< October 17	October 19 >

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The speedy closes and the opposes far outweigh the support, so the result is no change. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:History of the British Isles to Category:History of Great Britain and Ireland

Nominator's rationale: A proposal to rename Category:History of Britain to Category:History of Great Britain and Ireland was under discussion when the process was aborted by an admin who closed it off and imposed the "British Isles" tag, knowing full well that it is controversial and offensive to many editors. I propose this compromise which was suggested originally by BHG.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs)

• Comment from the closing admin. CFD in question. a) the process was not aborted. It had been open the required amount of time, and it was clear from the discussion that consensus was not going to emerge. b) The rename to Category:History of the British Isles was based upon the main article, History of the British Isles. There is general agreement that the category match the article, and if the article changes, so should the category, but it starts with the article, which BHG agreed with on my talk page. c)Sarah777 should WP:AGF. I do not "know full well" as she claims. The term may be offensive and controversial to her, but considering the number of editors that wanted it to be renamed to Category:History of the British Isles, it is not controversial nor offensive to many others. Finally, I could care less what the category is named. This CFD should probably be speedy closed, and the discussion taken to renaming the article. --Kbdank71 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do have sympathy with your viewpoint but WP policies mandate closing out if there is a consensus. 'No consensus' is a valid result. Picking your own preference, regardless of debate and suitability, is overstepping your remit and risks being referred to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 19. As many of the affected articles were tagged late, it was requested to let the debate run on a few days (a request which was ignored). The premature selection of Category:History of the British Isles, a geographical categorisation and not a political one, meant that there was no chance to investigate that proposal. We now have an inconsistent category hierarchy (e.g. dozens of Category:British monarchs, Category:Stone Age Britain etc..) and a legion of illogically-grouped articles (such as Dunsterforce, which made perfect sense as an Imperial Adventure of Britain, but is illogical as part of the History of the British Isles). Unfortunately I expect the impact of this move means this debate to run and run here unless we can return it. Ephebi 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll quote Jimbo: Well, I think it is quite appropriate to cite policy, tradition, and precedent with reference to specific cases. I also think it is inappropriate to treat each new specific case as being unique without reference to those long established principles. [1] There is consensus for the category name to match the main article. It is not "my preference". "No consensus" would have meant I'd have both sides here complaining that their idea was "gaining broad support". If you want the category changed, change the article. --Kbdank71 10:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo also said "ignore all rules"; and if there was ever a case for intelligent use of the discretion available to an Administrator seeking to take emotion of a situation and remove pov which is constantly alienating a large section of editors - this is it. Instead, this blind adherence to a general recommended practice is making matters worse; not just here but across a whole range of British/Irish topics. BTW, if you really don't care what it is called - then change it to a more neutral and non-pov name; such as BHG's suggestion which had more support than any other option till you killed it off. (Sarah777 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Do I have to spell this out for you? Go get agreement to change the article and I'll rename the category myself. You are making such a stink about this category, yet you haven't once tried to change the article name? Why is that? --Kbdank71 03:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because trying to change the article will result in total war, as it has in the case of the open sore that is the name of the geographical article "The British Isles". And by simple strength of numbers, nothing else, the British side win every time. Then every few weeks, along comes some new Irish editor, sees the term, objects to it and off we go again. There is less chance of a similar row over a category, whereas the prospect of every Irish history article now being flagged up top as "History of the British Isles" is merely rubbing salt into the wounds rather than trying to make a gesture which would take some heat out of the issue. I have already been involved in several battles over this issue of the naming of the geographical British Isles article and you are now suggesting that I should start another one, this time about "The History of the British Isles"! Strange advice from an Admin when you realise what such a proposal would lead to! I am striving to AVOID Arbcoms and suchlike!(Sarah777 03:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Speedy close. I do still favour the proposal which Sarah777 has refloated, but the convention that a category name should reflect that of the main article is a long-standing one (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General_naming_conventions), and it's one which helps to maintain consistency in wikipedia. May I suggest that we resume this discussion at Talk:History of the British Isles?
  For anyone who doubts that the terminology in this area is problematic, please see British Isles (terminology) and British Isles naming dispute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per BHG. The category should conform to the defining article. Discussions about the term "British Isles" are already ongoing at Talk:British Isles/name debate. If the History of the British Isles article title changes as a result of those discussions, then so should the category name. Postdlf 00:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm, Talk:British Isles/name debate is discussing the name of a geographical article, and may reach different conclusions to those applicable to a historical article or category. Talk:History of the British Isles is the place to discuss the name of History of the British Isles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that an article that is a history subtopic split-off of a geographical article would correspond to the naming of the main geographical article, but whatever; the point is that I agree with you and Kbdank71 that the defining article governs the category title, on whichever article talk page that is to be resolved. Postdlf 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I hope the mistake made in the premature closing and unfortunate decision in the original proposal is not repeated here. It is clear that while it is generally preferred that category and main article be the same this is not written in stone. If ever there was a situation for having a neutral term for the category; this is it. The complete failure of the closing admin to understand the issue should not be compounded by a speedy closure here. Many Wikipedians who have a strong interest in this are probably not even aware of this discussion (or the last one). "There is consensus for the category name to match the main article." There most certainly is not - there is consensus that in general principle this should normally be the case. There is no consensus whatsoever that an exception should not be made in this case.

• Would it be in order for me to notify some of the people who are likely to be offended by this - I mean Irish editors. Leaving "what should be" aside, reality, what is, is that this issue lines up the vast majority of the Irish editors against the vast majority of British editors. Admins trying to wish that reality out of existence is what is ruining any hope of sorting these issues out. (Sarah777 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Like this? Or did you mean WP:CANVASS? And since when did we edit the encyclopedia based upon whether or not someone would be offended? If editors would check their conflicts of interest and POVs at the door when they logged in, we might not have these problems. --Kbdank71 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto with Editors who are Admins. I think CANVASSING might be appropriate in this case because the Irish Wiki pages, sadly, are not read by many or at least not regularly. "since when did we edit the encyclopedia based upon whether or not someone would be offended?" - clearly not something you worry about but I was brought before an Arbcom for offending Britain (yes, the country of)!! Maybe it is only OK to offend "minorities"? The longer this goes on the more your arguments come to mirror those of the legion of British editors who oppose any compromise. Isn't there a Wiki DUCK TEST? (Sarah777 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment After checking out one of the key assumptions here, there is no consistency in WP regarding the 'rule' that the category must match an article's name. I agree that it seems to be a good idea in general, and a majority of categories seem to follow this pattern, but a significant minority shows its by no means universal. Case 1) there are the articles where the name moves but the root meaning is preserved, e.g. Category:Crops vs Crop (agriculture) or Category:Lawn care and Lawn. Case 2) there are the categories that mix and match their terms. E.g. Category:Seaplanes and flying boats has both Flying boat and Seaplane. And Case 3) there are those with no matching article article at all, e.g. Category:Civil utility aircraft. Yet they all work perfectly well with their articles. So if we can drop this dogma we can maybe focus on getting a good classification instead. Ephebi 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, after a quick check I became aware that this was just a general "good practice" idea, not a rule. Thus it's insertion into a highly charged debate about the term "British Isles" was rather puzzling, plus the insistence of the closing Admin that this is sacred writ. It is very clear (as proposer!) that the vastly experienced BHG knew that also but appears not to wish to contest the issue. But the fact that this should NOT have been closed in the manner or for the reason it was is all the more reason to reject any suggestion of speedy deletion here. (Sarah777 23:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• My posts here seem to be peppering the page with black dots and circles - I've no idea why! (Sarah777 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Speedy Close, if the esteemed member from Ireland will permit, there is no problem with thinking Ireland (an island) separate from the British Isles, save it's never been in conventional usages, save perhaps in the minds of some of the Irish (who may not appreciate convention as it's linked to the country that gave us English—which they hold a political rival or worse. There of course is no problem with Republic of Ireland or History of the Republic of Ireland, nor would there be for categories such as those, which of course can be linked as sub-categories of Europe, bypassing the political inconvience of geographic grouping—best to just accept pissing up a stick gets the hands wet, or this is just one thing that can't be changed—same thing. Be well. // FrankB 02:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Er, you want to rename to "the Great Britain.."??? Oppose as utterly ungrammatical, just for a start. Johnbod 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Just what is it with you people, the British rightwing? Category:History of Great Britain and Ireland would have a lot more consensus than has the centuries-old rampant anti-Irish xenophobia and racism of your state, which from an Irish perspective is summed up consisely in the term "British Isles". Your "nation building" exercise failed in Ireland. We have rejected you. No term symbolises as much of that British imperialist desire towards Ireland as telling us natives we are part of what you, in your supranationalism, have called "British Isles" since 1621 (when the term was first used). Your rejection of Irish identity, Irish history, Irish culture and the very political wishes of the Irish people- all of which constitute the very Irishness of Ireland- that the term 'British Isles' really means shows once more the atavistic fanaticism of far too many British towards the Irish people and who they really are. This term more than most is designed in its entirety to deny Irishness, and of course reassert Britishness. Only the most wilfully dishonest British person would deny what is really going on. It is 2007. It is not only people in both communities in Ireland who have to challenge the myths of their respective nationalisms.86.42.125.116 18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice assumption, but I'm American, and don't really care what you call yourselves. I don't care if you use United Kingdom, Great Britain, Ireland and Those Damn Brits, or if you were to physically move the two islands further away and lived in peace, or closer together and fought like cats and dogs for all eternity. In fact, I care more about the dust behind my computer monitor than I'll ever care about the Great Naming Wars of Ireland and Great Britain (or the British Isles, depending on which side you're on, apparently). Now that I've made my position clear, I'll again explain that there is consensus to have consistency in the naming of the category and main article. Is it a hard and fast policy? No, it's not. But there is consensus for it, regardless of what those above say. I personally think it's funny that nobody that is all up in arms over my "britishness" has even tried to rename the article. Why does everyone care about the History of the British Isles category, yet there is precedence in having Category:Ireland as a subcategory of Category:British Isles? If you don't want Ireland under "History of the British Isles", remove it. There are many ways to resolve this that do not involve calling me a brit, how about we try one of them? --Kbdank71 19:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And by the way, Category:History of the British Isles makes no mention of Ireland. Category:History of Ireland is under Category:History of Europe, which is probably where it should be, to minimize arguments. Why do you want to combine the histories, anyway? Keep them separate and stop fighting. --Kbdank71 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had already explained why it is futile to try and change the article; just look at the sneering moronic diatribe from User:Fabartus to see the mindset we have at work here. As for totally separate, I totally agree with you. But just try doing it and you may begin to see what I am talking about! Be assured that some drone will add History of Ireland to the Category "History of the BIs" as soon as this proposal is worked out. That is how they operate. (Sarah777 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

P.S.: It is noted that the person who placed Ireland under the category "History of the British Isles" did so without consensus in the first place. Now, it seems that he wants us to have consensus to change it back. Jesus, how British can you get? Yes, I am thinking of how the British partitioned Ireland without consensus and now demand that the Irish seek consensus to end partition. Oh yes: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.86.42.125.116 18:31, 23 October 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:Modern weapons of the United Kingdom. While I would have liked more discussion before closing this, the change is pretty uncontroversial because it follows the naming convention of the parent cats Weapons of the United Kingdom | Modern weapons.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Modern British weapons to Category:Modern weapons of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename, throughout the moder period, the country has been called the United Kingdom. The suffix "of the United Kingdom" is the convention of Category:Weapons of the United Kingdom. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something without the word "Modern" Modern in weaponry changes over times: cross bows, long bows, blunderbusses, cannons, biplanes, etc. were all modern for a time. In 20 years everything in this category won't fit either. Carlossuarez46 02:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern" isn't used synonymously with "up to date" or "in use;" per Modern weapons it just means post-World War II. Postdlf 18:23, 22 October 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:International Skating Union technical specialists. Kbdank71 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ISU Technical Specialist to Category:ISU Technical Specialists (or other name, see below)

Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural nomination from the speedy renaming page. I offer no opinion as to the outcome of this discussion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy starts here

• Category:ISU Technical Specialist to Category:ISU Technical Specialists. Plural. Awartha 22:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that should actually be Category:ISU technical specialists (lower case except for the first word and proper nouns) or Category:International Skating Union technical specialists (without the acronym). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw this cat a few weeks ago, but didn't notice the missing s at the end. Everything I could see on the ISU's site refers to "Technical Specialist" as a formal title, including the middle of sentences, etc, so I didn't start a CFD then. I don't know if we have to respect the self-titling capitals here in our naming conventions or not. Neier 03:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm ... since it seems to be a formal title (ISU even capitalises "Assistant Technical Specialist"), then I think we maybe should preserve the capitalisation. Then again, ISU capitalises a lot of things ("Levels of Difficulty", "Program Components", "ISU Events", "Base Value", "Skating Skills", "Ice Dancing") that we wouldn't. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't convince myself either way, and moved on to another area. Neier 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied from speedy page ends here

• Rename to add the s; and still neutral on the capitalization issue. Neier 11:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:International Skating Union technical specialists to add plural, spell out the abbreviation (per category naming conventions) and Remove The Unnecessary Capitals That The ISU Likes To Throw Around. Bencherlite^Talk 01:21, 24 October 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. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Venture Bros. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - minus the improper performer by performance overcategorization, what's left doesn't warrant the eponymous category. Otto4711 21:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see what's wrong with umbrella-ing the two subcategories together... for all these deletion of umbrella categories with subcategories. 132.205.99.122 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. // FrankB 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:12, 21 October 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 -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Squidbillies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - show article plus ep list doesn't warrant the eponymous category. Otto4711 21:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge per nom. Kbdank71 14:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Gaelic Games Project to Category:WikiProject Gaelic Games

Suggest renaming Category:Gaelic Games Project articles to Category:WikiProject Gaelic Games articles

Suggest renaming Category:Gaelic Games Project categorys to Category:WikiProject Gaelic Games categories

Suggest renaming Category:Gaelic Games Project templates to Category:WikiProject Gaelic Games templates

Nominator's rationale: I created a new category for WikiProject Gaelic Games which follows convention of category names for WikiProjects without realising that there was already an existing one. The subcats should be renamed to match. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: some project templates such as Template:GaelicGamesProjectCategory will need to be updated if the categories are renamed. If the consensus is to rename, please could you drop a quick note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic Games to remind project members to do this? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per standard WikiProject naming conventions. Bencherlite^Talk 01:22, 24 October 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. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emerging political parties in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category created as a political advertisement for a present revival of the Federalist Party, with no links to the wider category tree. Not quite blatant enough for G11. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did restore the Federalist Party to Category:Defunct political parties in the United States, where it belongs. It was the only member of this cat; and that seemed more important than this piece of cruft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and not just because it's empty. "Emerging" is a piece of crystal-ball gazing, because right-or-wrong, most new political parties fade way; this category appears designed to select those destined to grow, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BHG's note that WP is not a crystal ball. To restate WP:CRYSTAL, the very point of "emerging"-type categories is a type of prognostication that defeats the point of notability guidelines altogether. --lquilter 01:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "emerging" is vague and sounds like promotional language—it's more positive than saying "organization still forming" or "hasn't yet caught on" because it suggests that it will necessarily grow or coalesce. And of course this can only encourage the creation of articles on political parties thought up in school one day. Kill it before it metastasizes. Postdlf 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The term "an emerging political party" makes sense only for few weeks. Later it either is or is not a political party. Tankred 00:58, 20 October 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:Ambassadors from Burkina Faso.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Burkinabé ambassadors to Category:Ambassadors from Burkina Faso

Nominator's rationale: The convention of Category:Ambassadors by country of origin is Category:Ambassadors from Foo or Category:Ambassadors of Foo. I think the former is clearer, since the second could possibly be interpreted to mean ambassadors sent to Foo, but either is ok. Whatever is decided here, I will propose that all the other categories get moved also for consistency. LeSnail 18:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to Category:Ambassadors from Burkina Faso. The "of" format is the more widely used formal term, but it is sufficiently ambiguous to risk confusion in use, and "from" is clearer. I see that Category:Ambassadors by country of origin currently has 10 subcats using "of" and 6 using "from", but I think that they should all be standardised on the "from" format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 18 October 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-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atomic Betty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV series, per extensive precedent show, charater list and episode list don't warrant a category. Otto4711 18:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. // FrankB 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:09, 21 October 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, but I copy and pasted the list to Atomic_Betty#Cast_members. Please feel free to remove if the list is inappropriate (or expand and add job functions to make it more encyclopedic).-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atomic Betty cast members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete - per extensive precedent against person by project overcategorization. Otto4711 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, but do not listify. A plain "list of cast members" would probably be deleted per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. In case the need to form a list ever arises, a quick visit to IMDb and/or the series' official website is all that's really needed. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that I disagree, but part of what led to the consensus against cast member categories was the notion that they would be listified. We have a fairly extensive Category:Lists of actors by television series structure. Otto4711 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete performer by performance, any list could go in the main article. Carlossuarez46 02:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. // FrankB 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:09, 21 October 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. Kbdank71 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shows on Adult Swim to Category:Adult Swim original programs

Nominator's rationale: Rename and restrict - in the vast majority of cases (Family Guy and Futurama notwithstanding) the networks or channels to which a TV show is syndicated is not a defining characteristic of the show. Could lead to programs being categorized in dozens of different categories. The existing list article is sufficient. This should be only for those shows that were originally aired on Adult Swim. Otto4711 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Postdlf 00:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. // FrankB 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Home Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - two-thirds of the articles are improper performer by performance categorization. Category not needed for the remaining three. Otto4711 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. // FrankB 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:El Tigre (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization, cat not warranted for show article and episode subcat. Otto4711 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. // FrankB 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:11, 21 October 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, and a thanks for Homeric nod. Learn something new every day around here, it seems. Kbdank71 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Animated television series in Canada to Category:Canadian animated television series

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to de-clunkify the name and to match sibling Category:American animated television series. Otto4711 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oops! Rename per nom. (Sorry! Yikes!) // FrankB 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC) w/fixup FrankB 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Opps. Change to rename. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Err, rename per nom. No reason given for deletion by FrankB, Doczilla and HI except "per nom", when nom is in fact seeking a rename. Homeric nod x 3, it seems! Aligning the category name with the American equivalent sounds a good idea to me. Bencherlite^Talk 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Double err! (I think I may have put this one in by mistake while batching those others that were just plain repetitive section edits... after eliminating some that took thinking. Brain Fart! Apologies for setting the lemmings in motion!) Arrrgggh! //FrankB 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Di-Gata Defenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous category not warranted for the two interlinked articles. Otto4711 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. // FrankB 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clone High (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - most of the material is improperly categorized performer by performance articles. Absent those, the remaining material, per any number of precedents, is eponymous overcategorization. Otto4711 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:6teen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete absent the character articles and image gallery, the remaining material doesn't warrant an eponymous category. Otto4711 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. // FrankB 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 15:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pro-choice movement and Category:Pro-life movement to Category:Abortion debate

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge these two new subcategories of Category:Abortion debate, as they are unnecessary and divisive. The existing subcategories of Category:Abortion debate are clear: we can easily determine which people are pro-choice or pro-life activists, and which organizations are pro-choice or pro-life. Not so with the new-subcategories; they force semi-arbitrary decisions as to which aspects of the abortion debate should be considered part of the pro-choice movement or the pro-life movement.

The "pro-choice movement" and "pro-life movement" are opposing sides of the same discussion. Example: Clinic escorts only exist because of sidewalk counseling, yet the former is categorized under Category:Pro-choice movement, the latter under Category:Pro-life movement. This overcategorization makes it difficult for readers to get a clear picture of the abortion debate (which is the parent category). There's no reason to have three places where an aspect of the abortion debate might be tucked away. There are fewer than 40 articles in question. There is no good way to determine which articles "belong" to which movement. One category to rule them all is sensible. Photouploaded 17:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are some topics, such as clinic escort or Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), which clearly fall to one side of the abortion debate. I have yet to hear of pro-life clinic escort, or a pro-choice GAP display, and, failing the provision of a source confirming the existence of either, I do not believe that it is appropriate to base a system of categorization around such unsourced speculation. Merging Category:Pro-life movement and Category:Pro-choice movement into Category:Abortion debate would have precisely the opposite effect which Photouploaded suggests: it would blur the line between two related but discrete topics in such a manner that readers seeking articles on just one topic — the pro-choice movement or the pro-life movement — would have difficulty in picking them out from the undifferentiated jumble. There is Category:Anti-war and Category:Intelligent design movement, so, clearly, categories covering one side of an ideological debate are not without precedent and are not by definition "overcategorization." -Severa (!!!) 18:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This straw man argument about a hypothetical "pro-life clinic escort" is incredibly obtuse. My argument is that Category:Pro-life movement and Category:Pro-choice movement should not exist at all, because they are too vague. That an item does not fit in one category is not evidence that it should default into the opposite category. Photouploaded 18:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I do not see the basis for your argument. How are two categories which cover clearly-defined, independent social movements more "vague" than a one-size-fits-all category which would conflate together things which are only relevant to one of those two movements? -Severa (!!!) 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Either movement may be clearly defined, but the methods by which we might sort various articles as supposedly "belonging" to either movement are flimsy and subjective. Photouploaded 00:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I want to point out that Severa was the creator of these two new categories. Photouploaded 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Photouploaded, why is this relevant? Doesn't the creator of these categories have a right to comment and voice an opinion on their proposed deletion? If not, then I don't think the nominator should be making comments either. It doesn't make much sense. The validity of User:Severa's argument is not diminished by the fact that he/she created the categories. — DIEGO ^talk 19:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't like "X debate" for the same reason that I don't like "X movement": too vague and not enough subcategories to permit "X movement" articles to be properly filed elsewhere in other category trees. Many "X movement" categories that I've seen have been filled with a wide variety of articles: legal cases, biographical articles, topics, and so on; see, e.g., Category:Animal rights movement; Category:Euroscepticism. These kinds of X movement categories are, I think, unusably vague, and that appears to be what's proposed here. If the proposed category were broken down into obvious subcategories, then it might be okay, and I think "pro-life organizations" and "pro-choice organizations" (using that terminology solely for making this point) are easy decisions to make in most cases of organizations involved in this "debate". Similarly one can identify "X activists", "X literature", and so on. But a proposal to just upmerge everything to "X debate" makes the category useless. --lquilter 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just want to point out that the two new categories, Category:Pro-choice movement and Category:Pro-life movement were created as subcategories to the existing category of Category:Abortion debate. My proposal merely restores things to the way they were three days ago. I agree that the category called Abortion debate has its own set of flaws, but I feel that the two new subcategories serve to make matters worse, not better. We can do the upmerge and then see about restructuring the contents of Category:Abortion debate. Do you agree? (Any suggestions?) Photouploaded 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because pro-choice is ambiguous (choice is a grand and expansive subject not limited to abortion) and pro-life is contradictory (some parts of the movement support the death penalty) 132.205.99.122 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both per nom— if there are only fourty articles or so, why are we wasting time. There is only need for one article by that basis. One can't get a stub sorting category for 40 articles, so the cat is hardly overloaded. // FrankB 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" may indeed be ambiguous and contradictory (e.g., "pro-life" people who are clearly anit-life where capital punishment is concerned), but these are the labels that the groups have chosen for themselves, and since they are both subcategories within "abortion debate", their meaning is obvious in this context. Any issue that takes sides in the debate is inherently part of the "abortion debate", and the two subcategories make things more specific. Off the top of my head, I can't think of many issues in the abortion debate that do not clearly represent one side or the other. Anything that is "pro-life" or "pro-choice" is obviously part of the larger debate, and keeping the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" elements distinct within their own categories is helpful and will ultimately lead to less confusion. — DIEGO ^talk 16:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, they are misnamed, one should be Category:Abortion-access movement and the other Category:Anti-abortion movement (and perhaps a third - Category:Population control through forced abortions movement ) But merging it together will prevent discussion on whether someone is pro or pro or anti or anti. (ie. Mitt Romney). 132.205.99.122 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Abortion access movement" or some variation thereof has been suggested in at least 3 previous CfDs (Category:Pro-Life in December 2004, Category:Abortion rights opposition in June 2006, and Pro-life activists by nationality in November 2006). The precedent throughout abortion-related articles is to use the self-identifying terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" per WP:MoS#Identity. "Abortion access movement" is unintutive and contrived-sounding as was pointed out in both the June and November 2006 CfDs. -Severa (!!!) 21:08, 23 October 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. Kbdank71 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animations made by Antefilms Production (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Either rename to something more standardized (although I'm not finding a standard for animated series by production company) or delete as WP:OC (non-defining and/or small). Otto4711 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest renaming to Category:Antefilms Production animations, by analogy with subcategories of Category:Animated films (e.g. Category:DreamWorks Animation films, Category:Sony Pictures Animation films). Bencherlite^Talk 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aaagh! It's the Mr. Hell Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for show article and episode list. Otto4711 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:14, 21 October 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. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals of Farthing Wood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following category cleanup, the remaining material doesn't warrant eponymous category. Everything is categorized and interlinked. Otto4711 17:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 02:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartoons in syndication on Comedy Central (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - categorizing TV shows on the basis of the networks to which they're syndicated is overcategorization. Shows in wide syndication around the world could end up in dozens or hundreds of categories. Shows are not defined by the networks or stations to which they are syndicated. Otto4711 16:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 05:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:13, 21 October 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. Kbdank71 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Easington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:People from Easington, County Durham, to match Easington, County Durham, and avoid confusion with the other places named Easington. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- only one member article. Rename per nom if kept. // FrankB 02:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Easington, County Durham is of sufficient size and history to suggest that this has potential for growth - there are various names included in the article that could be considered for addition to this category. Bencherlite^Talk 01:26, 24 October 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. Kbdank71 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:First-Person Strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:First-person strategy video games, or Merge into Category:Real-time strategy video games. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. This is a niche, although important sub-genre and I'm surprised there is no article for it. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 17:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Aqwis 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional parents of twins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_5#Category:Fictional_parents
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_20#Category:Fictional_parents
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_28#Category:Fictional_parents

Delete, see previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LeSnail 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per abundant precedent. Doczilla 00:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per precedent on Category:Parents of twins. If the real counterpart is unsuitable, there obviously isn't much to say for a fictional category. Postdlf 00:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (who has time to put all this up, and who will maintain it? Or who would care?) // FrankB 02:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arsenal F.C. directors and chairmen to Category:Arsenal F.C. chairmen and investors

Nominator's rationale: Rename, This category should be renamed in line with the parent category Category:English football chairmen and investors, as the current second largest shareholder, Alisher Usmanov and the current fourth (?) largest shareholder E. Stanley Kroenke are not directors, due to the current civil war at Arsenal. Piccadilly 11:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose since not all the people in the current category are or were necessarily investors in the club. A separate category could be included for investors to cater for Kroenke and Usmanov as well as any others. Qwghlm 17:17, 18 October 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. Kbdank71 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

• Category:1892 in gaelic football to Category:1892 in Gaelic Games
• Category:1983 in gaelic football to Category:1983 in Gaelic Games
• Category:1995 in gaelic football to Category:1995 in Gaelic Games
• Category:2007 in gaelic football to Category:2007 in Gaelic Games
• Category:2007 in hurling to Category:2007 in hurling

Nominator's rationale: Merge, these categories are redundant now that a new series of Gaelic Games by year categories have been created (see Category:Gaelic Games by year). I have nominated them for merger rather than deletion in case anyone repopulates them before deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy-D, they're all empty cats. // FrankB 02:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there are no pages in those categories. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 18:18, 21 October 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. In conducting my due diligence, I've determined that these are categories for two distinct entities. One is for the district, one is for the town. Merging these two would be like merging Category:New York City into Category:New York . Kbdank71 13:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Biberach, Baden-Württemberg to Category:Biberach district

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, both categories are used for places in the district of Biberach, the latter category name is in line with similar categories, see Category:Tübingen region. Markussep ^Talk 07:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agathoclea 21:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is the Category:Biberach district has the capital Biberach, Baden-Württemberg, which is represented by the German project in their fonts in our English pages as Biberach an der Riß the page target of redirect Biberach, Baden-Württemberg, which correctly matches Category:Biberach, Baden-Württemberg (albeit via redirect), as it should as the main article for the cat. The other category would be the parent district, of which the town is indeed the capital. However, things common to that town do not necessarily belong in the district category and it will certainly hold, vice versa. We've got millenia of history in Europe, so I say stand pat. // FrankB 03:08, 21 October 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 on oct 24. Kbdank71 13:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hard-pressed to find any clear and obvious distinction between the words Society and Culture. There are scores -- maybe hundreds -- of articles and categories found under each word (cf American culture and American society.) Propose either A -- Making Society the super-category in every instance, and Culture the subcategory, or B -- Merging every instance of Society and Culture that are presently in separate categories. Talk amongst yourselves. --TheEditrix2 17:41, 18 October 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 reverse merge. Kbdank71 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural move from speedy. No !vote. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Water parks in the United States to Category:Waterparks in the United States

I am confused by this move. First, this has already been moved into "ready for deletion" when the original category hasn't been fully emptied. This causes the cfr-speedy template to direct the user to a nonexistent discussion. Second, these things are called a "water park", not a "waterpark". It's a dictionary-listed phrase with the appropriate definition. It shouldn't be moved. If anything, it should be renamed in the other direction. Eli lilly 01:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Reverse Merge. This was already moved as a speedy. The majority of articles from Google (1,040,000 v 719,000) show water park to be the most common spelling. As a part of this adjustment, the main article should also be moved. Vegaswikian 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also tagged:

    Category:Waterparks to Category:Water parks

    Category:Waterparks in the United States to Category:Water parks in the United States

    so they can also be discussed here. Vegaswikian 06:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that Websters refers to 'water parks' but their association calls them 'waterparks'. Both can't be right, I suspect that Websters will be updated to follow current usage. Also if we are going to be consistant note WP uses the one word form for List of waterparks, World Waterpark and Waterpark. Ephebi 10:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they would also need to be changed except for World Waterpark which is a proper name. I guess this comes down to common usage and dictionary usage vs. the association's usage. If we go with waterparks, then there is at least one other category that will need to be renamed based on government usage, association usage and common usage in affected locations. Also, waterparks fails my spell checkers. Vegaswikian 16:54, 18 October 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.