< September 27	September 29 >

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. Kbdank71 15:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick into Category:Miramichi, New Brunswick

Nominator's rationale: The categories are identical in scope, but the latter is a shorter formulation and actually matches the title of the main article: Miramichi, New Brunswick. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. LeSnail 00:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick (The other category (Category:Miramichi, New Brunswick) should be deleted, because it is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the category refers to the region, the city, the river, or all three. This has caused some confusion as to what should be included in the category. The Miramichi as a region is quasi-synonymous with Northumberland County, New Brunswick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesfreck (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This confusion could be fairly easily cleared up by adding a note to the category page: e.g. The main article for this category is Miramichi, New Brunswick. I'm not certain why it would be confused with the river or the valley since the appropriate titles for those would be Category:Miramichi River and Category:Miramichi Valley or Category:Miramichi Valley, New Brunswick (although, in general, we don't create eponymous categories for rivers and valleys). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I don't think confusion will result per Black Falcon's second comment. Snocrates 08:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As someone living in the area, I think you should not underestimate the confusion. When people speak of "Miramichi", they think of the region and the river first - not the city.

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 withdrawn. Kbdank71 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Miramichi, New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Redundant to Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick. Alksub 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. --Alksub 00:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is actually Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick which should be deleted; the nominated category matches the title of the main article: Miramichi, New Brunswick. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:Miramichi, New Brunswick is ambiguous, because it isn't clear whether it refers to "Miramichi" as the region, the river, the city, or all three. The Miramichi region does not differ markedly from the Category:Northumberland County, New Brunswick. A distinctive category is however needed for the city of Miramichi (i.e., the existing category Category:City of Miramichi, New Brunswick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesfreck (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments above. Snocrates 08:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. Vegaswikian 02:52, 3 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 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles keeping update to Category:Articles verified to be up to date

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Grammar correction, and to avoid affirming the correctness of articles. Alksub 23:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The content does not seem to match the introduction as to usage. Also, do we need this? Vegaswikian 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really don't see a need for this category, since a category can't tell us when an article was verified to be up to date. It's probably better if the WikiProject maintains a list of articles and when they were verified. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:WikiProject Update articles, WikiProject convention. Move tags to talk pages only. If a project wants to take on the task of monitoring certain pages and keeping them up to date, I'm all for that. But it keep its tags on talk pages only, just as all the other WikiProjects do. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be fine too, I suppose, although I still think the purpose of this category is better suited to a list. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename.The purpose of the project is to encourage to keep articles updated (many don't once they become "established". A list is not suitable as it would need the permanent attention of members and the project doesn't encourage membership but instead integration of its purpose to the normal editing of any contributor. Seems a good idea to change the name of the category to Category:Articles verified to be up to date for accuracy and grammar ℒibrarian2 14:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with a category is that an article that was "verified" and added to the category six months ago may no longer belong. However, with a category, it's impossible to tell when the article was added (unless you dig through each article's revision history ... very time-consuming for heavily-edited articles). Moreover, the claim that an article has been "verified to be up to date" contradicts Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which states: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here". Finally, a number of articles in the category are wholly or mostly unsourced; they should not be tagged as "verified". – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating already exists; why can't the WikiProject just work off of that? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The name proposed is good anough. It could also be Category:Articles verified to be up to date plus month and year as other categories. The category doesn't speak about verified sources so it has no relevance on that subject. A category that says that the article was not left as created becoming outdated is a good thing. If wanting to avoid "verified", then use "reviewed" as Category:Articles reviewed to be up to date. I don't see anyone taking care of that, sources, citations, cleanup, all is done, but few times I see update tags and a Wikiproject encouraging editors to make "update-watch" part of their daily edits is a good thing Heltzen◩ 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly is a good thing, but since "verified" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, it's best to avoid it in this case. Also, since this is essentially a WikiProject category, can we agree that (if kept) it should appear on talk pages only, as suggested by ProveIt? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, that is why I proposed "reviewed" in my previous comment. About your other comment, why are we talking about "if kept" if this is a rename proposal? and why do you want I agree to something? I just think the WikiProject Update Watch idea is a good one and I have integrated it in my edits that's all I have to do with it. Personally, I have seen other projects using the main page for less positive things and I don't see nothing negative in a template the size of a "see portal" that let people know that update is important, but that is my private and personal opinion and will not debate on it Heltzen◩ 18:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A category nominated for renaming can end up being deleted and vice versa, which is why I mentioned "if kept". At the moment, it seems unlikely that the category will be deleted. The reason I asked your opinion on moving the template to articles' talk pages is so that a consensus could perhaps form as to what to do with the template, which could then be implemented by the closing administrator. I am a little confused by your comment that you "have seen other projects using the main page for less positive things", since WikiProject tags should never be in the mainspace. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. My opinion about it is as I explained above. About "tags should never be in the mainspace" is general knowledge but not always happens, I have seen very unfortunate cases of totally absurd WP tags, but fair to say, very few and not lately . On the other hand, there are some worthy projects using tags in mainspace as i.e. WP:LoCE and I think that it is justified and positive. But as I said, it is my personal opinion with no reason to expect it in others Heltzen◩ 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I think I see what you mean now. Template:Copyedit is a maintenance template, not a WikiProject template per se; for instance, you will note that the template does not link to Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. WP:LoCE is a WikiProject designed around a maintenance template, whereas Template:Update Watch Verified is uniquely a project template. When I said that "WikiProjects tags should never be in the mainspace", I was referring to tags like ((AfricaProject)) and ((WP Australia)). I can respect that it is your personal opinion, but just want to note that the use of the template in articles themselves does not have a basis in precedent or practice and would, in my view, set an undesirable precedent for other WikiProjects. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I created WP:UPDATE and all its categories and templates. I understand all what has been commented. I have been reviewing other projects and diverse templates and policies for having some background in this situation. This is my proposal:

• I agree to rename the category to Category:Articles reviewed to be up to date, if possible with the addition of month and year when the article was included in the category.
• The articles reviewed will be added to the category not by template but by adding the category itself only.
• The template saying "reviewed" (instead of "verified") will go to the talk page.
• At the articles' main page will be used the templates ((Update)) and ((Out of Date))
• Other WP templates will go at the talk page

If all participants in this discussion agree, lets move on to change the category and I will revise the WP:UPDATE guidelines. Thank you all for your input ℒibrarian2 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think monthly categorisation is a good idea that addresses the issue I had raised before; however, monthly categorisation is probably best done through a template. I think the WikiProject serves a valuable purpose (by the way, allow me to commend you on the project page's design – it is the most organised and appealing (in appearance) project page I've encountered), but I still think that the category should appear on the talk page, just as with any other WikiProject. Maintenance templates that categorise articles provide information about the presence of a problem; Category:Articles reviewed to be up to date hints at the absence of a problem. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion about the page's design, it is nice to know that it presents a positive visual image. On the subject of in which page to place the category, in my opinion, Categorisation is not only for maintenance or alerts but also to classify and provide information on the article including how actual it is, i.e. the adjective "living" in some biographies. This category is a tool with two uses, for WP:UPDATE editors can know what was reviewed and when, but also for encouraging contrbutors and authors to keep articles updated. In the talk page this encouragement will loose much of its appeal. I think that if categories exist showing how actual is an article in some cases (as in the example given above), it is fully justified to have this category informing how up to date is the article. I have already reviewed all guidelines at WP:UPDATE. When you are ready we can rename the category. If you still disagree with my point of view as to where to use the category, we can keep further exchange of arguments after the category is renamed (which is the main purpose of the present discussion) ℒibrarian2 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since ProveIt has suggested an alternate name (and one that I slightly prefer to "Articles reviewed to be ..."), I think it's best to let this discussion continue to its natural conclusion. In response to your point about the categorisation of some biographies into Category:Living persons, I just want to note that that's a defining characteristic of the subject; that an article is up-to-date has nothing to do with the subject.

Another reason I disagree with the idea of attaching the category to the article itself is that it gives the impression that the article somehow has a "stamp of approval". However, unlike a featured article review, tagging a category as "reviewed" is an informal process that anyone can do. Such a process is inherently unreliable and the categorisation would, in some cases (especially as the project gathers more participants), mislead readers into thinking that the article is accurate and reliable. I understand your desire to encourage updating, but I think there are better ways of doing that than categorisation. For instance, you could make the template larger in size so that it attracts more attention on talk pages.

Placing Category:Articles reviewed to be up to date on article pages opens the way for categories like Category:Articles with notable subjects, Category:Articles lacking original research, Category:Articles written from a neutral point of view, and the like. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to be reasonable and extended all flexibility. I sincerely believe that you are "looking for dust between grains of sand" or simply stated going to extremes to prove your point. I thought this could be an exercise of mutual understanding sadly it is not. Unfortunately I cooperated to soon it seems and I made more than what I should have done, your imposed delay will now be in detriment of what I worked hard to solve and all changes I made following the comments given here will now be detrimental until you are fully satisfied at your own timing. Well, as I said, I exercised all flexibility and understanding...ℒibrarian2 21:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely puzzled by your comment. I don't see how anything I've stated is in any way extreme or even inaccurate. The category is, for all intents and purposes, a WikiProject category, and standard practice is that these types of categories are placed only on talk pages. The only justification provided thus far as to why WP:UPDATE should be an exception involves getting people to pay more attention to updating. That's certainly important, but you've said nothing about why it has to be done through categorisation. You've also not explained how this is more important than promoting the goals of any other project or how it is different from the three hypothetical categories above.

As for your claim that I've somehow "imposed" a delay, please remember that it is not standard practice to speedily close deletion discussions where everyone does not agree. You seem to be put off by the fact that I disagree with your desired outcome, but I hardly think that's sufficient cause to conclude anything about either my or your flexibility. After all, we are (or were, I suppose) discussing the advantages and disadvantages of various means of proceeding, which by no means requires that we be in complete agreement. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant but firm delete. I really don't want to disrupt the commendable of work of WP:UPDATE, but I can't see any permutation of wording that makes this category appropriate for articles. By all means tag the talk pages as other projects do, but even then a maintenance category should be used solely to indicate either that a task is on the to-do list or that it was checked at a certain date. Even with historical subjects there may be new information or new historical interpretations available, so we can never say with certainty that an article is up-to-date, merely that at a particular date the article was reviewed and the reviewer didn't see any significant holes. I'm sorry that's not the answer that Librarian2 would like, but I really do think it's important that WP:UPDATE's good work is not overshadowed by using a categorisation system which makes unverifiable claims about an article's comleteness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:UPDATE guidelines have been reviewed, no categorisation of articles will be necessary, tags will go to talk pages.

Reviewed articles will have in their talk page ((Update Watch Reviewed|the date goes here)) that will categorise the talk page as "Category:Articles reviewed by WP Update Watch" which is necessary for the functioning and reference of WP:UPDATE. The category under discussion is obsolete, please speedy delete. Thank you all for your input ℒibrarian2 05:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Black Falcon; if it was up-to-date this morning is it still up-to-date this afternoon? And for some articles, it's kind of implicit that we don't expect moment-by-moment updates (such as Pope Leo IV or Hierocles). Carlossuarez46 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not belong on articles and will itself never be up to date. Speedy delete as empty and requested by creator. Vegaswikian 02:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Black Falcon. It's a well-intended idea but it really doesn't work this way. I'd suggest keeping an ordered, time-stamped list with the wikiproject instead. >Radiant< 09:28, 3 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. Kbdank71 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedian autobiographies into Category:Notable Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: The scope of the two categories is identical. Moreover, virtually all of the members of the former are already located in the latter. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge although technically a biography of a Wikipedian may not be an autobiography - it's hard to say why one merits a separate treatment and how much of the content being by the subject makes the biography an autobiography given that anyone can edit anything. Carlossuarez46 23:51, 28 September 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 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Newington College teachers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Newington College teachers, no need for current / former distinction. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Current / former distinction is not only unnecessary but problematic. LeSnail 00:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and LeSnail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. WP doesn't use former/current distinction for faculty at any educational institution. Snocrates 08:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (changing my !vote). Reading the articles in this category, I'm not persuaded that having taught at that particular institution is a defining aspect of the careers of those in this category: many of them taught at several schools, and they seem to be notable for activities other than teaching. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename '"Former" is clearly unneccessary but a Strong Keep on the category. The very fact that teaching isn't always the most important part of their career is relevent to Newingtons history and the teachers - they had to start somewhere. For the sportsmen, teaching was their paid career after amateur sport. For the art teacher let hime be listed in other schools list of teachers. This is exactly what cats are for - to link people and places, concepts, religions, etc etc. Mitchplusone 10:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lets have a teachers cat for Geelong Grammar School. Sir James Darling appointed many interesting people to his staff but they are far better known for their ultimate careers. Mitchplusone 10:47, 3 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 per CSD G6 (housekeeping) as an empty maintenance category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorized from June 2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: added back after deletion since editor said category repopulated. At this time, the category has no entries and therefore, should be deleted. 172.164.186.174 16:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Skeleton racers
• Category:American skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:American skeleton racers
• Category:Australian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Australian skeleton racers
• Category:Austrian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Austrian skeleton racers
• Category:British skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:British skeleton racers
• Category:Canadian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Canadian skeleton racers
• Category:Croatian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Croatian skeleton racers
• Category:Dutch skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Dutch skeleton racers
• Category:English skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:English skeleton racers
• Category:German skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:German skeleton racers
• Category:Iraqi skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Iraqi skeleton racers
• Category:Italian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Italian skeleton racers
• Category:Japanese skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Japanese skeleton racers
• Category:Latvian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Latvian skeleton racers
• Category:New Zealand skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:New Zealand skeleton racers
• Category:Russian skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Russian skeleton racers
• Category:Scottish skeleton athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Scottish skeleton racers

Rename all to match Category:Olympic skeleton racers, and to reduce the Athletes / Sportspeople confusion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Neier 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, equal Support for Foo skeleton sled racers as suggested below. Neier 11:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but prefer "Foo skeleton sled racers" to help the ignorant & puzzled like me. Johnbod 02:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all per nom.--Mike Selinker 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I'm tired of my user page being added to these cats. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all per nom for consistency. Snocrates 08:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to "Foo skeleton sled racers" per Johnbod. Without the word sled, "skeleton racers" suggests to me a bunch of skeletons driving racing cars in a joint venture by Formula One and Ozzy Osbourne. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But having a confusing category name is more likely to get people to read the article and possibly contribute! Andjam 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Mainly for consistency purposes among all skeleton racer categories. Chris 14:19, 2 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 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Phoenix Wright to Category:Ace Attorney

Nominator's rationale: Because the fourth instalment in the series (Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney) isn't named after Phoenix Wright, the series are called Ace Attorney on Wikipedia, not Phoenix Wright. This renaming is for consistency with List of Ace Attorney characters, Template:Ace Attorney series, etc, and because having "Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney" in the category "Phoenix Wright" is a little weird. Melsaran (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move per nom. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:06, 29 September 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 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:George Peabody College alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Peabody College alumni, to match Peabody College. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. LeSnail 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency. Snocrates 08:07, 30 September 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 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Filipino Athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete this is just a mess, all the members belong in other categories, do NOT merge into Category:Olympic athletes of the Philippines. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and start over. Not good. Snocrates 08:08, 30 September 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 14:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Taekwondo Athlete (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Olympic taekwondo practitioners of the Philippines, convention of Category:Olympic taekwondo practitioners by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Can this be speedied? Neier 22:59, 28 September 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Literature antagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Fictional_antagonists
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_22#Category:Literature_villains
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_27#Category:Film_villains
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_9#Category:Mario_antagonists

Delete both, We decided against using such terms as antagonist, protagonist, hero and villain as a basis for categorization. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete excessively broad, generally subjective category per so, so many precedents. Wryspy 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ample precedent. Snocrates 08:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above. "Antagonist" and "villain" are context-specific, not always clear, and can be fluid when one character appears in multiple works of fiction. Postdlf 04:47, 2 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 4. Kbdank71 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Olympic artistic gymnasts
• Category:Olympic rhythmic gymnasts
• Category:Olympic trampoline gymnasts

Per common practice, and more recently, this CFD, we do not subcategorize single Olympic disciplines such as gymnastics. These three cats represent overcategorization within the Olympics tree. No merge within the Olympics categories is necessary, as I have verified that all of the current category members are in both the by-year cats (eg, Category:Gymnasts at the 2004 Summer Olympics) and the by-country cats (eg, Category:Olympic gymnasts of Ukraine). However, it is appropriate to upmerge each of the three to their non-Olympic parent cats (Category:Artistic gymnasts, Category:Rhythmic gymnasts, and Category:Trampolinists).

• Merge to non-Olympic cats, as nominated. Neier 11:17, 28 September 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 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Organizations established in 2000 to Category:2000 establishments

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Bencherlite^Talk 10:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The moving of ChristianMedia.ca to Category:2000 establishments is approved by me. Thanks for reading the page and caring. DavidSpencer.ca 10:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Merging this category per nom, as well as deleting Category:ChristianMedia.ca, is approved by me. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 12:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge because it's a duplication. Snocrates 08:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate (changing my !vote). Category:2000 establishments is potentially huge, and quite rightly has a ((catdiffuse)) tag to encourage editors to place articles in one of the 14 sub-categories. If populated, this would be a logical and useful sub-category of Category:2000 establishments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, empty category. Also, I think "Organizations" may be too broad as a grouping: it would include overlap significantly with the categories for companies, educational institutions, internet properties, political parties, religious organisations, and possibly a few others. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:08, 4 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors who have open-mouthed kissed their real-life siblings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Over categorisation - and certainly smacks of encouraging original research - Peripitus (Talk) 07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as much as I would personally anticipate seeing the development of the category. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agreed. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as performer by performance. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ah, it's categories like this that make it all worthwhile, isn't it?? Definitely a no-go as a category -- but maybe this could be turned into a list, if there's reliable sourcing for enough such incidents to create a list. Of course, the reel fun would be to see the compilation clip of all those scenes! Cgingold 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Cgingold - but you have to admire the rigour of the category definition on the cat page. Johnbod 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even I am in favor of deletion. I mean, where are Angelina and her brother? Tvoz |talk 19:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 22:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although WP is not censored so the ewwww factor shouldn't apply - this is not defining. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify - a good subject for a list, but a non-defining characteristic and as such not a good subject for a category. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. Don't even listify. Wikipedia is not a repository for every bit of trivia in the world. Wryspy 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to future listification. Avoid prior restraint blocking of the list; when list is produced it could go through an AFD process like any other article. Snocrates 08:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia with huge BLP problems. Oh, and add it to Dr Submillimeter's list of wack of wacky categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already on my new post-Dr.-S list: User:Xtifr/FunnyCat. Xtifr _tälk 02:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done keeping the list. My favourites so far in Dr S's list are Towns with Zombie Problems and controversial birds, but this is a good contender for the top slot. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. interesting - that list seems to duplicate part of WP:DAFT.... perhaps a merge is in order... Grutness...wha? 23:18, 1 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23#Category:Film_protagonists
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_29#Category:Protagonists
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:More_protagonists
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_10#Category:Disney_protagonists

Category:Literature protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, please see previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasoning in ample precedent. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per precedent. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment no strong opinion on deletion, but these should possibly share the resulting fate:
  • Category:Literature antagonists
  • Category:Film antagonists Súrendil 10:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all 3 per all. Johnbod 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of these impractical, excessively broad categories per so, so many precedents. Wryspy 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ample precedent. Snocrates 08:13, 30 September 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.