< November 8	November 10 >

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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Political office-holders Italy to Category:Political office-holders in Italy

Nominator's rationale: Merge to the one which follows naming convention. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as obvious duplicate. This sort of clear duplication really ought to be speediable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speediable Merge I think. Johnbod 02:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy merge as the absence of "in" means that there is an "obvious typographical error" in the name of the category, which is a speedy criteria. Bencherlite^Talk 10:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:12, 12 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:Roman Catholic cardinals.--Mike Selinker (talk)

Propose renaming Category:Cardinals to Category:Cardinals (Catholicism)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, This category is clearly not a category on the cardinal bird. How does catholicism get to be superior to ornithology in deciding the primary meaning of a category name?? Georgia guy 22:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Roman Catholic cardinals for consistency with other RC clergy cats. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The birds, and the color, are named after the Catholic clergy. The secondary, derived usages of the term should disambiguate, not the original meaning. Gentgeen 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gentgeen. Neither cardinal birds not the football (?) team are likely to be expected in a category called this. Johnbod 22:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. A category for cardinal birds also exists. Is the oldest meaning of something always the primary meaning as a rule?? (That would mean that Pi should be at Pi (mathematics) because the mathematical constant is a derived name and the Greek letter was the original. Georgia guy 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the argument. There is indeed no possibility of confusion with Category:Cardinalidae. Also please remember that both the birds and sportsmen are restricted solely to N & S America, unlike actual Cardinals. Most people in the world have never heard of a cardinal bird. Johnbod 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Roman Catholic cardinals per Pegship or to Category:Cardinals (Catholicism) per nom. I don't think the average reader would have a better than 50% at guessing what Category:Cardinals refers to. Rename will resolve ambiguity. Article is at Cardinal (Catholicism). I also note that there are cardinals in the Church of England. Snocrates 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be the average American reader I suppose? "Roman Catholic cardinals" is tautologous, as there is no other kind, unlike "Roman Catholic bishops" etc. Johnbod 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I am not an American and I was referring to the average English-language speaker who reads WP, wherever they may reside (nice try, though). It's not tautologous when a cardinal can be a bird or an official in the Church of England. I am not a resident of N or S America and of course I have heard of cardinal birds! ("Most people in the world have never heard of cardinal birds." Don't be ridiculous. Unlike some nationalities, where I live we're not complete shut-ins from the rest of the world.) I note that the article is found at Cardinal (Catholicism), and it's usually best when categories correspond somewhat with the article in question. Snocrates 07:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Speaking as an atheist from a mainly Protestant country, I am quite certain that the religious meaning is overwhelmingly the primary one. Ravenhurst 13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Firstly, to match the main article. Secondly, because even if the article were at Cardinal, the tolerance for ambiguity in category names is lower than that in article space. For some people, the bird is the first cardinal that comes to mind; for other people it is the person that comes to mind first. The categories should be clearly named, because otherwise articles will get miscategorized. LeSnail 19:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Roman Catholic Cardinals, if we have to do anything. Cardinal can also be a number. I guess this is the origin both the names of the RC senior clergy and the members of St Paul's College of Minor Canons. This is a case for disambiguation. I would suggest that the article should be moved to conform. Peterkingiron 23:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom or to Category:Roman Catholic cardinals. Putting the issue of the birds aside at first, a compelling reason to include a DAB term here is that cardinals also exist as a religious title in the Church of England. Then add the whole bird issue to the mix, and it become fairly clear that a DAB would be appropriate. Ubi Terrarum 10:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a title in the Church of England as such - nobody is referred to or adressed as a Cardinal. I have added a fact tag to the unreferenced article in question, as it is not very easy to verify any such usage at all on Google, and there is no mention on the St Pauls website. Currently there are only two Canons Minor, both women, whose shorts bios refer to no such title. Johnbod 12:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true if you are referring only to current usage. The title was used in the past well beyond the English Reformation — most sources say until 1898, although some can trace remnants of its usage until 1911. A complete list of these Church of England cardinals (to 1898, anyway) can be found in G. Hennessy, Novum Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense (1898), which can be found in most larger-sized libraries in England or Wales. This source (and others) clearly uses the title "Cardinal" in referring to them. Sometimes you have to go beyond google to find historical uses. Ubi Terrarum 23:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that is even less of a reason for it to be an issue in this debate. The article could use this info. Johnbod 02:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I wouldn't rule out a Church of England cardinal being notable enough for a WP article. I have added the information to the article. Ubi Terrarum 02:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure not, from their subsequent careeers, but it is not something to categorise on, even if we unearthed some. Were they referred to or addressed as plain "Cardinal", or was it a paper title, as I suspect? Johnbod 02:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was used in the same ways as in the RC Church for centuries, though this practice gradually died out and became, as you said, a paper title by the mid-nineteenth century or so. Ubi Terrarum 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Her Pegship to Category:Roman Catholic cardinals; which came first isn't relevant it's current usage, and as for which is the more used that's probably irresolvable. What we need to do is create an unambiguous title for the category and Her Pegship's does that in readable English - so we know what we're talking about - discounting any birds of a RCC religious nature or team members :-) Carlossuarez46 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to roman catholic cardinals per above. 132.205.99.122 19:53, 14 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:Music scholars to Category:Musicologists. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and :Category:Music scholars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Proposing these two categories for discussion and merger of one of these into the other. Musicologists is a subcategory of Music scholars, but it's the only content in Music scholars. It seems these two could be merged to simplify the hierarchy, but I don't know which is the better title. (I recognize that musicologists may be a narrower term than music scholars, but whatever distinctions there are between the two are not observed by wikipedia editors, obviously.) Lquilter 18:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Suggest the new category should be "musicologists". Peterkingiron 23:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. By one definition of musicology, all music scholars are musicologists (and vice versa). However, in contemporary U.S. usage, music theorists tend not to regularly identify themselves musicologists (e.g., at large conservatories, the department of music theory is never a subset of the department of musicology). But it also makes sense to separate the contemporary profession of music theory from historical music theorists (Pythagoras was a music theorist, but not a musicologist), and few music theorists would strenuously object to the label of musicologist on them, so merging to "musicologists" seems best. We could create a subcat for music theorists under musicologists. "Music scholars" may be a correct and broad term, but it's a bit like using "Economy scholars" for "Economists": not much used in the profession. (Aside: the description of "zoomusicologists" should be removed from the cat page: it's an extremely tiny sub-specialty) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Musicologists seems best, per above. Johnbod 18:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Musicologists seems best to me, too, based on Myke Cuthbert & Peterkingiron. --Lquilter 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Musicologists - I believe this term if far more widely used than "Music scholars". Cgingold 23:51, 14 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:Cartoon Network television movies. Bencherlite^Talk 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoon Network original movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Same rationale as Category:Cartoon Network original series nom. treelo _talk 14:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Cartoon Network television movies to this category as this name clarifies that it's for films that are original to the network. Otherwise delete as redundant. Otto4711 15:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Otto. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination.Doczilla 07:14, 12 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 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoon Network original series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category, along with Category:Cartoon Network original movies were created as name changes to existing categories without requesting a talk on this. The articles affected have had the category changes reverted and as such these categories will not be used. treelo _talk 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Violent Nudity Guy is likely the latest incarnation of MascotGuy, in which case, his edits can be reverted on sight. However, I'd be interested in knowing more about this specific change; what category or categories did he "rename"? Powers ^T 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes didn't consist of much more than changing the existing cats of articles to the redundant cats he created. --treelo _talk 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my question is to which categories are these two redundant? Powers ^T 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're redundant as they are rewordings of two other existing categories, Category:Cartoon Network television movies and Category:Cartoon Network shows respectively. These categories were created for seemingly no reason as good categories exist anyway and the editing of some 30 articles seems to be a trait of MascotGuy though I'll admit his wording for the new categories is actually better than what exists now. --treelo _talk 18:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as empty and as redundant to the existing Category:Cartoon Network shows. Otto4711 15:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speedy or otherwise, per Otto. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:13, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sculpture types to Category:Ancient Greek sculpture types

Nominator's rationale: Because that's what they are; a sub-cat of Category:Ancient Greek sculptures. Johnbod 11:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:37, 9 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 upmerge to both parents. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scientists from Cincinnati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale It's overly specific as we don't have any other "scientists by city", not even for far large/old cities like Paris. Also seen as a joke elsewhere.--T. Anthony 10:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom to Category:American scientists and Category:People from Cincinnati. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to both parents, as specified by BHG. I'm fine with People by city, but Occupations by city doesn't work very well. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to both parents, per BHG. Wasn't it Cincinnati that we had a bunch of other of these before? Just noticing a trend. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So it seems. There is Category:Abolitionists from Cincinnati, Category:Architects from Cincinnati, Category:Cincinnati civil rights activists, and Category:Religious leaders from Cincinnati. There doesn't seem to be equivalents of these for other cities. I did find a comparable oddity linked to another city with Category:Chicago golfers.--T. Anthony 03:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per BHG & Prove It. (I'd like to clean out the university alum / faculty cats, too!) --lquilter 17:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, are the people from city categories all going to have general cat intersections occupation, race/ethnicity/religion, or some other general classification, or are we going to limit it to things specific to the city: mayors of city, City Newspaper people, People of big event for the city? What brings this to mind is that Cincy has many subcats along the lines of the former (scientists being one), but a comparable look at San Francisco shows basically only the latter sorts of sub cats (mayors, newspaper) and only 3 or so of them. To my mind, the former set of cats is likely to be OCAT as what do Cincy lawyers, scientists, Fooians, or whatever have to be a notable intersection. Carlossuarez46 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge Overprecise. Does not represent a school or movement of wider significance. 13:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Just thinking about this. While scientists per city doesn't quite work -- scientists are often attached to small university towns, or move about -- some other professions seem to work better. For instance, lawyers or architects or activists might be sometimes identified by their city. And while today people move around a lot, that wasn't as much the case in the 19th century. So is this a recentism issue? --Lquilter 02:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I wouldn't call it "recentism", but you're quite right to point out that in general, people categories by city are more likely to make sense when we're talking about earlier eras, when people tended to stay put in one or two locations. So Category:Abolitionists from Cincinnati actually makes sense, especially since Cincinnati was a major center of Abolitionist activity. I would also be inclined to support, for example, Category:Cincinnati civil rights activists -- assuming that these people are active in Cincinnati -- because it reflects a significant level of interaction with residents of the city, as well as a role in local politics. Cgingold 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge - There are some people categories by city that make sense, but this isn't one of them. Not even close. I just looked at half the articles, and none of these guys even worked as scientists in Cincinnati -- they are/were just from there. On the whole, these categories strike me as essentially a bit of local boosterism. Cgingold 15:04, 16 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 Speedy delete per G7. Tikiwont 08:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seventh-day Adventism in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: New category I only created today, but renamed to Category:Seventh-day Adventist Church in Europe. Colin MacLaurin 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meets G7 criteria - so tagged. SkierRMH 08:19, 9 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:LSM(R)-401 class Landing Ships, Medium and Category:LSM(R)-501 class Landing Ships, Medium. This seems to be the closest to consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:LSMR-501 class landing ship mediums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: For background on these categories, please see this discussion, which closed as rename without prejudice to relisting. I can think of two options:

A. Merge the categories (as initially suggested by Johnbod) into one of the following:

1. Category:Landing ship mediums
2. Category:Landing Ship Mediums - capitalised per the article Landing Ship Medium
3. Category:Landing Ships, Medium - with a comma, per the lead sentence of the article Landing Ship Medium

B. Retain both categories and rename to the following format:

1. Category:LSM(R)-### class landing ship mediums
2. Category:LSM(R)-### class Landing Ship Mediums
3. Category:LSM(R)-### class Landing Ships, Medium

The reason for changing LSMR to LSM(R) is to conform to the convention of various related articles, all of which use LSM(R).

I realise that this nomination may produce a convoluted discussion (after all, 6 distinct options are listed above), and it is with great trepidation that I reopen this nomination. However, I can think of no other way to broach the topic without omitting any significant options. If the current categories are indeed fine in all respects, then I fully support an early closure.

In the hopes of reducing the ambiguity surrounding the issue, I have left notices with WikiProject Ships and WikiProject Military history's "Maritime warfare task force". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & rename to option 2 or 3 to give a category of about 10 members, which can be split later if the numbers grow, and editors can agree on the difference between the two. Maybe 3 is clearer. Johnbod 11:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to offer a specific recommendation here, but I'll just note two points. First, the convention of Category:Amphibious warfare vessels of the United States and its sister categories is to have subcats by class, and that the "A" group of options seems to lose that precision; secondly that the tweaking involved in the "B" group of options seems quite small, and I think that there may be a little bit of WP:BEANS here :) There may be a case for revisiting the convention, but that's a broader issue which I suggest should not be tackled just in respect to these two categories, I'm happy to leave it to the subject experts to advise on any further refinements to the names of these two cats. Hope this helps.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain and rename to format #3. Different classes receive different categories per WP:SHIPS guidelines. TomTheHand 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Black Falcon alerted me to the discussion because I participated at the last one, but I would have found myself here in any event. Disclosure completed. Anyway, I have no strong opinion among the various options except to say that we should have meaningful categories - a category of one or a few articles that cannot grow is better to be upmerged and templates used to facilitate migration among the articles pertaining to ships in what would-be-smaller subcategories. I'm not as savvy about navy ships, but the analogy I'd make is we don't have or want a category Category:Olympic-class ocean liners to house the main article and the three ships (and presumably there will be no others), we have a template for them. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Landing Ships, Medium" - The British military are liable to place adjectives at the end, because it leads to similar items being listed together in an alphabetic stores list. Similarly, there is (or was) "Landing Ships, tank". The plural should be applied to the noun, even if it is not the last word. Peterkingiron 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain and rename to Category:LSM(R)-### class Landing Ship Mediums (option #3 above). --Kralizec! (talk) 16:19, 12 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Overseas Vietnamese Roman Catholic dioceses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category isn't a diocese. Additionally, dioceses of the type that would be in this category don't exist. There isn't a "Vietnamese Rite", any diocese set up oversees wouldn't be specifically for the Vietnamese population, but would be a typical Latin diocese or an Eastern Catholic eparchy or diocese. Gentgeen 05:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Name is misleading, as the Latin Rite Catholic Church does not establish "national" dioceses of the same rite in a different territory ("national" non-geographic based parishes (usually language/nationality, yes; dioceses, no). SkierRMH 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, which is presumably what nom intends. I think only N. America has National parishes, so not worth renaming. Johnbod 11:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you're right, I wasn't clear on what I wanted. Yes, the category should be deleted. Gentgeen 22:50, 9 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Islamist terrorism to Category:Islamic terrorism

Nominator's rationale: The main article is now called Islamic terrorism, and likewise the category should follow the conventions of the article name. Yahel Guhan 02:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The current category name is too narrow in scope to properly include the full scope of articles which may exist on the subject. Determining whether an act is "Islamist" is much more complicated than determining whether or not Islam played a role in the act; the fact of the matter is that (presumably) all acts of terrorism committed by Muslims are in the interest of religious goals, whereas only a particular grouping are for politically-charged "Islamist" goals as well. The current name does not sufficiently cover the scope of the category. On a side note, many individuals have, in the interest of apparent political correctness, begun to substitute instance of "Islamic" terrorism with "Islamist" terrorism, in an effort to partially dissociate the religion itself from the acts. Unfortunately, this is a misguided effort, if only for the reason that "Islamism" is not an interchangeable term, and describes a particular form of Islamic terrorism. As it stands, I support the move for the article "Islamist terrorism" to the name "Islamic terrosism", and I support this category change all the same.--C.Logan 03:03, 9 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisoners on remand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - non-defining, also subject to rapid change and maintenance issues. Otto4711 02:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a "current" sort of category and non-defining. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 9 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portable applications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category has only 1 entry and only 1 history entry. The history entry is dated Aug 2006; the pages text includes "this is a work in progress". Should be delete for reason "No progress"! tooold 02:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, duplicates Category:Portable software. Perhaps a soft redirect? --Eliyak T·C 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, it looks as though this category is about a year older than the other. I have no preference for the name. --Eliyak T·C 06:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this in preference to the software one "applications" isn't confined to software. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 9 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prisoners sentenced to caning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - single-member category unlikely to expand. Otto4711 02:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could probably expand if we delve far enough into history and are the inmates at boarding school á la Tom Brown, "prisoners" - if so, we may be able to add many notables, I seem to recall in Churchill's bio of his father a caning the elder Churchill endured, but I digress. Non-defining. Carlossuarez46 17:43, 9 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 prune. Anyone who's not specifically known for being a prisoner should be removed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category suffers from severe temporal issues. Characters who are prisoners are not necessarily prisoners throughout their fictional existence. Otto4711 02:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No different than a category for living people — if it's defining for the (fictional) individual, it can be applied. Snocrates 02:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redefine as characters for whom prisoner status has been a notable, defining quality. One example of the many problems with this category: Every comic book character (superhero, supervillain, Archie, Jughead, Richie Rich, supporting characters, and so on) has been a prisoner at some point, rendering the category useless for 99.9999%of all article-worthy comics characters. I am very skeptical, however, as to whether a redefined category could be objectively applied. Doczilla 07:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla's description of course ought to be the standard for every category (a notable, defining quality), but the problem is that enthusiastic editors add categories that are merely relevant and accurate to every fictional and biographical topic. ... Are we thinking that this category should reflect only prisoners of the state, legal prisoners, as opposed to someone merely imprisoned by a supervillain? Perhaps the category could be renamed to reflect that? Also, perhaps "long-term imprisonment" can be used as a proxy for "defining, notable". So, one possibility would be "Fictional long-term prisoners of the state". --lquilter 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even the compromise posited by Doczilla is problematic - may of the more famous and memorable scenes from various shows have their characters as prisoners: Star Trek and Seinfeld come to mind; and it's a scene à faire for a good guy in crime drama to be framed and locked up for some crime and solve himself out of the mess. Carlossuarez46 17:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this just needs patrolling to keep non-notable incidental imprisoning incidents away from it. (perhaps ban pulp comic characters from it). Afterall, there are very notable prisoners for whom imprisonment is a very defining characteristic (The Man in the Iron Mask, the characters from For I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, or The Shawshank Redemption, or The Green Mile) 132.205.99.122 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep because there are characters known for being prisoners. This category, as stated above, should be kept for those only who are primarily known for prisoners and not fictional characters who happened to be in prison at one time. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The temporal issue is a non-issue. This is often an essential defining category. By the nominator's reasoning, we should delete every occupational category, as no-one follows an occupation throughout their lifetime. Ravenhurst 13:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except posthumously born monarchs who inherit their throne at birth. Ravenhurst 13:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and reincarnated Tibetan lamas of course... Johnbod 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see WHY this category should be removed. It's been there long enough and many characters in the category are legitimate prisoners (where sentenced or remanded until trial) as stated in their biographies. Conquistador2k6 15:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of course if someone can show how this is a defining characteristic that makes the fictional character need this category then I'll reconsider. I'll contend that this is a by product of a story line in almost every case and not defining. So this category would require constant monitoring. Better to just delete since nothing would be lost. Vegaswikian 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a story is set in a prison, and is about prisoner abuse by guards, then aren't being a guard and being a prisoner defining characteristics? 132.205.99.122 20:00, 14 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 relist to geneerate broader consensus. See CfD November 22. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vancouver television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Do something - the category as it stands casts too wide of a net. It captures shows whose production offices are in Vancouver, shows that are filmed theere and shows that are set there. Either delete because it's overly broad or split into three separate categories (although shows should not IMHO be categorized by where their offices are). Otto4711 02:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Split into Category:Television shows shot in Vancouver and Category:Television shows set in Vancouver and Delete anything left over. No reason to have a breakout for series only. Nomination should also include Category:Toronto television series. If there is consensus for this rename, then Category:Television series by country also needs to be split since the contents of the category and all of the children is ambiguous. Vegaswikian 03:33, 9 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.