< October 25	October 27 >

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

The result of the debate was That sounds like the start to a very bad joke: What do longshoremen and ICBMs have in common? Oh, and merge this to Category:Commercial item transport and distribution, on the basis that it already exists.. Kbdank71 15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mechanical and product handling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Another mishmosh category, only a small population, but were it populated it could conceivably bring together any number of unrelated things such as forklifts, pulleys, longshoremen, aircraft, scales, bridges, ICBMs, etc. Carlossuarez46 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to :Category:Mechanical product handling all current members are conveyor belts, which seems tight enough, & the rename should rule out most of the other types listed in the nomination. I assume there are other articles out there. Johnbod 00:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Category:Commercial item transport and distribution where similar articles already exist--unless two categories are needed: one for machines that work inside a businss site and one for machines that work between business sites, available on a paid basis Hmains 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge into Category:Bulk material handling This is a very specialised industry, and I can't imagine anyone in the know would confuse it with forklifts, pulleys, bridges, etc. All items in M&PH cat are also types of bulk handling eqpt., as its known in the industry. The generic article for Conveyor belt is already in that cat. Would make sense to keep them together. Ephebi 18:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is the way, but apparently a Lineshaft roller conveyor is only really suitable for items up to 20kg in weight, which is hardly "bulk". Johnbod 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bulk" depends how many you have ... if you've only got one, you won't need to install a conveyor 8-) Ephebi 08:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk in this context means stuff you pour & stack loose, not packages or manufactured objects. Raw material as opposed to manufactured product. As the article Bulk material handling begins: "Bulk Material Handling is an engineering field that is centred around the design of equipment used for the transportation of materials such as ores and cereals in loose bulk form. It can also relate to the handling of mixed wastes." Johnbod 20:01, 29 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 14:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Methods, techniques and tactics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't know what to make of this one; basically any category with the word "methods" "techniques" or "tactics" in its title covering any number of wholly unrelated disciplines. It has no parent category probably because it is such a random amalgam of things it really doesn't fit anywhere, and probably shouldn't exist. Carlossuarez46 23:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - like the other "-ology" (was it?) one not long ago. Johnbod 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This impossibly broad category could cover everything from the Kama Sutra to shock and awe, taking in baking, crop rotation, keyhole surgery, and the WEST system. Not to mention triangulation (politics), spin bowling, lamination, and diversionary tactics. It's hard to see any aspects of human endeavour which wouldn't fit here, so I can't see what it's for, even as a top-level categoey.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the category is for what???Balloonman 04:17, 30 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 15:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of Italian Antimafia Commission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize parliamentarians on the basis of which committees, commissions, etc. the sit on. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after adding list to article as it dosn't have one. I note the members of the Watergate Committee are categorised in Category:Watergate figures, & suspect there are similar categories out there. Johnbod 00:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I'd want a Category:Mafia figures in which to include these folks. Carlossuarez46 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Who is the "we" who don't categorize parliamentarians? Is their any rule that prohibits this? Can you name others who would be included in the "we"? I think it is relevant for people who want to know more - and I don't think the "we" argument is very convincing, you probably mean "I". - Mafia Expert 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We=Wikipedia; nearly every parliamentarian is a member of numerous committees, subcommittees, commissions, subcommissions, etc. These change over time. It is not constructive to categorize politicians in this way, so it is not done. Precedent. The list can certainly be included in the article Antimafia Commission, but not each member's bio needs to be clogged with this transient information. Carlossuarez46 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete per nom and per Johnbod, and especially per Carlossuarez46. This is the path to horrendous category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 31 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 14:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical Group Management Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous cat for its only categorant, not needed as that article has sufficient categorization and there's no real potential for expansion anyway. Carlossuarez46 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 29 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 14:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modernist Drama, Theatre and Performance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only entry is a building that (presumably) once hosted something fitting the category; undefined and not defining - we don't categorize buildings by this level of specifity with regard to the genre of drama is performed therein. Carlossuarez46 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod 00:18, 27 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 14:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mr.Basketball TSSAA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete non-defining award given by a state athletic ass'n, apparently awarded in multiple classes, etc. None of these guys is known for having won this award. Carlossuarez46 23:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 13:08, 31 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 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Deviancy Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorizes people who attended/participated at this conference; this conference isn't so overwhelmingly important as to define its participants any more so that a tv show defines its actors, a version of performer by performance in the world of academia. Carlossuarez46 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:National Deviancy Symposium to match main article. I thought I would vote delete, but the article shows this was in fact a group that lasted fifteen or so nine years, holding several conferences, publishing books etc. The article list has several bluelinked members not yet categorised, so it could expand. It would appear to be defining for all or most members. Johnbod 23:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to National Deviancy Symposium This group as stated above lasted a substantial amount of time, but also produced (or at least heavily contributed several important tendencies in criminology in the uk and internationally, including most prominently left realism which has made a significant impact on criminology. Votemoose 14:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A list of members exists at National Deviancy Symposium. A review of the articles doesn't indicate to me that membership in this group is strongly defining of its members and many of the people categorized either don't have the symposium mentioned in their articles or only presented papers at one or another of the meetings. Otto4711 19:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this would be an unfortunate precedent. Thee are hundreds or thousands of such groups that will eventually have articles in WP. I think this is overcategorization, and is the sort of thing for which there have search engines. for this particular group, it's excessive weight, possibly on a political as well as academic basis. DGG (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG. I'm sure that Johnbod is right that the group was very significant, but it's still a performer by performance category. Many academics and others with careers in public policy are active in several such groups, and I think that to avoid proliferation of this sort of category we need to set the bar quite high. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 29 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 15:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nea Salamis players to Category:Nea Salamis FC players

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Name of club and our article is Nea Salamis FC. Carlossuarez46 23:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 23:31, 26 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 15:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nea Salamis to Category:Nea Salamis FC

Nominator's rationale: Rename, This category relates to the football club not the town, the club's article is at Nea Salamis FC. Carlossuarez46 23:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod 23:32, 26 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 merge into songs by and artists by categories (and then delete). Kbdank71 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nana Mizuki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete unneeded eponymous category for voice actress used as a performer by performance cat. Carlossuarez46 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Recordings by or something Apart from her own article, all these are albums or singles not otherwise categorised in the usual way. She has released 16 singles, 7 albums and 8 DVDs under her own name, so "voice actress" seems a rather limited description. The category should be renamed accordingly, removing the main article to the top of the page. Johnbod 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect all the recordings articles to a "discography" article pending better sourcing that they are notable and delete this category. In the alternative, split into the appropriate songs by and albums by categories, locate them in the correct category trees and delete this category. So, um, in short, Delete. Yeah. Otto4711 23:10, 28 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 merge per Cgingold. Kbdank71 15:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Western History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We have no article New Western History, so its meaning is open to conjecture, POV, and subjectivity. Once we know what it is, it's likely to be a people by opinion category but until then it's hardly defining if we don't know what it means and that it means the same thing to everyone. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google makes it clear that there is such a beast - the West in question being the American one, and "new" being an emphasis on environmental & other issues. No doubt we will have an article in due course, & I would be inclined to give this category some time, although it is easily recreated. Johnbod 23:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. At this time I suspect this is better handled as a list within an article, but I'm not apprised enough of the field to really know. This is something that should first be floated at Category talk:Theories of history and Category talk:Historiography before we kill it prematurely, I suspect. Ephebi 18:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge contents to Category:Historians of the American West. First I want to note that this category was created without any parent cats, which is often the case with problematic categories. As Johnbod rightly points out, "New Western History" is indeed a real field of study -- in fact, it's a sub-field of the History of the American West. No doubt we will eventually have articles on various aspects of "New Western History", at which time it would make sense to re-create this category -- as a sub-cat of Category:History of the American West. However, all of the articles currently in the category are about historians, which might suggest that the category should be renamed to something like Category:New Western Historians. But I don't think that would be a good move, for the simple reason that it's more a term of art than a clearly defined designation. To my knowledge there is no "Society of New Western Historians", so how would we decide who rightly belongs in the category? To illustrate my point, please take a look at Category:Historians of the American West, which I just created (and added the first 10 people that came to mind). Most of these historians are definitely of the "old school" of Western history, but William Loren Katz, for example, is a good candidate for Category:New Western Historians, judging by his approach to the subject. Would he belong in that category? Good question, but no real answer as far as I can see. In short, I would rather just move all 5 of the "New Western Historians" into Category:Historians of the American West (and perhaps create a navigation template for New Western Historians, if that seems desirable). Cgingold 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds good to me. Merge per Cgingold, removing now duplicated cats in most cases. (Hisory of the Am west, Historians of the US etc) Johnbod 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, merge to Historians of the American West. Eventually there will be an article on New Western History, which isn't so new anymore. That article will mention the prominent historians in the field, i.e. the people now in this category, which means there's no need for the category because the related articles should be linked in the article itself. —Kevin Myers 20:41, 29 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 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PATH to Category:PATH (Toronto)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match the main article at PATH (Toronto). Carlossuarez46 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and salt. There is a much better know PATH at Category:Port Authority Trans-Hudson. Vegaswikian 02:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and salt per Vegaswikian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 29 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 14:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Articles "associated with" Lojinx - it seems more a collection of performer by employer/locale/performance and things associated with other things is an invitation to have an indiscriminate category. Carlossuarez46 22:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, not needed. Johnbod 14:19, 1 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. Kbdank71 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Monster Allergy episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not needed, perhaps the text can be merged with the title article, but there appear to be no articles here except that one which strictly doesn't belong - we shouldn't have an empty category. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge text to article and delete category - this is an article in category space. Otto4711 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Otto. Johnbod 14:20, 1 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. Kbdank71 14:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lighting magazines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, not needed for 2 entries, possible merge into Category:Design magazines. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These are both about stage lighting, so the proposed merge is inappropriate; Category:Theatre magazines would be better. We also have Professional Lighting Design, a magazine about architectural lighting. A Google search shows there are several other titles covering both specialisms, not to mention domestic lighting. Not sure what to say, except that Category:Magazines by interest seems completely redundant, with only about 10% of the right sub-cats. Johnbod 00:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Theatre magazines per me above. Johnbod 14:22, 1 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. Kbdank71 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lehmann family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Family category not needed for this family, numerous precedents for deleting cats for families with smaller numbers. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and precedents. Otto4711 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Father & three children, plus Henri Lehmann whose connection is not mentioned in any of the articles. Johnbod 23:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator's comment - well, it's not going to get any bigger, and if there's aprecedent... btw, Henri Lehmann is mentioned in Beatrix Lehmann. Totnesmartin 19:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have none of them left any descendants? DGG (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No notable ones, apparently. They're letting the family name down! :) Totnesmartin 14:37, 29 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, ouch indeed. Kbdank71 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Complications of vasectomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't think we have "complications of" any other medical procedure; we don't even have a category Category:Vasectomy, I don't think that we need every medical procedure having it's own category, and the complications of being another one. I would be fairly sure that death would then have 1000s of more categories, because if you read the fine print, I'm sure some lawyer put in the consent to vasectomy form that death may result from the procedure in rare cases. Best to nip this in the bud (pun intended :-)) Carlossuarez46 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivial intersection, ouch! Ephebi 19:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Snip this one now, per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is there any debate???Balloonman 06:39, 29 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 speedy delete. Non-admin closure, cat already deleted. --Darkwind (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BLP Check (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category was used for a while as a repository of disputed biographies, but the template which placed items into this category has been redirected to a template placing items in Category:Disputed biographies of living persons instead. This empty category is no longer needed. --Darkwind (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#C1 and / or WP:CSD#C3. Bencherlite^Talk 10:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since it's a BLP-related category, I figured I'd go the long route to avoid any contention. Since it's been 3 days and nobody has opposed, I'll tag it for speedy. --Darkwind (talk) 19:12, 29 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. Kbdank71 14:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in North Lincolnshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Villages in Lincolnshire, or Category:Villages in Yorkshire, or Keep. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. North Lincolnshire is the local unitary authority, and provides a clear and unbambiguous category. This area was never in Yorkshire, and was removed from Lincolnshire in 1974 when it was merged into Humberside before being liberated in 1996. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Before 1996, this would have been "villages in south Humberside". Peterkingiron 00:25, 29 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 merge to to Category:Punk rock groups. Kbdank71 14:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Later punk groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Subjective classification - how exactly is this defined? What is later, or indeed earlier for that matter? Lugnuts 10:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is Category:Early punk groups which defines as "formed in the 1970s or earlier". Certainly there's informal use of these terms in conversation, but I'm not sure what the best way to split up the otherwise very large Category:Punk rock groups would be. Maybe by decade of formation? --lquilter 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Punk rock groups. We categorize groups by genre and by year of establishment, but not the intersection of the two. I'm not sure Category:Early punk groups is a great idea either, but that term is thrown around a lot and seems to be somthing of a subgenre, so I'm not going to advocate its deletion right now. In any case, the existance of an "early" subcategory in Category:Punk rock groups does not mean that we need to have one or many subcats for the complement of punk bands; there's nothing wrong with having the majority of them categorized in the catch-all parent. ×Meegs 06:36, 27 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. The nomination notwithstanding, the crux of the matter comes from the statement "It may have made sense to perhaps create Category:Torah Kohanim, but to mix and match show-biz types with Bible figures is very unfunny. No latter-day Cohen can have a proven pedigree... so that brings us right into the heart of WP:NOR and WP:V problems." The category itself states that the members are descendants of Aaron. I didn't see anything in Rodney Dangerfield that even mentioned Aaron. The category also stated that the members have a certain surname, and last I checked, we don't categorize people by surname. Is this a distinct subset of people? Perhaps, but we don't categorize based upon every distinct attribute, especially when it violates WP:NOR and WP:V. And also, Johnbod pointed out that there is a much more inclusive list of Cohens at Cohen (surname) . Kbdank71 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Violation of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. To have such a category would mean that next there would have to be Category:Levi'im (descendants of Levi); Category:Yisraelim (descendants of Israelites); Category:Yehudim (descendants of Judah) and these things are impossible to determine with certainty, the lists could be filled with millions of people from over the millenia. There are enough sensible sub-categories in Category:Jews. IZAK 09:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete I believe IZAK has covered the issue thoroughly, so I will simply point out that the creator of this category also neglected to provide a parent category, which probably indicates that it was created on the spur of the moment, without real understanding of the purpose and function of categories (much less the implications of starting down this road). Cgingold 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can't see any relevance to the matters at hand in the policies IZAK strews around his nomination. An "intersection" must by definition combine two elements - this category does not. Who is supposed to have an opinion about what? Why would there "have to be" the other categories? No reason at all, nor, I suspect, anyone who would fill them. There may be reasons to delete this category, but none have yet been produced. Johnbod 00:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Johnbod: Using a little Judaic background, one should understand that "intersection" would be one relating to one or all of Category:Jews; Category:Judaism and others like them, because a Kohen is a certain type of Jew according to family heritage but it can never be absolutely determined factually, so this kind of category would never be precise, since being a "Cohen" is only a "tradition" that certain Jewish families may or may not uphold about themselves. The ones who would "have opinions" are those who know about this as a subject in Judaism and the Torah. And as to why there would have to be other categories is that in Judaism, Jewish males and their offspring for the last 2500 years have been classed as one of three "classes": Cohanim, Levi'im and Yisraelim for purposes of the order of who may, and is, called up during Torah reading on Shabbat, Jewish holidays and on the Monday and Thursday weekly Torah readings in all synagogues: First the Cohen is called up to the Torah, then the Levi and then the Yisrael. As for Yehudim, it is what Jews are called as a comprehensive whole, and may even lead to problems of defining Who is a Jew? So once you start with a category for a "iffy" sub-group, there will need to follow the other nebulous sub-groups of Category:Levi'im (descendants of Levi); Category:Yisraelim (descendants of Israelites); and then perhpas even Category:Yehudim (descendants of Judah) all of which would then result in an uncalled for over-categorization by too many intersections of Jewish religious classifications. Hope this explanation has helped clarify the nomination somewhat. IZAK 06:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has clarified that (not for the first time) you are misunderstanding the policies you quote! Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue is about categories defined by an opinion held by the members of the category, as in Category:People opposed to Foo. It is not about opinions held by other people about the members of the category. The views of the members on whether they are actually descended from Aaron are irrelevant to their membership of it. Nor is the category an intersection at all - it is of course a sub-group of Jews but that is a wholly different thing. The question of whether Kohanim are actually descended from Aaron is not a key one either; they are believed to be so by many, and form a recognised group, whatever significance is attached to that. Johnbod 13:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Johnbod, the "opinions" involved here come from multiple directions, from the Torah, from the people involved, and from outsiders, so I don't know what your point is exactly. Being a Kohen is a notion connected to Judaism and is derived from the Torah. So while having a Category:Torah Kohanim would be great, the present category as it stands is just too far-fetched to be credible -- so much so, that even its creator User:CatonB has asked for it to be deleted. (See below.) IZAK 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, for the third time, that the policy you refer to in the nomination is misapplied, because this is not a category that collects people holding the same opinion about anything. Johnbod 14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's a real grouping of people, with a defined membership, and a significant cultural role.DGG (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DGG: If you will take a good look at who the creator of this "grouping" put into the category, you will see that he has already mixed things up and not been accurate by combining modern day celebrities with Biblical figures. Can anyone truly say that "Rodney Dangerfield" and "Sacha Baron Cohen" belong in the same "Category" as the Biblical Aaron, Eleazar and Phinehas who lived three thousand years before them? It may have made sense to perhaps create Category:Torah Kohanim, but to mix and match show-biz types with Bible figures is very unfunny. No latter-day Cohen can have a proven pedigree (yichus in Yiddish), since no-one can be absolutely certain that they are a Cohen following the destruction of the Second Temple) so thatbrings us right into the heart of WP:NOR and WP:V problems. It's one thing to have categories for Biblical figures, it's quite another to mix them with latter day unknown factors. IZAK 06:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - my aplogies for the inconvinience I caused - wasn't my intention - therefore please delete. Thanks to all those who did oppose, but I think Izak has a point. I did intend of creating a Levi category with all those with the surname Levi, Segal, etc but after this I won't. But I do think about it is a good idea to have a biblical cohanim category based on the 12 Tribes of Israel - that might be an idea. Again my apologies CatonB 21:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not concerned with the Orthodox ritual status, but with what people consider themselves to be or are considered to be--as with all subgroup categories in WP having any religious significance. WP is not a Beth din. (I note there is also a biological distinction, but apparently it only approximately corresponds.)DGG (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No-one claims that Wikipedia is a "Beth din" but Wikipedia also dislikes things like WP:LISTCRUFT and this category is just like that too. IZAK 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE to closing Admin: User CatonB (talk · contribs) has now voted to delete this category which he created [1] which should mean that he withdraws it. IZAK 02:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per DGG. The nomination is simply mistaken in asserting that this is an intersection. I have a few concerns about whether it is a defining characteristic, and whether it may get too big, but there is something odd about this nomination which makes me wary of deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IZAK's comments. Combining contemporary people with certain surnames and Biblical people in a single category doesn't make any sense. Also, labeling people* with the surnames Cohen etc. as Cohanim is WP:OR. (*presumably only Jewish men, but the category's description doesn't say that) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a distinct group of Jews. Y-chromosomal Aaron does suggest they are all descended from a common ancestor. This is a real distinction, and quite significant enough to warrant the appearance of a category. This is probably unique; I would oppose any similar category for other surnames. Peterkingiron 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To use this research (very intriguing, to be sure) as the basis for this category would be a clear case of original research. At the very most, the only Wiki category that could possibly be based on this research would be Category:Y-chromosomal Aaron, restricted to individuals who have been confirmed through genetic testing to bear the marker in question -- a category which I doubt anybody would seriously suggest we should have. Cgingold 04:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While I agree that the guidelines IZAK cited in his initial rationale were off the mark, the fact remains that this category simply does not make good sense. I don't often see eye-to-eye with IZAK, but in this case we are in agreement. This comment, in particular, zeroes in on the problem:

"It may have made sense to perhaps create Category:Torah Kohanim, but to mix and match show-biz types with Bible figures is very unfunny. No latter-day Cohen can have a proven pedigree... so that brings us right into the heart of WP:NOR and WP:V problems."

I don't think there's anything left to say. Seriously, would anybody really support a Category:Cohen, for all individuals who happen to have that surname?? Cgingold 04:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the category does not make any genetic or genealogical claims, only that there is a distinct group of people, recognised by other Jews, which even IZAK admits. It is also POV to reject the genetic link between "show-biz types with Bible figures", which as I'm sure you know, is taken very seriously by many Jews, and has turned out not to be without some modern scientific support from DNA evidence. It is clear to me from Kohen that whilst other groups of Jews are also recognised, the status of Kohanim is sufficiently distinctive to justify a category for them but not others. I am still waiting for proper arguments to delete this category. A useful starting-point might be that there are far fuller lists at Cohen (surname) and other articles covering the different spellings & versions of the name. Johnbod 12:35, 1 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. Kbdank71 14:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Kings to Category:Monarchs

Suggest merging Category:Queens to Category:Monarchs

Nominator's rationale: Merge,

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Category:Emperors and empresses.

Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality and it should be noted that not all monarchies have been divided by sex; eg Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom making a highly inconsistent categorisation. Tim! 08:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the guideline specifically states that " a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." While it is true that not every queen is a "female head of government," enough of them are that a gendered category is a reasonable exception to the guideline. Otto4711 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Otto, and because the jobs are usually different; if "Queens regnant" like Victoria and Elizabeth 2 were separated out (as they are in the UK category linked above), I might support merging them to Monarchs, but spouses with (usually) far less power should be kept separate. Should we merge US Presidents and First Ladies? Johnbod 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First lady is not a US head of state, whereas there is no difference in status between say Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and George VI of the United Kingdom. Tim! 17:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly! Both are reigning monarchs (meaning rule by one). However the vast majority of Queens in these categories are merely the spouses of heads of state, like Marguerite de Valois. I doubt if it is correct to call a Queen consort a monarch at all in fact. Nor is Prince Phillip, a male consort, a "head of state". The British categories do fully sort by the actual role, regardless of gender, but seem to be the only ones that do. I am actually not sure this is a good idea. In many circumstances, you would need to know if a Queen was rgnant or consort to find her first time, which seems unhelpful. Johnbod 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Male and female consorts should be merged to a neutral category rather than be in separate categories per the guideline. Tim! 20:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not what you are proposing in this nomination at all! Johnbod 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but it also needs to be done so that the appropriate categories conform to the guideline. It is not possible to fix all categorisation flaws in a single nomination. Tim! 21:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I'd like to see this, but I also concede Johnbod's argument that they are somewhat different. I think the Emperor debate might want to wait to be closed till this is done.--Mike Selinker 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Contrary to explicit policy. Colonel Warden 22:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The guideline reads "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered." so you're wrong. Tim! 07:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a guideline and common sense is advised not a right/wrong attitude. From the details given, it is apparent that we should have all the categories: Kings, Queens and Monarchs as they are all encyclopaedic. Colonel Warden 08:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether something is encyclopaedic or not is not relevant to whether it makes a good category, only whether it aids or hinders navigation. Dividing monarchs by gender hinders navigation. Tim! 08:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, no it doesn't. Merging it, however, would hinder navigation. For example, suppose I'm researching gender issues --- or more specific female leaders, then I would have to figure out which names are male and which are female. Is Chris male or female? How about a Chinese/Japanese/African name? If I am not concerned with the gender, then I can go to the parent category. Deleting a useful subcategory, to use your words, hinders navigation. Plus, if this goes through, then we will have a snowball of other changes that have to be made. For almost every category there exists a specialized category of the female version. Category:Women by occupation has 53 subpages---most of those subpages are further broken down. For example Category:Sportswomen has two sub-subpages. One of which is Category:Sportswomen by sport. That page has 13 subpages, one of which is Category:Women's basketball players. That page has 7 subpages, one of which is Category:College women's basketball players. That page has 72 subcategories. Based upon the logic presented here, these pages should be merged with their male counterpart. I wonder what those studying gender issues would think if there were no longer any distinction between these pages?Balloonman 06:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose kings are different than queens; in many monarchies - queens cannot rule their husband's do. Salic law and all that - and even some kings in name don't rule Edward V of England apparently was never crowned and had little if any power - see also petty kingdom and all the ancient kings who were "king of kings" having tutelaries under them. Carlossuarez46 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So under the current arrangements Edward V of England would be under Kings, but did not in fact rule — yet another example of why there is no need to have gendered categories as you cannot tell from the words "king" and "queen" whether in fact the person was the ruler. Tim! 07:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another silly argument - he was head of state whether he ruled or not. Many sub-categories, such as Category:French queen consorts contain no rulers, except as Regents or if they brought in territories in their own right, like Anne of Brittany. But you are proposing to merge them all to Category:Monarchs, where they do not belong. Johnbod 16:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not proposing merging consort categories into monarch categories, that is either a complete misunderstanding on your part or a deliberate straw man. Tim! 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is exactly what this nomination does propose! Category:Queens consort is a sub-category of the nominated category, and would come under the Monarchs category if your nomination succeeds. Johnbod 20:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you take time to examine the category structure you will see that it already is a subcategory of monarchs, because Queens consorts is under Queens, which in turn is a subcategory of monarchs. If Queens is deleted, Queens consort can then be moved to Category:Royal consorts and removed from Monarchs. Tim! 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Queens consort is already under Category:Royal consorts (unsurprisingly), but your proposal would merge all that and all the other types of queen, most unsorted between ruling and consort, into monarchs. You keep adding things you meant to sort out afterwards or didn't mean to keep, which are not mentioned in your nomination. It is a complicated subject, and capable of improvement, but your simplistic nomination will not help. Johnbod 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a really bad attitude John. Again you repeat the straw man that I am proposing merging consorts and monarchs when I am doing no such thing. The simple fact is you have completely misunderstood the current scheme and this nomination. The only thing which is not helping is your petty objections and lack of constructive comment and petty sniping like "Another silly argument", "you must be confused" etc. Tim! 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh really! You attempt to solve complicated problems with a two line nomination proposing just a blodge together at top level, and then petulantly refuse to address any of the arguments that several editors have made against it. Johnbod 20:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per Otto and Johnbod and others, and per WP:CATGRS. It looks like it's snowing heavily here.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with BrownHairedGirl. On the other hand, if the change is made, care needs to be taken that the category includes only ruling heads of state, and that Queens Consort becomes only a subcategory of Royal Consorts (or is merged into that). This may need detailed checking manually, rather than the omnibus application of a bot. Peterkingiron 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest oppose There are distinct differences between Kings and Queens. Historically it would be inaccurate to claim that King Henry VIII of England and his Queen Catherine of Aragon, er his Queen Anne Boleyn, er I mean his Queen Jane Seymour, wait his Queen Anne of Cleves, um Queen Catherine Howard, or his Queen Catherine Parr are in any way shape or form the same.Balloonman 06:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even the same to the point of retaining a head attached to their body :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Otto, Johnbod, and Balloonman. Historically, kings and queens have been distinct entities (aside from the sex issue involved); a desire for gender neutrality should not override historical accuracy. While not all kings were active rulers and some queens were actively rulers, 'king' and 'queen' are more than just designations of rulership. They are titles specifically differentiated on the basis of gender. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:17, 31 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. Kbdank71 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Goddesses to Category:Gods

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Classification by gender per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Vegaswikian 07:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Tim! 08:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the historical differences between god-worship and goddess-worship is sufficient to warrant an exception to the gender guideline. Otto4711 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give something a bit more concrete, as categories cannot convey such "historical differences". The article Goddess worship does not provide any clues. Tim! 17:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Otto, plus this only covers the head categories, which seems illogical. I would not support merging the whole trees either. Johnbod 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Deities and redirect. This path would also mean merging Category:Greek gods and Category:Greek goddesses into Category:Greek deities, etc.--Mike Selinker 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Dear, dear, dear. This is such a terribly wrongheaded idea. I'm quite sure the denizens of Mt. Olympus and other locales are staring in disbelief. To think that modern humans would take it upon themselves to imagine that they could extend -- retroactively -- to the realm of the gods and goddesses the same quasi-equalization of sex roles that has come to pass in advanced, post-industrial human societies. Ah, the hubris of mortals, with their finite knowledge and lifespan! Have they not noticed that the domains of authority among the gods and goddesses are not randomly assigned? Surely, this can only lead to tragedy! Cgingold 18:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too confusing a usage. This Wiki is supposed to be English-language. Colonel Warden 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is another case of gender neutrality going mad. By all means make both subcategories of "Dieties", but keep them both. Peterkingiron 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This nomination is another example of confusing gender neutrality with gender blindness. When the job descriptions and the career opportunities are segregated by gender, it's perverse to refuse gendered categorisation, and female deities work in a separate labour market. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrasing of this analysis would make a labour economist proud. ;) – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG oppose for the same reasons I gave above in the nomination for Category:Kings and queens.Balloonman 06:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the term is diety not god. 132.205.99.122 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons I gave in the nominations for imperial rulers and monarchs (in short, per Cgingold and BHG). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 31 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 14:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional United States Congressmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary layer of categorization. Anyone in this category can reside in the Fictional Representatives or Fictional Senators categories. If retained it should be renamed to Congresspersons or Congresspeople to make it sex-neutral. Otto4711 06:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fictional Americans. Both members are already members of Category:Fictional politicians. Otto is right, this is an unnecessary layer. ×Meegs 08:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; has Nathan Petrelli been elected yet? Maybe so. Johnbod 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Nathan Petrelli was elected at the end of last season but it is unclear whether he was actually sworn in. The broadcast episodes of season 2, which start four months after the events of the season one finale, have been silent as to the circumstances surrounding his not being in Congress. A website affilated with the show has said that he "resigned" but I wouldn't be comfortable citing it as a WP:RS. Otto4711 19:03, 26 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 14:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ungwatsi-language films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No such language. The only references to an "Ungwatsi" online are talking about the film. I'm not sure what language is actually spoken in The Gods Must Be Crazy, but it might have been Ju/'hoan. Alivemajor 00:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of lack of contents/potential for growth. The language in the film is Ju/'hoan, and "Ungwatsi" is a really bad bastardized spelling this language, which can be (correctly) spelled in a number of ways, but not this way. The people that made that film were notoriously bad with their transliterations, and they spelled the actor's name "N!xau" when it should have been "G!xau". Snocrates 06:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with approx 5,000 speakers, we are unlikely to see more films in the language, so not worth renaming. Johnbod 21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There were, I think, 5 movies in the GMBC "franchise", not all of which have articles in WP, but in each of these the language is spoken. It's also spoken in Animals are Beautiful People, though I note that this doesn't appear in the official movie information. Still, I don't think it's worth keeping. Snocrates 08:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was the same language in Animals Are Beautiful People? --Alivemajor 09:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure. Snocrates 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sequels are covered in the main GMBC article, but it says III-V were made in Hong Kong in Cantonese. Let's say delete, but without prejudice to recreation if more articles appear. Johnbod 14:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they contain about as much of the language in question that the first one did, i.e. not much. I question whether movies should be categorized in this way when the language is used in a wholly peripheral way to the movie. The original version is an English-language film, with some scenes where other languages are shown being spoken. Similarly for the later ones, except that they are Cantonese-language films. Why would any of these be categorized as a Ju/'hoan-language film in the first place? Snocrates 22:05, 28 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.