< January 18	January 20 >

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 discussion was No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Canadians of Doukhobor descent to Category:Canadians of Russian descent

Nominator's rationale: Isn't it enough that these Canadians are descended from people from Russia? I don't see why we should split them up by which Russian religious sect their ancestors happen to be from. Doesn't seem that their ancestors' religious views are defining of these people. LeSnail (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Doukhobor community, with its 160 years of isolation outside of Russia proper (first in what's today Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, then in Western Canada), is/was a rather distinct group from most ethnic Russians, not just as a religious group, but in various cultural ways. Since most Canadians with Doukhobor ancestry would not describe "Doukhobor" as their religious affiliation, it would not seem appropriate to list them Category:Doukhobors (in parallel to eg. Category:Canadian Mennonites). Thus I felt appropriate to create the subcat Category:Canadians of Doukhobor descent within Category:Canadians of Russian descent. As a precedent, one can consider such existing categories as Category:Canadians of Acadian descent, Category:Canadians of Jewish descent, Category:Canadians of Sicilian descent, Category:Canadians of Ulster-Scottish descent, Category:Canadians of Channel Islands descent, which we do not merge them into the categories for the appropriate modern nation states. OTOH, I am not particularly strongly attached to this solution, and if the Wikipedia community decides to delete the category, I will implement an alternative approach. As the category is small (but is likely to grow quite a bit beyond the current 2 entries), it will be possible to "listify" it instead. Vmenkov (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary racial/ethnic classification. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fiji Indian Diaspora to Category:Fiji Indian diaspora

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with main article Fiji Indian diaspora. Or rename to something else more descriptive of the category's contents. Ideas? LeSnail (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Fiji Indian diaspora to have correct English case; no other change needed; this matches all other diaspora categories as part of a pattern. Hmains (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Snocrates 07:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary triple intersection of race/ethnicity + nationality + expatriate status. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename Category:Belarus born people to Category:People from Belarus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belarus born people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category for people born in the territory of modern Belarus, at a time when Belarus didn't exist as a separate country. Consensus is that place of birth is not defining in any case (see here). Certainly isn't defining in this case. For instance, Oskar Anderson is described in his intro as "German-Russian," and the article gives no indication of how being born in what later became Belarus affected his life. LeSnail (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep unless and until evidence can be brought that being born in Belarus does not make one Belarrusian and that everyone born in the former is described as such. Mistaken use of a cat in one example is never a justification in itself for removal of said cat. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. Your consensus means zilch. Just try and delete Category:People from New York City and see your ass thoroughly kicked. Belarusian people were denied their identity for centuries: by Poles, then by Russian tsar, then by Soviet Union. Still they were Belarusians and now are recognized as such, and this category is a neutral way to avoid stupid disputes, e.g. who was Adam Mickiewicz: a Pole or a Belarusian. `'Míkka>t 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So rename to Category:People from Belarus? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not much better. There was no "Belarus". until 1990. The name definitely discussed. But not here, not wit 5-day limit. I invite people familiar is issues of Belarus to discuss renaming of his category in Category talk:Belarus born people. '`'Míkka>t 00:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply -- Category:People from New York City is not only for people born in NYC, but for anyone who lived there for a substantial period of time. I would be happy with such a change here. Consensus can change, but I wouldn't say it means zilch. LeSnail (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well please propose such a change formally. As the nominator it is your responsibility. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely keep this article because it helps sort the people who were born on current Belarusian territories into one category. I just suggest changing the name as suggest above. It should either be named People from Belarus (as suggested above), or Belarus-born people (with a hyphen because it is grammaticaly correct). --Boguslav (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Deleting would also imply that we don't believe anyone born in Belarus since independence in 1990 is notable enough to be in this encyclopedia. Talk about encouraging rather than countering systemic bias! I am struggling to see how this could be a good faith nomination right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sorry Squeakbox, but that just isn't true. There are lots of people born in Belarus since independence who are notable and are in this encyclopedia. For the most part, they are properly categorized in Category:Belarusian people. I'm not trying to attack Belarus, if that is what you think I am doing. If you look at the other categories I have nominated, you will see that I am bringing up for discussion all the remaining place of birth categories. The consensus that was reached when talking about the earlier ones was that the appropriate way to categorize people is by nationality and ethnicity, not by location of birth. An example that was brought up was that of an American born to American parents at an army camp in another country and raised in the US. People felt that, in that situation, categorizing them by the country they happened to be born in was inappropriate, because it doesn't define who they are. I don't know a whole lot about Belarus, so if you want to explain why this is a different case, I would be glad to hear it. So far though, I don't see why the Belarrusian people in this category shouldn't be moved to Category:Belarusian people, and the rest removed entirely. Can you explain why it is defining for someone to be born in Belarus, if they don't identify as Belarussian? Sorry I seem to have made people so angry; I didn't mean to seem like I was attacking anyone or anything. LeSnail (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People from Belarus to follow the standard used for all other categories of this type. There can be a separate discussion as listed above to decide how to handle the pre 1990 people. Keeping without a rename is not an option and I don't believe that deleting at this point would be a wise move pending further discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep possibly renamed as suggested by Vegaswikian. The USSR was a union of countries and its citizens had (as I understand it) their own internal nationality, as well as being a Soviet citizen. I have heard it suggested that if Belorussian and Ukranians had not been constituted as separate nationalities with their own separate SSRs, it is quite possible they might all be Russians today. There are certainly difficulties over those who were citizens of Imperial Russia, but that is a common problem with several European countries where boundaries have changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename per Vegaswikian. The category is useful in studying the history of the territory. That is encyclopedic. Dimadick (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not necessary, whether someone was born on territory now occupied by Belarus is a meaningless categorization basis. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian and non-zilch consensus elsewhere or delete per Carlos, anything but keep. --Kbdank71 15:38, 25 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People born in Třebíč to Category:People from Třebíč

Nominator's rationale: Convention of Category:People by city or town in the Czech Republic and most other such categories. It is very small, but probably has quite a bit of room for growth. LeSnail (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and previous discussions. Place of birth is NOT a defining characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & per Prove It. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Should be a speedy. - Darwinek (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (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 discussion was Rename. There is support for the rename since it is not correct as currently named. If there is a desire to merge that can be a second discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NASCAR Nextel Cup races to Category:NASCAR Sprint Cup Series races

Nominator's rationale: Rename. NASCAR changed title sponsors for its premiere series from NEXTEL to Sprint, so the series name was changed on January 1, 2008. The word "Series" was added to be consistent with the consensus to change the title of the main article for the series Sprint Cup Series. Royalbroil 22:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:NASCAR races, NASCAR's change of sponsors is irrelevant, we don't have a category Category:Fedex Orange Bowl, we have Category:Orange Bowl, so should be with NASCAR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's Becasue the name of he series has aminly been named after sponsers for so many years and it doesn't really have a basic name anymore. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 20:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Category:NASCAR Sprint Cup Series races per nom. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 19:53, 24 January 2008 (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 discussion was Rename. There is support for the rename since it is not correct as currently named. If there is a desire to merge that can be a second discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NASCAR Busch Series races to Category:NASCAR Nationwide Series races

Nominator's rationale: The series was renamed by NASCAR on January 1 from the Busch Series to the Nationwide Series after the series naming rights sponsor changed. I wish speedy could apply since it's non-controversial as a rename could be. Royalbroil 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:NASCAR races, NASCAR's change of sponsors is irrelevant, we don't have a category Category:Fedex Orange Bowl, we have Category:Orange Bowl, so should be with NASCAR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's Becasue the name of he series has aminly been named after sponsers for so many years and it doesn't really have a basic name anymore. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Category:NASCAR Nationwide Series races per nom. I don't need to say anything more Both me and RoyalBroil agrees the same here. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 18:42, 24 January 2008 (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 discussion was no consensus. This is one of those problems that should probably be fixed as a whole rather than piecemeal. I recommend getting a consensus as an umbrella nomination for what needs correcting. Kbdank71 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Australia to Category:Australian Roman Catholic bishops

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the form in Category:Roman Catholic bishops and of like named categories Category:Australian bishops and Category:Australian Roman Catholic priests. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are quite a few of these similarly named categories. It seems to me that Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Australia is for bishops of dioceses in Australia (who are not necessarily Australian) and that Category:Australian Roman Catholic bishops is for bishops who are Australian (but not necessarily in Australia). Eg the Pope is Primate of Italy but is not necessarily Italian. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the categorization of RC bishops is a mess. I think fundamentally it is their diocese that matters not their personal passport. So the rename accomplishes nothing by way of clearing up that mess, nor does it do any further harm. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction set in the near future (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. What exactly is meant by "near future"? POV definition. Lugnuts (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, definitely. What happens when the near future becomes the past? Deb (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Years of birth and death missing to Category:Year of birth missing and Category:Year of death missing

Nominator's rationale: Merge, An artificial intersection of two maintenance categories. 1) We don't do intersections. 2) Makes maintenance harder having an extra category, not easier, and means that one or other can't be removed from an article by just deleting. kingboyk (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom; makes sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Unknown deaths to Category:Year of death unknown

Nominator's rationale: Merge, New, superflous category. We already have Category:Year of death missing (individuals who are known to be dead, but whose exact year of death has not been noted in the article), Category:Year of death unknown (year of death is lost to history and never likely to be known) and Category:Possibly living people (may or may not be dead). What this nearly empty category is about is anyone's guess, so merge it into "missing". kingboyk (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; a biography isn't so much of a death as a life anyway. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge—Newly created maintenance categories should elucidate their purpose and intended use in a series of brief and concise introductory paragraphs. Category:Unknown deaths and its analogous Category:Unknown births do not have a discussion page or even a single explanatory sentence setting forth the reason for their existence. Since their creation on September 292007 these two categories have accumulated only 28 and 41 entries, respectively, compared to the multiple thousands of entries cumulatively found in Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth unknown, Category:Year of death missing and Category:Year of death unknown which, as kingboyk has pointed out, are the presumably proper categories for those 28 and 41 entries. I have to use the word "presumably" since, in examining some of those entries, I realized that "Unknown births" and "Unknown deaths" are also being used as all-inclusive substitutes for Category:Place of birth missing/Category:Place of birth unknown/Category:Place of death missing/Category:Place of death unknown and Category:Date of birth missing/Category:Date of birth unknown/Category:Date of death missing/Category:Date of death unknown. The resulting confusion and duplication of purpose makes Category:Unknown deaths as well as Category:Unknown births virtually meaningless.—Roman Spinner (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Elway video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is unlikely ever to have more than 2 entries. Deb (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator Secret ^account 00:46, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was no consensus. This is one of those problems that should probably be fixed as a whole rather than piecemeal. I recommend getting a consensus as an umbrella nomination for what needs correcting. Kbdank71 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic bishops in the UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:British Roman Catholic bishops, convention of Category:Roman Catholic bishops, was in speedy but now contested. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (or maybe re-organise) but not to Category:British Roman Catholic bishops (as this is a nationality cat, rather than a location one). The whole structure is a mess - Category:British bishops styles itself a nationality cat and yet under English bishops (nationality) we have Bishops by diocese in England, which includes the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams who is Welsh. The cfd of 14 Jan on Category:Pre-Reformation UK bishops is related and has some interesting suggestions. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the whole thing is a mess. However, I still think that Category:British Roman Catholic bishops is one of those obviously missing categories which gets in the way of those who browse by walking the category links. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the category should be limited (perhaps by a headnote) to bishops having dioceses in UK (or by renaming perhaps Great Britain, or by splitting England, Scotland, or Wales. It should exclude pre-reformation bishops (see CFD cited above). It should be based on the location of the diocese, not the nationality (or ethnic origin) of the bishop, eicne many Catholic priests (and no doubt bishops) are Irish by nationality or descent. This could conventiently be a subcategory of "British bishops" or "Bishops in UK". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment same as the Australian one above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films featuring characters who are Cajuns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listify, as a category it's non-defining, but no objection to a list article. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-defining race-based category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't know that race is really the issue here, but we don't need to be categorizing films by every thing they happen to feature. Not defining. LeSnail (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename to Category:Fu Manchu (band) songs. Kbdank71 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fu Manchu singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Fu Manchu songs, see discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fu Manchu (band) songs to match the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pseudo-orders

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Article Chivalric orders already has a section "cliental pseudo-orders", the article has a category Chivalric orders and so this sub-category is unecessary --Sannhet (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

NOTE: Nomination INCOMPLETE - Category has not been tagged. Ok now, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator's rationale makes little sense to me, but there seems to have been some POV editing, with most members added as the only edits by an IP. The category seems clearly inappropriate for most members now in it, & there must be a question as to whether there would be enough members to justify it. There are also two possible definitions of "pseudo-order" & it is not clear which is intended. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Cliental pseudo-orders" and "self-styled orders aka pseudo-orders" are different. First was ancient association, second is association without legitimacy, mainly for fraudolent purposes. Yes, most members re addet by me, but this category is new and thus this is natural. Of course, this category needs improvemet, I know. But with vandalism from sockpuppets iis it hard. Yopie 16:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

• If you suspect sockpuppet activity , you should report it. --Sannhet (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is not surprising that Yopie (talk) who created the category should oppose its deletetion but as Johnbod (talk) notes it clearly inappropriate for most members now in it and it seems most unlikely that there would ever be enough members to justify it. It is an ambiguous term and not a helpful category. The category is now tagged. --Kyndinos (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Pseudo-orders was recently blanked by an anon via redirect. It seems to be a notable concept, deserving a category, but the category seems to have been recently spammed to many non-pseudo orders. I suspect some vandalism is involved, somewhere.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There will always be problems with a category that is not easily understood. The article Pseudo-orders has been tagged NPOV (deleted by the creator of the article Yopie (talk) and just restored) and seems only to express the view of its creator. Support deletion. --Quaerere Verum (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The categorization of these orders changes too much. Let's keep it at a generic level like "chivalric order" and deal with the more complex issues in each article. Gimmetrow 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - labeling something as a Pseudo-anything should be done in the Article and with Citation! What makes an Order "Pseudo" differes in every case. This Cat is only causing edit/revert wars on every article that gets tagged "Pseudo" for unknown/unexplained reasons. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest Possible Delete This category was deleted last week and re-created byYopie (talk • Special:Contributions/Yopie|contribs) . Pseudo is a really bad definition for anything and is bound to cause trouble. The category associated with Chivalric orders should be developed instead. It is not suprising the category re-creator - difficult to follow due to lack of proper signatures - should oppose deletion, but the argument for no deleting is difficult to follow. The accompanying article Pseudo-orders in WP:AfD should also be deleted. --Simsek (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Again). Badly described category with confusing article. --Alithea (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - the related article deals with a valid subject, but needs to be retitled (or possibly merged (see my comment on the AFD). Once a more satisfactory title has been found for the article, the category should be renamed to conform. However the category tree will also need attention so that articles do not appear both in the main category "Chivalric Orders" and also the subcategory renamed from "pseudo-orders". It should be noted that what is now St Johns Ambulance began life as a pseudo-order. The disticntion between an order and a pseudo-order is a real one. An order is established by a monarch (or the Pope), a psuedo-order is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just simply not needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Pseudo" is a bad category for anything which will always lead to misunderstanding. It has already been misused. --Dikkat (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Martintg (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think I got this category deleted last week, but it came back. It was a speedy delete, so I don't think it was recorded. For me pseudo has always had a pejorative connotation. I looked it up in the Cambridge Dictionaries Online where it is defined as "prefix MAINLY DISAPPROVING not real; pretended:pseudo-religious; a pseudo-intellectual". I'm sure that's not what it's creator intended, but that's the subtlety of the English language for you. That's why I believe this category and its associated article should go. --Frank Ness (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or if kept rename because I thought this was going to be some kind of biology taxonomy category or if not that then something dealing with math. --Lquilter (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Routes in the District of Columbia to Category:Routes in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent category Category:Transportation in Washington, D.C. and main article List of Washington, D.C. numbered highways. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was merge. Kbdank71 14:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia to Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Duplicate category. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. Highways in the District of Columbia to Category:U.S. Highways in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent categories Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. and Category:Transportation in Washington, D.C.. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was merge to Category:Washington, D.C. railroads. Kbdank71 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Railway stations in the District of Columbia to Category:District of Columbia railroads

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Unnecessary single entry subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the target will depend on the result of the rename discussion below. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:District of Columbia railroads to Category:Washington, D.C. railroads

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent category Category:Transportation in Washington, D.C.. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Boondocks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorization. Material is interlinked and otherwise categorized and doesn't warrant the category. Otto4711 (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was relisted on jan 25. Kbdank71 14:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional gunslingers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is for Western characters who use guns. Don't pretty much all Western characters use guns? Casts far too wide a net. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No, not all western characters use guns and not all are gunslingers. They are quite a subgenre of character types and the categorisation seems defining. Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective as to which characters are "gunslingers" or not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Silent Night, Deadly Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary category for a film series. All of the films are linked through text and through a navtemplate. Otto4711 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entertainers with Crips affiliations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Categorizing on the basis of association is always problematic, and it is particularly so in this case because of the WP:BLP concerns in categorizing people based on association with a criminal organization. If the information is considered valuable then it should be in a list format, which allows for the reliable sourcing that a category doesn't. Otto4711 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Deb (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I really don't get why this must be so biased? It's a category of a group of people with a gang. --Flesh-n-Bone 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. What's an "affiliation"? I nominated all the gang members cats a while back and consensus then was being a member of a gang was defining (but being a member of other groups like the freemasons wasn't - go figure) but being affiliated with a gang? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Carlos. Snocrates 21:21, 24 January 2008 (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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blackjack dealers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no likelihood of expansion. The only article (possible vanity?) is prodded. Otto4711 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; presumably those who deal Blackjack also deal other card games, akin to Category:Clay court tennis players if these people were somehow notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (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 discussion was rename. The convention does point to "city, prefecture", as in the article Nagasaki, Nagasaki. Also, the opposes were answered without discussion, so I take it their concerns were satisfied. Kbdank71 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Nagasaki to Category:People from Nagasaki, Nagasaki

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per prior discussions at WP:MOS-JA, articles and categories related to the city of Nagasaki should be titled "Nagasaki, Nagasaki" to prevent confusion with the same-named prefecture. While I still don't favor splitting apart the "people from xyz prefecture" cats into such fine resolution, if we have this category, at least it should be named appropriately. Neier (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose nom. If we need to split this it should, in my view be "Nagasaki (city)" and "Nagasaki (prefecture)". If we follow the logic of the nomination, the article on the city would have to be renamed "Nagasaki, Nagasaki", but that would be monstrous. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that would be following the city, prefecture naming convention. The fact that both are the same and it looks funny should not be a reason to not use this. Also the proposed name matches the main article which is at Nagasaki, Nagasaki Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Vegaswikian pointed out, the main article for the city is Nagasaki, Nagasaki. Neither the city nor the prefecture is well-known enough in its own right to where Nagasaki should obviously link to one over the other. For that, Category:People from Nagasaki is unnecessarily ambiguous, and should be fixed to match the naming convention of WP:MOS-JA and the city's related articles. Neier (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and Vegaswikian. This is the format that has been decided on by the wikigroup. The categories should comply until the format is changed. Snocrates 01:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Does anyone use Nagasaki, Nagasaki except WP? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 49,100 ghits for "Nagasaki, Nagasaki". It's even used in the URL of the city's official English website. Snocrates 03:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: A foolish inconsistancy is just as much a hobgoblin of little minds as a foolish consistancy. Let's follow the established format to avoid confusion. (My mind is little, and gets confused easily.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2008 (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.