< April 14	April 16 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dykes to Category:Dikes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change spelling to match main article Dike (construction). While the word may be spelled "dyke", for better or for worse that spelling is more often than not used in the sense of Dyke (slang), so it's probably best to change the spelling to avoid any confusion. I note that "dyke" is the usual UK spelling and "dike" is the usual US spelling, which is why I didn't just speedy this one. On a personal level, I typically use UK spelling but I would tend to use "dike" in this case for the above reason. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per eminently sensible explanation of Good Ol’factory. Cgingold (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & disambiguate. There appears to be two forms of construction relating to "dykes" (and dikes) which could be better served with changes to the Dike article and the creation of two categories (including the renaming of the existing "Dykes" category). I suggest we create a Dykes (levee) category to accommodate the drainage ditches, dams, seawalls and levees (while also referring to both the Dutch and English spelling, and the US English language), and the creation of Dykes (boundary) (or alternatively "Dykes (earthworks)") to accommodate the inland borders/delineation areas (such as Offa's Dyke). Also, I'm strongly against the changing of "Dyke" to "Dike" to prevent confusion among the users of the slang term... but I think my ideas on the categorization provide a kind of solution to this. Oneblackline (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or... three categories named as "Drainage dykes", "Levees and wall dikes", and "Boundary dykes". Oneblackline (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match spelling in the main article. Three subcategories can be created, even today without this discussion being completed, following the main article spelling or clearly established local spelling. Those being Category:Drainage dykes, Category:Wall dikes and levees, and Category:Boundary dykes. There is no reason to confuse the rename of the parent by discussing the children categories that are needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inherently problematic and based solely on opinion. Who determines which athletes were a bust? xanderer (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely subjective and undefinable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subjective and un-encyclopaedic, specifically with the use of the word "bust." -I feel like a tourist (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no consensus, either here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Modern Chinese music, where a category discussion is underway. Kbdank71 13:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Mandopop singer-songwriters is for all Mandopop s-s, regardless of location. Taiwanese Mandopop s-s fall under "Taiwanese singer-songwriters". There is no need to further subordinate the Mandopop singer-songwriter category when there few members in there to begin with. Pandacomics (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless a better category tree management scheme is proposed. It was introduced to try to prune the entire Category:Chinese singers category into a more manageable tree. I see no proposal here, and until there is one, I'd say keep it. --Nlu (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you at least take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Modern Chinese music/Categories? We have a Wikiproject for a reason. Pandacomics (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taiwanese singer-songwriters also could be J-Pop or HK-Pop primarily, and not mandopop. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending proposal, discussion, and consensus for such new cats at CPOP and possibly other Chinese music-related WikiProjects, none of which appears to have occured prior to the massive unilateral recategorization. Badagnani (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Indeed no consensus was even asked of before Nlu decided to mass recategorize by his own will. Pandacomics (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a valid criticism if there already is a proposal on the table to reorganize what was quickly becoming an unmanageable category tree, but that was not what was happening. I don't think it is fair that I should be villified for cleaning it up. If there is a better scheme to reorganize it, let's hear it. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you had not already been asked more than once to discuss before acting (let alone "acting" in such a huge, unilateral manner), your above comment would hold some weight. We're a community. Join it. Badagnani (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Delete. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The image category has one image in it, and the only thing in this category is Final Fantasy Unlimited itself, so upmerge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original creator of the category. I agree with the rationale. I was hoping to create more articles, but never did. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Author is ok with deletion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: upmerge. Kbdank71 13:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Has one image in it, upmerge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Final Fantasy.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fraudsters to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Process nomination. This was tagged with ((POV)) with a suggestion on the talk page to rename to People convicted of fraud. I am nominating it here to bring about a resolution to the issue. User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]] 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note Previous discussion - No concensus to change to "convicted of ..." Nov 05.

Keep or rename to Category:People convicted of fraud, although a number of people who should be here commited suicide, disappeared, etc. On the whole keep, per previous discussion. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Living people should naturally only be so categorised if they have been convicted, but plenty of people in history were never actually convicted of an offence although they blatantly committed one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnbod. Also, "fraudster" is much more of a UK-ism and is slangy in the US. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:People convicted of fraud. The inclusion of a living person in the category is potentially libellous. This will not arise for those convicted. WE could also have Category:Deceased frausters, for those who died unconvicted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Seems a bit pointless to have two separate categories. Of course including an unconvicted living person is potentially libellous and nobody is suggesting that this should be the case, but renaming the category isn't going to make much difference. A note on the cat page is perfectly sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Keep. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Holocaust perpetrators to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Process nomination. This was tagged with ((POV)) with a suggestion on the talk page to rename either Holocaust architects or Holocaust participants. I am nominating it here to bring about a resolution to the issue.<BirgitteSB 17:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep around since 2006 & seems fine. I would suggest you don't launch a CfD every time an ISP uses his only edit to tag a category. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone initated a talk page discussion with a logged in account. Please note that I also removed a tag without bringing the cat here in the instance where no dispute was outlined on the talk page.--BirgitteSB 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if they are bothered, let them do their own nomination, I say. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No justification for deletion or renaming has been provided. Taging is not a justification.Biophys (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Justification given for renaming on talk was "Perpetrators" is a loaded POV word. I only did process nomination the concern was outlined on the talk page and did not nominate things for being tagged.[1]--BirgitteSB 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a loaded POV word. This word is normally applied to crime, and Holocaust was a crime against humanity.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term "perpetrators" is both accurate and correct, and the assertion that it is somehow a "loaded POV word" implies that the Holocaust was not, in fact, a real crime. Let's not be naive, this subject always attracts cranks and deniers. Cgingold (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this was merely a "Process nomination" that has not received any actual support, this should be Speedy Closed if possible, imo. Cgingold (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename to Category:Al-Ansar (Lebanon) players. Kbdank71 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Al-Ansar Players of Past and Present to Category:Al-Ansar players

Nominator's rationale: Per other cat tree system. Matthew_hk t c 13:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom (see below), cf Category:Footballers in England by club. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & Roundhouse. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Al-Ansar (Lebanon) players as there is more than one club in the world called Al-Ansar, e.g. Al-Ansar (Medina) and the club's article is Al-Ansar (Lebanon). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - rename to Category:Al-Ansar (Lebanon) players. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: relisted on apr 23. Kbdank71 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per results of discussion. Notified category creators with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm totally open to suggestions; here are some preliminary thoughts:

One possible formulation: Category:Collaborators with Imperial Japan and Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany.
Another possible formulation: Category:Collaborators with Imperial Japanese occupation and Category:Collaborators with Nazi German occupation.

Feel free to tweak & improve on these suggestions. Cgingold (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would prefer the first of the possible formulations, because some of the collaborators had nothing to do with the occupations - there were no doubt collaborators in unoccupied territories. One issue I have is of degree...Anyone serving in the Vichy government a collaborator? perhaps. Even in a minor role? well, people minor roles did inform, arrest, disrupt the resistance? Henri Giraud, Mitterand? hmmm... Same for those in service in numerous allied or puppet governments. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: relisted on apr 23. Kbdank71 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inherent POV problematic. Also, it is only subcat to WWII categories, but 'collaborationists' is not a term uniquely used for WWII. I would, personally, say that Hamid Karzai is a 'collaborationist', but it would be highly dubious to categorize him as such on wikipedia. The 'Category:Stalinist collaborators' subcat is also tagged for cfd, it is largely redundant to Category:Communists. Not sure what to do what the other two subcategories, but I think a rename might be in order for the Japanese subcat. Soman (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about renaming it "Collaborationists during World War II"? Tazmaniacs (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one way, since 'collaborationists' is a rather well-defined term in Western historical debate on WWII. However, the problem with the term is that history is largely written by victors, even more so in times of war. The term is extensively used to describe one side in the war, but theoretically it could equally used to describe others as well. I'm not sure what is the best solution here, but tagging Enver Hoxha (whose action during WWII was to organize Partisan struggles) as a 'Stalinist collaborator' is shows that there is an inherent pov issue here. --Soman (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just added the other two sub-categories so we can deal with these at the same time. Cgingold (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Stalinist collaborators: Very problematic, POV category -- not really consistent in use & application with the other sub-categories. I had spotted this a day ago, and removed Jacques Duclos, Gaik Ovakimian, Kim Philby, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg from the category pending further thought about how to proceed. Cgingold (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Collaborationists to either Category:Collaborators during World War II or Category:Collaborationists during World War II -- or possibly Category:Collaborators during World War II occupations. Further discussion is needed to determine which is preferrable, but it should be restricted to that historical era where the concept is well-defined and widely accepted. Cgingold (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Stalinist collaborators with Category:Collaborators with Stalinism. In creating this category, I attempted to draw together Communist Party officials in Russia and the Soviet Bloc, members of the Comintern, those involved in intelligence gathering abroad, and others who, by their actions made the themselves acomplices to one of the most murderous dictators in all of history. And as for Enver Hoxha, the article aboout him states quite clearly that he remained devoted to Stalin's memory even after Khrushchev's destalinisation in the 1950s. Kingstowngalway (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, and others who, by their actions made the themselves acomplices to one of the most murderous dictators in all of history seems like a good npov inclusion criteria. (irony) --Soman (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category for a single manga-ka (also improperly categorized under the artist of the painting variety). We do not have any other categories for manga writers that I know of. Manga is generally categorized genre, demographic, topic, etc, but not writer. This seems like excessive amount of categorization for a small handful of articles. Collectonian (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a category called Category: Osamu Tezuka, and since Rumiko Takahashi has more works published than the average manga-ka, it makes sense to give her a category of her own.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep reason. There are several other popular manga-ka with no categories. Osamu Tezuka is a rare exception by the sheer number of articles related to him because he was also a producer and animator. Rumiko Takahashi doesn't come close to that and is purely a manga creator. Giving her a category is just excessive categorization of a few articles already covered in her own article and with her template ((Rumiko Takahashi)) Collectonian (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a category to keep all of the Takahashi works and related articles together. It will help anyone who is looking just for a list of her works, rather than having to read the entire article.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She already has a template which lists her few works. Collectonian (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it does not mention several things, such as the Category:Ranma ½ and the other categories, and all of the things that are included in them. While the Takahashi category may only have about ten articles in it, that does not mean that is all there is that is related to her.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need those categories, the articles as the topic not the categories. Collectonian (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't come close to the Osamu Tezuka cat. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to point out that the last CFD ended in no concensus (link). That said, I stand by my vote from last time: "Rename to 'Manga by Rumiko Takahashi' and re-parent in Category:Manga by author (following the example of Category:Comics by author)"--Nohansen (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem there is that there is no Category:Manga by author because except for a small handful, like Takahasi, Yuu Watase, etc, most only have one or two series in Wikipedia. Do you think there are enough to make it worthwhile to make such a category, and populate it?Collectonian (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe... I don't know... How many artists (and manga series) would be enough to justify a "Manga by author" category? Some than could make the category worthwhile (read: those that have more than "one or two series in Wikipedia") are Shotaro Ishinomori, Mitsuteru Yokoyama, Leiji Matsumoto, CLAMP, Go Nagai and Kazuo Koike.--Nohansen (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has plenty of articles and subcats (not all of which seem to be manga). Or rename to something, pace irrational aversion to eponymous categories. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every thing in there is one of her manga series, the larger ones have their own categories due to the number of articles about the series and their anime counterparts but they are all still just a list of her manga series. Collectonian (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - upon reviewing, I noticed that all the articles in the cat are already linked to by Template:Rumiko Takahashi, which is on all of those pages. --Eruhildo (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per the similar rationale I provided in the previous CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Rumiko Takahashi, which is also nominated above. Collectonian (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a duplicate of Category:Rumiko Takahashi, as it only has the manga by this artist. This would have helped to keep the articles that are about manga separate from articles that have to do with other things pertaining to Rumiko Takahashi.--Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Mynameisnotpj was the creator of this category. As for the comment, no, it doesn't. There e is nothing else related to her. She writes manga, the exact same stuff in this category is what is in the main except for one template ((Rumiko Takahashi)). It is purely redundant. Collectonian (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't come close to the Osamu Tezuka cat. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep analogous to novels by author categories. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - analogous to novels by author categories (or rename to Category:Manga by Rumiko Takahashi, as mentioned in cfd above). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that this category, if filled with that name, would be the EXACT same as the one above? Collectonian (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Category:Rumiko Takahashi has several subcategories which are not subcats of Category:Rumiko Takahashi manga. I would say you have not understood categories. It may be that all the articles in the top level are also in Category:Rumiko Takahashi manga in which case they could be removed from the top level (which doesn't need cfd). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takahashi only writes manga, nothing else. Not novels, or anything else. So anything in her category would be manga. Anything else is likely miscategorized. The only reason Takahashi has more subcats than Takahashi manga is because they haven't been added yet. Those are all manga series she has written, just like EVERYTHING else in the main Takahashi category (except her template), so if this is kept basically everything would be moved to it and the other would be empty except for this and the template, which would just be needless and silly excessive subcategorizing. Collectonian (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't then understand why you wish to delete both. If they are duplicates we should be merging them, not deleting both (and leaving their various subcategories floating helplessly, crying out for their deceased parents). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this category is already covered by Category:Rumiko Takahashi. I see no point in creating a subcategory for her manga as there is Template:Rumiko Takahashi which links to her manga series thus connecting the articles on her works quite nicely. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the same templates for authors, but we still have categories, and I haven't seen people wanting to delete the entire tree... as for the above category, you can replace it with this one can't you? Afterall, this would be analogous to the novels by author categories, while the above would not. 70.55.85.225 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are not substitutes for, or rivals of, categories. Categories can be used for browsing - one can't browse a deleted category. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Nomination withdrawn; creator created article and requested category be speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article Category:History of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonites) to article History of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

Nominator's rationale: An article that was (probably) mis-created as a category. The main article is The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), which is why I have dropped the "s" from the name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's opinion: I wasn't even paying attention and totally meant for it to just be a page and not a category. My fault, lets move it as suggested!Jcg5029 (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: The creator has agreed to create the article and request speedy deletion of the category, so this nomination is withdrawn and can be closed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete, many of these are already listed at Template:Emergency medicine, the rest can be added. Kbdank71 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify. These are not really levels but rather types of responders. While a rename might be possible, converting to a list and adding more information would provide a better example of how these articles relate to each other. Another option would be to create a template. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also note that these are mostly American terms, whereas this is not specified in the category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for all of four individuals. It doesn't look like the category will be growing any time soon. Unhelpful over-categorization. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary category imo. I feel like a tourist (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Helicopter manufacturers in Britain to Category:Helicopter manufacturers of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. (1) Use "United Kingdom" as name of country, as in the parent Category:Aircraft manufacturers of the United Kingdom. (2) <Company type> by country uses of <country>, as in the parent. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.I feel like a tourist (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 15

Category:Dykes

Category:Professional Sports Busts

Category:Taiwanese Mandopop singer-songwriters

Category:Final Fantasy: Unlimited

Category:Final Fantasy: Unlimited images

Category:Fraudsters

Category:Holocaust perpetrators

Category:Al-Ansar Players of Past and Present

Collaborators

Category:Collaborationists

Category:Rumiko Takahashi

Category:Rumiko Takahashi manga

Category:History of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonites)

Category:Emergency medical responder levels

Category:Asper family

Category:Helicopter manufacturers in Britain