< January 27	January 29 >

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Single-platform software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, This category and by necessity all of its subcategories is highly redundant with Category:Software by operating system. To me, it is basically akin to categorizing "Actors who only star in action films", "Actors who only star in comedy films", etc. and then lumping them all into a "Single-genre actors" category. I'm not really sure how it is intended to be useful. The category forms a criteria for exclusion rather than inclusion. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This cat has very well-populated sub-cats. The nominator states that these are all highly redundant with Category:Software by operating system. I don't understand that; I think they are of some interest. Wanting to keep them, it also makes sense to keep this head category as it groups categories with a strong defining characteristic. Maybe the nominator might relist this as a group nomination along with all the sub-cats, to gain a fuller debate? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way could they serve an interest? If someone is looking for software to use on a given platform, they could use Category:Software by operating system. Whether or not the software is available for other platforms serves no interest that I can think of; it is trivia, as per the analogy given above. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if someone is looking for software to use on two platforms, e.g. for work and home, or for multiple members of a working group, they could look in these categories and exclude anything that appears in them.
    • Anyway, have the courage of your convictions and relist, linking all the sub-cats to the discussion. Meanwhile, as long as the sub-cats do exist, this is a proper head category for them. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, i never looking for multi platform software, i only buy orginal single platform games for wii, ps3 and other, where the development only one way goes for more quality. Give us the category back please, we needed it. The multigarbage games interests nobody. --Fairseeder (talk) 23:05, 4 February 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 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:PBS programs to Category:PBS network shows

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Categories appear to be created for identical purpose. Snocrates 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:01, 30 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 19:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Public Broadcasting to Category:Publicly funded broadcasters

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Categories appear to be created for the identical purpose. Should be Category:Public broadcasting if kept. Snocrates 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom. Target category is more general and covers many countries. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - how they are funded is not particularly defining; "publicly funded" would seem to include college radio stations in the US at public (e.g., government-owned) universities, and would those funded by donations be different than those funded by the government, and is that different depending on whether the government essentially forces donations in the guise of "user fees" or "tv/radio licenses". A morass. As PBS in the US gets more funding from individual members, donations from various foundations & companies, who essentially get advertisements as a reward, it's more difficult to differentiate PBS from CBS, which at least is honest in stating that they sell advertising. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So a government broadcaster such as the VOA, or US military broadcasters are not characteristically defined as government broadcasters??? 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep publicly funded broadcasters as the US is not the world, restrict it to non-US broadcasters, if Carlossuarez46 is so adamant. It is a defining characteristic. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a good and relevant category! Why would you want to delete it? Serouj (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. In other words, delete the first, keep the second. The distinctions Carlossuarez46 is drawing can be considered when deciding what to include in the category. Zoporific 09:22, 1 February 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 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of the Republic of the Congo to Category:Republic of the Congo people

Category:People of the Republic of the Congo by occupation to Category:Republic of the Congo people by occupation

Category:Sportspeople of the Republic of the Congo to Category:Republic of the Congo sportspeople

Category:Basketball players of the Republic of the Congo to Category:Republic of the Congo basketball players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change all to standard formatting of "Fooian people" categories. Due to the ambiguity of the term "Congolese", I'm adopting the same formatting that was accepted for Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo people and its subcategories in recent 04 JAN 08 CFD and 22 JAN 08 CFD. Snocrates 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose as incomplete I don't think these should be considered in isolation. These cats are named in the same way as all the social/cultural categories for this country: (x) Culture, (x) Society, (x) law and all their subcats through all levels. All should change or these should remain as is. Hmains (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The other categories can go the through CFR process and should be renamed too. Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 29 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 per nom, no consensus to rename "alumni" to "players". Kbdank71 19:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging

• Category:Brantford Alexanders (OMJHL) alumni to Category:Brantford Alexanders alumni
• Category:Brantford Alexanders (OHL) alumni to Category:Brantford Alexanders alumni
• Category:Niagara Falls Flyers (1976-1982) alumni to Category:Niagara Falls Flyers alumni
• Category:Niagara Falls Flyers (OMJHL) alumni to Category:Niagara Falls Flyers alumni
• Category:Niagara Falls Flyers (OHL) alumni to Category:Niagara Falls Flyers alumni
• Category:Kingston Canadians (OHL) alumni to Category:Kingston Canadians alumni
• Category:Kingston Canadians (OMJHL) alumni to Category:Kingston Canadians alumni
• Category:Peterborough Petes (OMJHL) alumni to Category:Peterborough Petes alumni
• Category:Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds (OMJHL) alumni to Category:Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds alumni
• Category:St. Catharines Black Hawks (OMJHL) alumni to Category:St. Catharines Black Hawks alumni
• Category:Sudbury Wolves (OMJHL) alumni to Category:Sudbury Wolves alumni
• Category:Toronto Marlboros (OHA) alumni to Category:Toronto Marlboros alumni
• Category:Toronto Marlboros (OHL) alumni to Category:Toronto Marlboros alumni
• Category:Toronto Marlboros (OMJHL) alumni to Category:Toronto Marlboros alumni
• Category:Toronto St. Michael's Majors (OHA) alumni to Category:Toronto St. Michael's Majors alumni
• Category:Windsor Spitfires (OMJHL) alumni to Category:Windsor Spitfires alumni

Nominator's rationale: The only difference between these categories is that the name of the league changed. They are all still the same franchises in the same league, except that the league itself change how it calls itself. I believe this is over categorization as it causes some players to end up having multiple categories for their stint with the same team. The merged cats can easily be placed into both league categories. And to note this has recently been done in another cfd as well. Djsasso (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, no idea who did all of this, but they weren't always like this. Croat Canuck Talk 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless the links to the OHL are removed. any player who played for these clubs prior to 1980-1 obviously never played in the OHL Mayumashu (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you clarify? The OHL has been around longer than 1980, all that happened was that they changed how they call themselves and no longer fell under the provincial governing body. It is still the exact same league and the exact same teams. It is a pretty simple explanation in the description to say "This category is for all players who have played for the Toronto Marlboros organization." for example. -Djsasso (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is true of how the OMJHL became the OHL and somewhat so of how the OMJHL was formed, but still we need to remain factual - have two separate pages or remove the links to the OHL. St. Catharines Teepees alumni never played in the OHL. and I don t think anyone wants a Category:Ontario Hockey League / Ontario Hockey Association (major) junior A hockey players page. Mayumashu (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need to have a category like that. You simply place the categories in each of the leagues they did play in. So to use your example, if the Teepees didn't play in the OHL then you only place them in the OMJHL category. If they played in both then you place the team in both. It's really not as complicated as you are trying to make it. Doing it this way avoids multiple categories on the player pages and leaves the higher level categories to be filled by subcategories. -Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • • it s the placing or linking of a page to both/two league pages that I am against, so we partly agree and partly disagree. I do like to see the alumni on one page but its the links that I am utterly against. Also, there have been two distinct Niagara Falls Flyers franchises - distinct franchises need separate pages Mayumashu (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • But the point is that they are not two seperate leagues, they are the same league with a new name. That is the issue. You are splitting up categories that don't need to be split up as they are the same team in the same league. As far as seperate franchises using seperate categories, yes I often like to see that as well, however it is fairly standard to use one category for two seperate franchises until such a time as the category is too large and needs to be seperated. In the case of these teams I doubt that will ever happen as there are not alot of players that played for the 2nd team. -Djsasso (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Completely unnecessary to differentiate team alumni based on what the league called itself. Even in the case of a team that switches leagues, this is irrelevent, as it is still the team that the player is associated with, not the league (i.e.: the numerous SJHL teams that joined the WHL). Resolute 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge per nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed to renaming alumni to players. Flibirigit (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename any resulting categories to "players" per previous CFDs that establish that "alumni" shouldn't be used for sports teams. Otto4711 (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Rename per nom and Otto. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename any remaining categories to 'players' per Otto4711. I am not expressing an opinion about the merge. This rename can happen even if there is no consensus on the merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong oppose any rename that involves changing "alumni" to "players". There has never been consensus for that change at the junior hockey level. Resolute 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose any rename that involves changing "alumni" to "players". There has never been consensus for that change at the junior hockey level... so yeah, what Resolute said. Regardless, I really don't see how what league the franchise is in has any relevance to the player, so why do we need to separate it? Your telling me the Ottawa 67's that Brian Kilrea coached in 1975 are not the same Ottawa 67's as Brian Kilrea coaches today because the league decided to change its name? This isn't the Hartford Whalers jumping from the WHA to the NHL here people, the league kept all the same teams... all the same players... so throwing this in only complicates matters. Strong support as said above for a merge. Plus don't try and change the original subject here. Croat Canuck Talk 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose to any renaming from alumni to players. -Djsasso (talk) 14:05, 4 February 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 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Congolese anti-communists to Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo anti-communists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Congolese" is ambiguous. All individuals in category are from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not the Republic of the Congo. Use rename format per recent 04 JAN 08 CFD and 22 JAN 08 CFD. Snocrates 22:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as overcategorization on the basis of opinion or issue along with the rest of the Category:Anti-communists structure. Otto4711 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Category:Anti-communists is not part of the cfd. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 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 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Monarchs of Bulgars to Category:Monarchs of the Bulgars

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Fixing an ungrammatical title. Latebird (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 30 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 reverse merge. Kbdank71 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:California Golden Bears football coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Cal Bears football coaches, convention of Category:Cal Bears football, or the reverse, to match California Golden Bears football ... one should be become a redirect. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Travtim^(Talk) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge to match California Golden Bears football. VegaDark (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge as above and rename Category:Cal Bears football to Category:California Golden Bears football. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge all the Cal Bears categories to their California Golden Bears equivalents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting because none of the reverse merges were tagged. --Kbdank71 17:43, 28 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. Kbdank71 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rawang-Seremban Line stations to Category:Rawang-Seremban Route stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the actual name used by KTM Komuter

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:36, 28 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. Kbdank71 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sentul-Port Klang Line stations to Category:Sentul-Port Klang Route stations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the actual name used by KTM Komuter.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:35, 28 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 "people from (state) by county", but just for these, as the others do not appear to have been tagged.. Kbdank71 18:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:California people by county to People by county in California
• Category:People from Michigan by county to People by county in Michigan
• Category:People by county of New Jersey to People by county in New Jersey
• Category:People from Pennsylvania by county to People by county in Pennsylvania
• Category:Virginia people by county to People by county in Virginia
• Category:Washington people by county to People by county in Washington

Nominator's rationale: The above should be renamed for consistency with the rest of the subcategories in Category:American people by county. Tom (talk - email) 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename these to 'People from [state] by county' and do the same with all other subcats of Category:American people by county to following the naming pattern that exists in the subcats of Category:American people by state - Hmains (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Hmains. This seems to be the best solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and I agree with User:Hmains's idea Mayumashu (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:19, 28 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:High schools in New Castle County, Delaware. Kbdank71 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High schools in Wilmington, Delaware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category:High schools in Delaware is sufficient to categorize. Wilmington is a nebulous geographical distinction which does not fit many of these schools, and includes other that have a different postal address. If any sub-categorization is needed, it should probably be by county, not by city. HokieRNB (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep clearly enough articles in this category to justify one. No compelling reason provided to delete it. And rename was not even being discussed. Hmains (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as stated in the nomination, many of the schools should be removed from this category as they are not within Wilmington city limits. Should be renamed to Category:High schools in New Castle County, Delaware if sub-categorization is desired. HokieRNB (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being in the city limits may not be an issue. If they are part of a metropolitan area then being in a category like this may not be a problem. Is it illogical for this category to include its metropolitan area? The lack of an introduction does not help. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The "metropolitan area" of Wilmington is New Castle County. The person who created and populated this category included only the schools that have the postal designation of "Wilmington, DE", leaving out schools that are actually much more closely tied to the city of Wilmington, such as A.I. DuPont High School (in the incorporated Greenville, DE) and even Wilmington Christian School, which has a postal address of Hockessin, DE. Even the city of Newark could be considered a part of metropolitan Wilmington. HokieRNB (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:High schools in New Castle County, Delaware per above discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 28 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 18:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Female activists to Category:Women activists

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parent Category:Women and subcategories Category:Indian women activists and Category:Iranian women activists. If people think it is better to have the subcats moved to "female," I am fine with that too. There isn't a lot of consistency in Category:Women by occupation, but "women" outnumbers "female." I'd just like to make this be a little more systematic. No opinion on which is the better word. LeSnail (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OCAT by sex + avocation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlos as overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Integral part of category tree. Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename either way, or upmerge to Category:Activists. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has now been notified on the three category pages affected. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to "Women activists", the more common term. A really interesting article could be written about women activists: There have been lots of historic claims to women's special moral virtues as women and as mothers (peace movement from 19th to present, "Mothers Against..."), and there's been interesting cross-currents behind women activists for women's rights and the rights of other groups. I can see a good article per WP:CATGRS that would justify a distinct category for women activists. --Lquilter (talk) 04:50, 29 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/merge. Kbdank71 18:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Space Exploration to Category:WikiProject Spaceflight

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not actually sure whether this one should even exist, but the project which it relates has been renamed, and the category should be renamed to match this. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ammendment - now proposing that Category:WikiProject Space exploration be merged into the resultant category, Category:WikiProject Spaceflight, as well. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe it would make sense to follow the example of Category:WikiProject Biography participants and rename this one to Category:WikiProject Spaceflight participants? (sdsds - talk) 06:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Or ? (sdsds - talk) 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to minimise self-references would be to merge the members into the main project category, and Category:WikiProject Spaceflight seems the best place for this to go. --GW_Simulations^{User Page | Talk} 22:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is "obvious" <grin> that with the WikiProjects having been merged, Category:WikiProject Space exploration (lowercase 'e') should become Category:WikiProject Spaceflight. I'm still confused about whether Category:WikiProject Space Exploration (uppercase 'e') should be merged into the result, or renamed Category:Members of WikiProject Spaceflight (which might be a sub-category of the above). (sdsds - talk) 06:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one category will be sufficient for now. If we need a separate one, we can create it at a later date. --GW_Simulations^{User Page | Talk} 09:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - OK, that works for me! (sdsds - talk) 00:04, 3 February 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 18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2007 elections in England to Category:English local elections, 2007

Nominator's rationale: This category is only used for local elections and the rename would allow this cat to fit into the Category:United Kingdom local elections, 2007 structure and be in line with Scottish local elections, 2007. The proposal also extends to the other pages in Category:Elections in England by year. BlueValour (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:30, 28 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Box Office Leader films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as non-defining, these films don't need to have anything to do with each other. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-defining, untenable inclusion criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both. LeSnail (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category with no clear inclusion criteria. Doczilla (talk) 12:51, 3 February 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 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Suburbs of Noosa to Category:Suburbs of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The Sunshine Coast region in Queensland, Australia will have their LGAs merged to one Local Government area]], thus the separate suburb categories for each LGA should be merged into one. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:59, 28 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 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Suburbs of Maroochy to Category:Suburbs of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland

Nominator's rationale: The Sunshine Coast region in Queensland, Australia will have their LGAs merged to one Local Government area]], thus the separate suburb categories for each LGA should be merged into one. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 13:00, 28 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 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cambridge Footlights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper person by project overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And could somebody please fix the damn template so it stops putting ((((2)))) instead of the category name? Otto4711 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not defining for the vast majority of those included, I suspect. Snocrates 09:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Highly influential in the careers of any number of British actors/comedians, eg John Cleese and Monty Python in general. Just see Footlights. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid as a membership/alumnus category. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete performer by performance, OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What performance would that be? Johnbod (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I base this on several items. First, I'd never heard of the Footlights by Eric Idle. Second, many of the articles don't mention this and when they do, they do not make clear that they had a notable impact. However a few did indicate a notable impact. If kept for those few, this would be a maintenance headache. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote is actually I'd never heard of the Footlights when I got there [to Cambridge]. This is merely indicative of the ignorance of schoolboys. If Wikipedia were to omit categories on this criterion cfds would be greatly simplified. Maintaining any category will be a headache if we have to decide whether the occupant wishes to be in it. The person was in footlights; there is a source to this effect; enough. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And if this were the kind of category that we kept, and this category were to survive, then this would be a perfectly fine response to challenging someone's inclusion in the category. However...--Lquilter (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We don't categorize people based on their relationships to other entities, and that includes affiliations with performing groups of various sorts. --Lquilter (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lquilter especially and Carlossuarez. Zoporific 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Query Is Category:Harvard Crimson football players person by project, person by performance, or based on affiliations with performing groups of any sort? I would say no, no and yes; and that we do regularly and routinely categorise people based on their relationships to other entities. The footlights seem to me to be a university 'dramatic team' analogous to a university sports team - people audition, are selected and travel around the country giving performances (see here for recent itinerary). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 06:39, 3 February 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. Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes is being considered separately here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Documentaries about alleged war criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. More than anything, this category appears to be a strained attempt at getting "Henry Kissinger" and "war criminal" associated together. The category Category:Documentaries about war criminals was created and The Trials of Henry Kissinger was added to it. I'm no Kissinger fan, but I removed it, arguing that Kissinger has never been convicted anywhere of a war crime and so WP should not be calling him a "war criminal" due to WP:BLP concerns. This category was created shortly thereafter. Aside from WP:BLP problems, which are only tangential in this case, I can't see this category having much growth potential, anyway. I would suggest a merge to Category:War documentaries and Category:Documentaries about people but the one article is already in both of these categories too. Snocrates 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, I was the one who created this category. I was trying to find a suitable category for The Trials of Henry Kissinger and realized there was none for "Documentaries about war criminals". You're right that he has not been convicted yet, but charges have been pressed. So perhaps "Documentaries about alleged war criminals" is more suitable. I can envision documentaries about many war criminals -- both past and future. Unfortunately, I don't think humanity will have any shortage of these. So I think this category is both timely and relevant. Serouj (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these "alleged" categories, though, is alleged by whom? By the documentary? Or by someone else? Do charges have to be brought? In an international court or just in a domestic court? What if they are frivolous charges trumped up by an enemy government for propaganda purposes? You can imagine that the potential problems can go on and on. Snocrates 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. In this situation, when so many people have pressed charges, including investigations by the governments of France, UK, and Chile (as well as charges by US citizens) it's difficult to say that only a fringe group of people (or his detractors) is alleging the charge of war crimes. Serouj (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - in addition to the usual problems raised by categorizing films by what they're "about" this suffers from irredeemable WP:BLP issues. "Alleged" war criminals. Alleged by whom? There are undoubtedly people in Germany or Japan who alleged that FDR and Winston Churcill were war criminals. Categorization based on allegation simply doesn't work. Otto4711 (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete allegations cats are crap per the explanation given by Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This category may be misnamed, but it is nonetheless important. Would it be less controversial if it were renamed Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes? (sdsds - talk) 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Wonderful idea sdsds. That way no one thinks this is libel. I added this new category. Serouj (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This and the newly created one should both be deleted. "Foo about" categories for film, music, etc. are almost always problematic. Zoporific 21:35, 2 February 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 18:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Unknown births to Category:Year of birth unknown

Nominator's rationale: The presently-nominated Category:Unknown births was analogous to Category:Unknown deaths, which was submitted here for merger into Category:Year of death unknown on January 192008. On January 25, the result of the discussion was merge. As the archived record of the debate (along with a related debate dealing with a similarly redundant Category:Years of birth and death missing) indicates, the two Categories, created on September 292007, were duplicative of other maintenance Categories and attracted only 28 [now 30] entries for "Births" and 41 entries for "Deaths". With "Deaths" now gone, this confused-purpose Category should follow suit. —Roman Spinner (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.; the wording is odd-ball to say the least, makes me think of the various sailors who have left port and know not of what 9-month surprise they've planted.... 01:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom, as it is both both redundant and ambiguously-named. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:16, 1 February 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 18:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Assyrian entrepreneur to Category:Assyrian entrepreneurs

Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing. Speedy rename proposed by User:Snocrates, opposed by User:Lesnail, User:Grutness. Original discussion available here -- pb30<talk> 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Assyrian businesspeople - per previous CFD that resulted in the merger of all "entrepeneurs" categories to the corresponding "businesspeople" cats. Otto4711 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Businesspeople should be divided by nationality, as it is. (There is also Category:Jewish businesspeople, which should probably be deleted too.) The Assyrian people are an ethnic group, and their connection to business is not enough to meet the requirements for categorization by ethnicity laid out in WP:CATGRS. The name "Assyrian" also implies a political agenda (see Assyrianism), and may be imposing an inappropriate WP:POV on the people categorized here. LeSnail (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to deletion either. Otto4711 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per LeSnail. I nominated for speedy name change, but I agree with LeSnail's rationale for deletion. Snocrates 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per above. My objection to speedying was simply that it seemed silly to rename a category that was a likely to become a deletion candidate very soon. Grutness...wha? 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT by ethnicity/religion and job. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 30 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 listify. Kbdank71 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unattached footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Original deletion overturned (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 22) due to procedural error. Please see that DRV and the first CFD for more information and arguments. I am neutral and simply relisting this for debate. W.marsh 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Listify. Overturned because it is useful is nonsense. Delete since the category is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I modified my vote since Listify may be a viable option. This is the same type of category like alumni players. They may be unattached one day and not the next. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or alternatively Listify per DRV. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as useful category for active footballers currently without a club, if "current" categories are allowed. If not, then listify. – PeeJay 10:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is a transient category or it contains all retired players, then a listify might make more sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if for no other reasopn than it's confusing to see it on an article alongside categories for the clubs the player has previously played for. Otto4711 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments last time - appears well maintained. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Listify. Somewhat ambiguous as what constitute "unattached", also opposite the spirit of other player categories which are historic. A "central" list is easier to maintain than a "distributed" category. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what does this category suppose to mean: Category:Footballers with an unknown status? Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a project maintenance category that does belong on the talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to talk space, this is a useful category for the maintenance of football biographies. I think it should be moved to talkspace like other useful but non-encyclopaedic categories such as Category:place of birth missing and Category:year of birth missing. The category could be moved across fairly simply, or an admin could add a unattached=yes parameter to the football banner. King of the NorthEast 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it's unencyclopaedic - it's a list of footballers currently without a club: that's real world information. I never intended the category as primarily a utility for administrators and editors. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is ambiguous: if it's current, it's unmaintainable and not particularly useful; if it's "ever been unattached" it is not defining because most players go through that phase at some point (usually early or late) in their careers. And then unattached also means not dating seriously, but let's not go there... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete impossible to maintain and goes against the standard that most player cats are historic. Makes absolutely no sense to have next to categories that the player has played for. -Djsasso (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it seems very well maintained, on my sample last time. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 2 February 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.