographical ones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I realise that—my point is that in naming categories and articles about places we tend to use the political name almost invariably. Otherwise the article should be at "San Fernando, Trinidad", but it is not. Similarly, if purely geographical, Honolulu, Hawaii needs to be moved to Honolulu, Oahu. Snocrates 12:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - PS: your google hits survey doesn't really mean much because searching for "St. John's, Newfoundland" will also register a hit for any use of "St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador". The one search was inclusive of the other, in other words. Snocrates 12:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Just subtract one from the other, then, and we still have 2:1 preference for the shorter and more intuitive name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC
        Likely because historical materials until the 1990s used "Newfoundland" as the province's name. Snocrates 12:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For consideration to the mix : From WP:Naming conventions:

The canonical form for cities in Canada is City, Province/Territory (the "comma convention"). ... For the easternmost Canadian province, the canonical form is "City, Newfoundland and Labrador"; although they might be referred to as such in casual conversation, a city's proper legal designation is never just "City, Newfoundland" or "City, Labrador".

Snocrates 12:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a breach of WP:NAME. As above, the general convention is to use "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity", not to strive for legal precision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what you propose here would require that every community in the entire province be moved to either "Place, Newfoundland" or "Place, Labrador", depending on whether it's on the island or the mainland; St. John's cannot and will not stand alone as the only place that varies from the standard disambiguation format for places in NL. Secondly, WP:NAME is not an inviolable rule that has to be adhered to above all other considerations; the convention itself says that it's a general rule which is not carved in stone if other issues have to be considered. Bearcat 01:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a comparison can't be fairly made when one option is wholly encapsulated in the other option, as here. It's not like we're comparing completely different names like Oslo and Christiania and wondering which one would be most recognizable. You're merely proposing to shorten the actual name, so it's kind of like asking which people would recognize better, "New York City" or "New York, New York". I don't think there's a clear answer when the options are so similar. Snocrates 13:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quite again the last bit of the sentence which ends "while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". That points to the shorter ones. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which suggests to me that the article and the category name should conform, which why I made the nominations in the first place. I don't particularly care which is used, but I do believe in conformity in these matters, and it seems the categories should be named after the articles rather than trying to change both simultaneously to a third option that has never been used. Unless, of course, there is overwhelming agreement for the third option and the moves can be made smoothly. I kind of doubt that will be the result here, though. Snocrates 13:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename categories to conform to the existing article name. Bearcat 01:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom, with an exception for people. The categories are currently ambiguous, and should be renamed. For the most part, while the category names will become somewhat unwieldy, they will be accurate and will clearly disambiguate the St. John's entity to which they relate. The one exception I would suggest is for people; since I think it's reasonable to identify people from St. John's pre-confederation separately from people from St.John's post-confederation (since they are two separate political and historical entities, one which superseded the other). The Newfoundland category should be a subcategory of the Newfoundland and Labrador category. This would follow the existing structure of the Category:People from Newfoundland, Category:People from Labrador, Category:People from Newfoundland and Labrador hierarchy.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:46, 6 December 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. the wub "?!" 13:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Regina media to Category:Regina, Saskatchewan media

Category:Parks in Regina to Category:Parks in Regina, Saskatchewan

Category:Mayors of Regina to Category:Mayors of Regina, Saskatchewan.

Nominator's rationale: Main article is Regina, Saskatchewan and parent category is Category:Regina, Saskatchewan. Other associated categories use "Regina, Saskatchewan". Vagina jokes (especially ones involving mayors or parks) too predictable to be of good value here. Snocrates 10:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:05, 27 November 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) 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete underpopulated category (only two articles), which is ironic because the diagnosis is dispensed so frequently these days that the category qualifies for deletion as non-defining. Doczilla (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Delete because", or "Delete because".. Ok, I think I'll settle on "Delete" : ) - jc37 10:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-defimining, subjective, makes sense if only if we want to reate categories for every aspect of the human condition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the following reasons:

1) Analogous categories for other psychiatric conditions, such as Category:People_with_bipolar_disorder, Category:People with major depressive disorder, and Category:People_on_the_autistic_spectrum. See Category:People by medical or psychological condition for more examples.

2) With respect to argument that it is too prevalent to be defining, its prevalence falls within the range of the 3 example conditions mentioned above:

ADHD: 5% ADHD#Epidemiology
Clinical depression: 7–18% Clinical_depression#Epidemiology
bipolar spectrum disorder: 6.4 Bipolar_disorder#Epidemiology
autism: 1–2 per 1,000, 6 per 1,000 for ASD Autism#Epidemiology

3) The lives of individuals with ADHD such as David Neeleman and Joe Francis--characterized as they are by risk taking, impatience, and innovation--speak to the defining nature of this condition. See http://www.schwablearning.org for more examples of such individuals. Triggtay (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply. Delete all the other categories in Category:People by medical or psychological condition too, as psychiatrycruft. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 26 November 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Edmonton, Alberta to Category:Edmonton

Category:Fredericton, New Brunswick to Category:Fredericton

Category:Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island to Category:Charlottetown

Category:Yellowknife, Northwest Territories to Category:Yellowknife.

Nominator's rationale: Articles for cities do not use Canadian province/territory as DAB term (e.g., Edmonton) and every other associated subcategory uses the city names without the provincial/territorial DAB. I perhaps may have opted for consistent use of the disambiguating provinces/territory (I'm generally in favor of their consistent usage), but clearly that road has not been chosen and these categories should be changed for the sake of consistency. Snocrates 10:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The provincial/terriorial references should be removed, consistent with the Canadian naming convention for cities.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The Edmonton article was moved from Edmonton, Alberta a long time ago, so the category should follow. No problem with the others eithers. While "Yellowknife" was traditionally a name give in English to a particular First Nation, I don't think it's used anymore. So none of them is ambiguous. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 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:People over eight feet tall to Category:People with gigantism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't this qualify for deletion on the grounds of its arbitrary inclusion criterion? Doczilla (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - If no consensus to listify, Keep - While I would normally agree with you, I think this one is exceptional. Consider Category:Bearded women, for another example. - jc37 10:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People with gigantism. As far as I know everyone in history over 8 feet tall had gigantism. I considered "weak keep" as this is an unusual/specific percentile of human height, but in time metric-lovers would kill it.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose UpMerge~~ per the introduction of List of people with gigantism. It looks like this shouldn't even be a subcat. - jc37 10:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly you are unaware that I wrote that introduction. It is true that there are cases of people over seven-foot tall who did not have gigantism. As far as I know all such cases were of persons under 7 ft 10 inches. Angus MacAskill and Yao Ming were not at or over eight-foll tall. Despite the list Martin Van Buren Bates may not have had gigantism, but even then he was not 8-foot-tall either.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of which are good reasons for these to be lists rather than categories : ) - I still am hesitant about just UpMerging rather than deletion/listifying, but I'll strike my oppose. - jc37 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to making it a list. Or the names here can possibly become a section of List of tallest people. Although you can make a list of these names whether the category is upmerged or not.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just put all the names in List of tallest people.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:People with gigantism. per T Anthony Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 26 November 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) 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Inglewood Unified School District schools to Category:Inglewood Unified School District

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We need a district category before we need one for schools. Given the size of the district it may be better to simply delete as over categorization. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over-categorization per WP:OCAT#SMALL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 26 November 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 relisted to CfD 2007 Dec 7, to generate more discussion. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Copyright free use attribute required to Category:Free images with attribution requirements

Nominator's rationale: I think "copyright free use attribute required" is unclear. I first took it to mean "no copyright, but attribution is required", which would be a contradiction. It looks like it was meant to read "copyright; free to use with the condition of attribution", which makes sense, but I think the current name may be misleading. Suggest renaming to Category:Free images with attribution requirements or Category:Free images requiring attribution, or something of that nature. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:39, 26 November 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 per Category:Defunct United States soccer competitions to Category:Defunct American soccer competitions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Defunct United States soccer competitions to Category:Defunct American soccer competitions

Nominator's rationale: Convention of Category:Defunct football (soccer) competitions by country and Category:American soccer competitions. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yah — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 11:19, 26 November 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.

November 26

Category:Congregatio Discipulorum Domini order

Category:Words by language

Category:Warcraft locations

Category:Huawei

Category:Charismatic religious leaders

Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Thailand

Category:Scottish Footballers of the Year

Category:Asian Footballers of the Year

Category:Avenged Sevenfold

Category:2006 reestablishments

Category:African Footballer of the Year

Category:Harry Potter fictional publishings

Category:Fictional television

Category:Bad check recovery

Category:CAF Awards

Category:Serie C2/A/B/C clubs

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College

Category:Fictional bookbinders

Category:Constantly vandalized pages

Category:Coleman Patrick Walsh the Third

Category:Co-heirs to abeyant baronies

Category:High schools in Jacksonville

Category:RTS television programmes

US parties...Right/Left/Center

Category:Masked entertainers

Category:Transformers Pretenders

Category:Hec Crighton Award winners

Category:Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis alumni

Category:Skateboarding comedy films

Category:Space simulators

Eagle Scouts

Category:Spinning masters.

Reality TV participants

Category:Moncton, New Brunswick

Whitehorse, Yukon

St. John's

Regina, Saskatchewan

Category:People with ADHD

Canadian capitals

Category:People over eight feet tall

Category:Inglewood Unified School District schools

Category:Copyright free use attribute required

Category:Defunct United States soccer competitions