< April 19 April 21 >

April 20

Category:Indy Pro Series drivers

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: merge. Kbdank71 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Indy Pro Series drivers to Category:Indy Lights drivers
Nominator's rationale: Merge, The Indy Pro Series has changed its name to the Indy Lights Series, the same name as a previous series that held a similar spot in the racing ladder. After discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing we have decided to treat these two series as a single contiguous history and merged their articles at Indy Lights. We would like to do the same for their driver categories. Drdisque (talk) 23:53, 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.

Category:WWE Kings of The Ring

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 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WWE Kings of The Ring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Having this category for previous winners of King of the Ring is pointless to have in articles. If the category is kept, where will it stop if other categories are created for winners of other tournaments and stuff. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:54, 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.

Useless plant cats created by Bot, Episode IV

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 13:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some more plant categories created by User:Polbot which are either obsolete or are genera that contain only a couple species. Specific reasons to follow. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 20:09, 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.

Categories:People by race or ethnicity

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 all. Kbdank71 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: all the remaining like category pages are named ethnicity + people (see Category:People by race or ethnicity) Mayumashu (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - ther eis no reason why Zulus cannot be a subcategory of Category:People by race or ethnicity without the suffix "people" being added. However is not "Eurasian" an ambiguous term, having different connotations in different places or at different times? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the nomination is merely to rename, not to remove Category:Zulus as a subcategory of Category:People by race or ethnicity or argue that a particular member of the list should possibly be deleted (which it may) Mayumashu (talk) 00:59, 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.

Category:Personal name puns

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 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Personal name puns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorizes based on the properties of the titles rather than the subjects of the articles. Better suited as a list anyway. Powers T 17:37, 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.

Category:Neo-Creationism

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 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Neo-Creationism to Category:Intelligent design
Nominator's rationale: Intelligent design is the only existent example of Neo-Creationism. Intelligent design is the name by which this viewpoint is most commonly known. Of the articles in Category:Neo-Creationism, all but one (Neo-Creationism itself) is explicitly on the subject of intelligent design. HrafnTalkStalk 15:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original nomination was for "merging", but would be open to deletion (per "delete per nom" below), if this helps reach WP:CONS. HrafnTalkStalk 20:01, 22 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.

Category:Fictional portrayals of Satan

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 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional portrayals of Satan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - category came to my attention when it was added to Doctor Septimus Pretorius, which addition illustrates the problem with the category. It's being used to capture characters for which editors have decided through WP:OR are "allegories or representations of the devil." What it's being used for in many cases is simply to categorize really, really bad people or creatures. Suffers many of the same problems as the previously-deleted Category:Fictional personifications of evil and indeed includes a number of the characters referenced in that discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with a category that is going to be populated almost if not entirely on the basis of the POV or original research of editors cannot reasonably be characterized as "slight." Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then maybe we need to be more strict as to who goes in it. If you delete the Fictional portrayals of Satan category then you might as well delete Category:Fictional portrayals of God. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, the long drawn out silence. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not looked at the category in question, but whether it exists or not is irrelevant to whether this one should. Otto4711 (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An allegory for Satan is not the same thing as a portrayal of Satan. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, we shall change it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said sir. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:14, 26 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.

Category:Noosphere

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Noosphere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: According to its article, noosphere is "the 'sphere of human thought'." This doesn't seem like a topic that needs any sort of category, and the person who created seems to be randomly adding articles to it that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the topci, including people, topics, and an anime series. Collectonian (talk) 01:18, 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.
More