Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:CFD
Deletion Debates
Articles (by category)

Templates

Images & media

Categories

User categories

Stub types

Redirects

Miscellaneous

Deletion review
policy - log - tools
Skip to current discussions Skip to current discussions

Purge the cache to refresh this page

On this page, deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed. Categories are used to organize other pages, and aid browsing of related articles. See How to use this page for the official rules of this page, guidelines for Speedy Deletion and Speedy Renaming, and how to do cleanup. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for the policies guiding many renaming decisions.

Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.

Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised.

Deletion of a category may mean that the pages belonging to it (articles, images, etc) are transferred to its parent category, or to another category (newly-made or already existing).

Contents


[edit] How to use this page

[edit] Procedure

To list a category for deletion, merging or renaming, follow this process:

I.
Preliminary steps.

Determine whether the category needs deleting, merging, or renaming.

  1. If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) before using this page. Nominate categories here that violate policies, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas.
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy when nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. In the following three special cases:
    1. If the category in question is a stub category, go to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.
    2. If the category is only populated by a template, go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. For a template with the same name use {{catfd}}.
    3. If the category is empty for more than four days, use {{db-catempty}} for a speedy deletion.
II.
Edit the category.

Add one of the following tags at the top of the category text of every category to be deleted or renamed.

If the category is a candidate for speedy renaming, use:
and follow the instructions at Speedy renaming.
If a single category:
  • For deletion, {{subst:cfd}}
  • For a merger, {{ subst:cfm|OtherCategory }}
  • For renaming, {{ subst:cfr|ProposedName }}
If a group of similar categories or a category and its subcategories, use an umbrella nomination (each category must be tagged, for nominations involving large numbers of categories tagging help can be requested at the talk page):
  • For deletion, {{ subst:cfd|CfdSectionName }}
  • For a merger, {{ subst:cfm|OtherCategory|CfdSectionName }}
  • For renaming, {{ subst:cfr|ProposedName|CfdSectionName }}
  • Please include "cfd", "cfm" or "cfr" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor.
  • Preview before saving. The display will give more precise instructions about the next step.
  • See the talk pages at Cfd, Cfm, and Cfr for more specific information.
  • Consider adding {{cfdnotice|Cfd section name}} to the main article's talk page or to categories that are merge targets to notify users that the category has been nominated for deletion or renaming. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. See the talk page at cfdnotice for more information on how to use this template.
III.
Create the Cfd subsection.

Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of CFD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions in the comments (visible during edit), to copy and paste the template shown. All categories are specified without the Category: prefix.

For {{Cfd}}, use:
{{ subst:cfd2|ObsoleteCategory|text='''Delete''', Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~ }}
For {{Cfm}}, use:
{{ subst:cfm2|FromCategory|ToCategory|text='''Merge''', Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~ }}
For {{Cfr}}, to a definite name use:
{{ subst:cfr2|OldCategory|NewCategory|text='''Rename''', Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~ }}
For {{Cfr}}, to an indefinite name use:
{{ subst:cfr2|OldCategory|to be determined by consensus|text='''Rename''', Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~ }}
For umbrella nominations, the standard templates should build the "Cfd section name" for the 1st nomination, although the 2nd and subsequent nominations must be added manually, like this:
==== Cfd section name ====
  • 1st category
  • 2nd category
  • '''Your vote''': Your reason for nominating the category ~~~~
  • Preview before saving to ensure all the fields have been properly listed.
  • Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.
  • Always add a colon (':') in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes a category link that can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).

[edit] Notes for nominators

Once you have submitted a category here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result, and ensure that the change is populated to all affected pages.

Also, consider adding to your watchlist any categories you nominate. This will help ensure that your nomination tag is not removed by a vandal or mistake.

[edit] Users without accounts and users with new accounts

Users without accounts may nominate and comment on proceedings. If they lack edit history, comments and votes from anonymous without accounts and users with new accounts may be discounted. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Suffrage for details.

[edit] Redirecting categories

It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and classification.

However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over again. In these cases, we use a form of "soft" redirection.

Categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (#REDIRECT [[target]]) due to limitations in the MediaWiki software. Instead, use {{Category redirect|target}}. Helpful bots patrol these categories and move articles into the redirect targets.

You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia category redirects.

Warning Discussion of USER categories, or categories of WIKIPEDIANS has been moved out to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion.

[edit] Special notes

Anonymous users may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in AfD. Votes from anonymous or new users may be discounted if they lack edit history. See Wikipedia:Suffrage and WP:SOCK for details.

Categories relating to stub articles should not be nominated here, but should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{cfd-article}} for this.


Shortcut:
WP:CFDS

[edit] Speedy renaming

Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified at Wikipedia:Category renaming and repeated below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. They must be tagged with {{ subst:cfr-speedy|new name }} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per WP:CSD, e.g. "patent nonsense" or "recreation") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required for these.

[edit] Speedy criteria

Criteria for speedy renaming or speedy merging are strictly limited to:

  1. Typographical errors (such as, Brdiges → Bridges).
    • Note that differences between British and American spelling (for example, Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors.
  2. Capitalization fixes (such as, characters In harry Potter → Characters in Harry Potter)
  3. Conversions from singular to plural, or back (such as, Steamship → Steamships)
  4. Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
    • This should only be used where there is no room for any doubt whatsoever that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory. It should not be assumed that an incorrectly formatted "radio stations" category was intended to be a "radio" category, or that an incorrectly formatted "archaeological sites" category was intended to be an "archaeology" category.
  5. Expanding abbreviations for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country (for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to United States, but this criterion specifically does not apply to renames between the terms "American" and "United States").

When proposing that the category name should be reformatted in addition to one of the speedy criteria, or two or more criteria apply, make a regular nomination rather than a speedy nomination.

Note: If the nominator decides to change a nomination based on comments, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one as long as it still meets the speedy criteria.

[edit] Add requests for speedy renaming here

If the category does not match one of the five criteria listed above PRECISELY, do not list it here, but list it in the main section instead. If you are any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format:

* [[:Category:OLD Name]] to [[:Category:NEW Name]] ~~~~

Please add new entries at the TOP of the list and sign and datestamp your entries with ~~~~.

  • Category:People of Madeira to Category:People from Madeira. Practically all categories concerning people coming from a particular geographical area use "People from..." rather than "People of...". The category for Madeirans should be changed to reflect this. Peter G Werner 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Resubmit (category wasn't tagged {{cfr-speedy}}). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] December 15

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] Category:Galaxy types

Category:Galaxy types to Category:Galaxy morphological types

Rename This directory currently contains articles on different morphological types of galaxies (spiral galaxies, elliptical galaxies, etc.), different types of active galaxies (galaxies with supermassive black holes such as Seyfert galaxies, quasars, etc.) and some additional extragalactic astronomy jargon that can only be loosely conisdered to be a "galaxy type" (such as satellite galaxy).

The listing of all of these different articles together is not ideal, as the subjects are not necessarily analogous. Most galaxies can be classified simultaneously as one type of active galaxy and one morphological type (for example, a spiral galaxy may also be classified as a Seyfert galaxy, or an elliptical galaxy may also be classified as a Seyfert galaxy or radio galaxy). This is analogous to having a category that lists both the professions and nationalities of people (for example, having the articles American, French, astronomer, and accountant in the same category).

Another problem is that the listing of articles on active galaxies currently replicates the listing in the top level of Category:Active galaxies. Placing them in another category is simply redundant.

Currently, Wikipedia does not have a category for galaxy morphological types. If the active galaxies and some of the other non-morphology terms were removed from this category and the category was renamed Category:Galaxy morphological types, the category would be much more useful. Therefore, I suggest the rename.

The creator of this category, Zzzzzzzzzzz, has stated that he is attempting to list articles on types of galaxies in a separate category from the articles on the individual galaxies themselves. However, as the hierarchy of Category:Active galaxies demonstrates, the top level of a category tree can be used to list the general articles on the types of active galaxies, and the subcategories can be used to list articles on specific galaxies. A category on general galaxy types (the status quo) is simply redundant.

Zzzzzzzzzzz has also pointed to Category:School types and Category:Schools by type as an example of what he attempting to do with articles on galaxies. However, the hierarchy that he has pointed to also has problems. Both categories contain duplicate subcategories, including Category:Private schools, Category:Alternative high schools, and Category:Preparatory schools, and articles on individual school. It is also unclear why some categories are listed as subcategories of either Category:School types and Category:Schools by type but not both. Moreover, users have incorrectly placed some articles on individual schools in Category:School types because they did not understand the confusing hierarchy. My proposal would avoid this confusion. Dr. Submillimeter 07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hilton hotels

Category:Hilton hotels (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Empty, only entry was Hilton Hotels. Vegaswikian 07:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cosmic Era locations

Category:Cosmic Era locations (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete, not currently populated and unable to be populated, as locations in the Cosmic Era of Gundam would violate various policies. TheEmulatorGuy 03:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fictional characters with the power to absorb kinetic energy

Category:Fictional characters with the power to absorb kinetic energy (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Narrowly defined overcategorization. ~ZytheTalk to me! 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. The title doesn't even make sense. By my definition of absorbing kinetic energy, any object can do so. -Amarkov blahedits 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Amarkov, nominate for most over-inclusive biographical category ever. — coelacan talk — 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - not sure how else one would categorize the power of Sebastian Shaw. He absorbs kinetic energy and transforms it into super-strength. Otto4711 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You wouldn't categorize it, because it appears nobody shares it. -Amarkov blahedits 05:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fully agree with Amarkov, everyone or everything material can (incl. non-fictional characters). -- Goldie (tell me) 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "X Sea countries" categories

Suggest the nominations are clearer and more accurate. David Kernow (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nomination. It borders on making sense. (SEWilco 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC))
  • Rename all. What, are the countries in the ocean? -Amarkov blahedits 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cult computer and video games

Category:Cult computer and video games (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

How do you define cult? Many computer and video games classified as such will have been done so in a arbitrary fashion. Combination 00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. We have Category:Cult films which corresponds to article Cult films. This category corresponds to article Cult computer and video games and it can be regulated as such. Inclusion of any particular game should be determined on that article's talk page, and properly sourced. When that systematic approach is taken, there will be few worries of ambiguity here. — coelacan talk — 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The definition in the article doesn't even SAY anything. They "usually" have limited sales, and they have "generally" great reviews. Oh look, the weasel words took away any definition. -Amarkov blahedits 05:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The article clearly defines what makes a cult game - & examples of such - if you just read the first few parts of it. Also, like Coel says, discussions about whether certain games should be included or not can just be made on the discussion page, & if we have a category for cult films, why not cult games? There certainly are more than enough of them to warrant a category. I really see no reason to delete this article other than some people may be confused about some inclusions. If you don't agree about some of the games included, just tell me what they are & I'll look them up further. - SlyDante 02:51, December 15, 2006

[edit] Category:People currently in space

Delete, this a fun and interesting category, sadly however it suffers from upkeep issues. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*Comment: I notice it does not include either L. Ron Hubbard or Xenu. Obviously POV category! — coelacan talk — 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No vote. Is it current as of this week? It might be theoretically difficult to keep current, but we do have some hardcore space enthusiasts around here. If they are currently maintaining it satisfactorally, then let them continue. If the entries are out of date, then delete. — coelacan talk — 03:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete if entries are more than a month out of date. (SEWilco 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete all categories like this. Categories are entirely useless if membership changes every day. -Amarkov blahedits 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for several reasons. The cat is kept up to date as there are hundreds of hardcore space enthusiasts on wiki. One time I added a Soyuz crew as they were blasting off and I was greeted by an 'Edit conflict' message as someone had beaten me to it. If the main argument against the cat is that it must be kept up to date to be useful, please find a time when the cat has been even minutes out of date, never mind weeks or months as some have been suggesting. Also, if you wanted to know who was in space right now, where would you go to if not here? Philip Stevens 06:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Philip Stevens. I have viewed this page many times and often marvelled at how quickly mercilessly it is updated. Hera1187 07:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The category requires continuous active maintenance to account for people on short-term space flights. Moreover, Wikipedia would not have a category for the analogous situation for people on the Earth (such as Category:People currently in France, or Category:People currently inside the White House). Dr. Submillimeter 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - dynamically changing data is not encyclopaedic. No one will be interested what "currently" was used to mean after 100 years have passed. -- Goldie (tell me) 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:African American basketball players

This category is overlapped heavily by Cat:American basketball players. At least 75% of professional American basketball players are African-American, making not helpful to anyone interested in editing these articles.

Category:African American basketball players (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
  • Keep. "Category overlap" is not a reason for deletion. Any category will have overlap with parent categories. -Amarkov blahedits 02:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: We have a guideline on dealing with this kind of categorization, at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories. Everyone should read that before they vote. I have no opinion about this particular category either way, myself. — coelacan talk — 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless, and merge with the parent. It is not about their skin colour or race, it is about whether they can play the game or not! -- Goldie (tell me) 07:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sieges by country

Rename all to follow the category naming convention for events in military history (c.f. Category:Battles by country, Category:Naval battles by country, Category:Wars by country, etc.), and, more generally, the guideline adopted by the Military history WikiProject that military conflicts be categorized by the countries that participated in them, not by their geographic location (which, incidentally, is the case for the actual contents of these categories; hence the presence of both a UK and an England category).

For reference: the reason why WPMILHIST has rigorously avoided categorizing by location is because it's a choice between using the modern country where the battlefield is currently located (which is often a fairly meaningless association; the battles of Alexander the Great wind up being scattered over a dozen arbitrary countries, for example), and using the historical country at the time of the event (which begs the question of which country to use, as battles—particularly sieges—have a tendency to result in border changes; if the cause of the battle is a dispute over the border, it's not particularly NPOV—or even correct—to arbitrarily assign it to have taken place in one of the countries in question). Kirill Lokshin 00:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename all per nomination. Carom 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nomination. SEWilco 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced by these changes, and weakly oppose for that reason, despite the valid points raised re: WPMILHIST. "Sieges of X" seems to imply a siege of an entire country, whereas surely these categories hold items about sieges within a country. The Balcombe Street Siege was not a siege "of the United Kingdom", only of a very small part of it. Blockading the English Channel, however, could be regarded as a siege of the UK. Grutness...wha? 07:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename! I have missed the discussion as am not participating to this project. However the proposed names can be read as if the aggressor have besieged the whole country which is, er ... inadequate. IMO much better approach will be to use historical countries - "Sieges in Persia", "Sieges in Assyria", etc. The siege is held only in defender's territory, the border change is happenning afterwards, so there is no need for hundreds of categories. -- Goldie (tell me) 07:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCCAT. Also not all sieges are military, "sieges of" sounds wrong, and I don't see how "of" avoids the question of choice between present and defucnt countries anyway. Tim! 08:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename. The proposed new category names are ambiguous as to whether the country was the besieger or the besieged. --Metropolitan90 08:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Silicon Valley people

Merge into Category:People from Silicon Valley, per discussion of October 25th. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename. I had to change to this, but I like making policy do what should happen without process. -Amarkov blahedits 05:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] December 14

[edit] Category:Xiaolin Showdown character subcategories

Category:Heylin Side
Category:Xiaolin Side

[edit] Recipients of the Iron Cross

Category:Recipients of Iron Cross (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Rename to improve the English. . Chicheley 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename to Category:Recipients of the Iron Cross -- ProveIt (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Naval battles of Seven-Year War

Category:Naval battles of Seven-Year War to Category:Naval battles of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)

[edit] Category:Fictional wheelchair-bound people

Category:Fictional wheelchair-bound people to Category:Fictional wheelchair-bound characters
  • Rename - recently nominated for deletion and consensus was keep, but overlooked was that it should be renamed to match the parent cat of Category:Fictional characters with disabilities and the general scheme of denoting fictional character topics with the word "character" instead of "people." Otto4711 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nomination.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*Rename to Category:Fictional characters who are wheelchair bound as this better matches the parent category and other related categories. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: none of the above proposed names are acceptable. The names define people by their limitations. Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs would be okay. It's more factually accurate as well, because not everyone who uses a wheelchair is completely incapable of getting out of it, so "bound" is just wrong. — coelacan talk — 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as the word "characters" is in it... Otto4711 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well, you are allowed to change the nomination by putting the new suggestion, Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs, in place of the old one at the top of this section. I'll support it then if you do. — coelacan talk — 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nomination TonyTheTiger 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Fictional characters who use wheelchairs per Coelacan. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:The Cardigans Discography

Merge into Category:The Cardigans albums or Category:The Cardigans songs, as appropriate. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Games similar to Cricket

Category:Games similar to Cricket (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

delete pointless category that contains one article about something that is fictional nonsense and has no notability whatsoever. BlackJack | talk page 16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Useless and impossible to ascertain. Coemgenus 19:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless. TonyTheTiger 21:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Detele per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Isn't this what you use the 'See also' heading in an article for? Vegaswikian 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

Delete, as unnecessary. It looks to me that Category:Organisation was created to parent Category:Positions which was created to parent Category:Sports positions which was created to parent Category:Football positions. I think the second two may eventually become useful, but the first two probably ought to go. Do you agree? -- ProveIt (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have no clue what would and would not go in thes categories. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Both over- and under-inclusive. Coemgenus 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:School districts at the top 7% in Pennsylvania on Pennsylvania standardized tests

Delete as categorization by arbitrary inclusion limit. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This fits the definition perfectly. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Coemgenus 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as remarkably absurd. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:School districts that enroll more than 4,000 students

Delete as categorization by arbitrary inclusion limit. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do we create subcategories 5000, 6000, 10000? Robert A.West (Talk) 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 18:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Coemgenus 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Japanese city categories

Category:People from Fukuoka to Category:People from Fukuoka, Fukuoka
Category:People from Konan to Category:People from Konan, Aichi
Category:People from Kōriyama to Category:People from Kōriyama, Fukushima
Category:People from Kurashiki to Category:People from Kurashiki, Okayama
Category:People from Nishinomiya to Category:People from Nishinomiya, Hyōgo
Category:People from Obu to Category:People from Obu, Aichi
Category:People from Takatsuki to Category:People from Takatsuki, Osaka
  • Rename per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Rename per nom, this is not controversial. Nominator, you may want to leave a request at WP:AN to have this considered for speedy. — coelacan talk — 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hollywood Squares panelists

Category:Hollywood Squares panelists (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete, it's category cruft much like the "Guest stars on The Simpsons" categories of the past which have been deleted. A panelist may have been in the studio for all of an hour or two. Their connection to the show is just above being tenuous. Dismas|(talk) 09:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note parent cat Category:Game show panelists along with the half-dozen other child cats in the same vein as the Hollywood Squares cat. If this cat goes those should all also be put up for deletion. I have no particular opinion one way or the other on the nom. Otto4711 17:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Entertainment appearance categories should be restricted to roles people filled on a regular basis over a period of time. Chicheley 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Potential to be extremely over-inclusive with no benefit as such. — coelacan talk — 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Possibly living people

Category:Possibly living people into Category:Living people
  • Merge. The purpose of the living people cat is not to make an encyclopedic claim that the person is in fact alive, but to prevent WP:LIVING problems, through the shared watchlist at Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people. What if an article subject in this category is living, and suffers harm because of a libelous biography that's not detected through our normal processes? We can't risk that, even if we have to have one or two dead people in Category:Living people. We can use Category:Year of death missing when someone would be so old the chance they're alive is practically nil; I'd say 115 or 120 is a good age for that. In all other cases, we should assume they belong in the living people cat, even if they're so old they're probably dead. For more discussion, see the section "When 'living' is disputed" on WT:LIVING. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
So, watchlist Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Possibly living people as well. No big deal. — coelacan talk — 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Couldn't this category be monitored in the same way Category:Living people is? I think it would be strange to list someone on their page as being amongst "Living people" when there's nothing about them in recent decades. (e.g. someone last heard of when they were in their 30s c1930.) Whilst the living people category serves a technical purpose it does also serve an encyclopedic one. Timrollpickering 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. This change would also mean stating that Lord Lucan is alive - that's very POV. Timrollpickering 14:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. As pointed out above, the tag is encyclopedic. It also serves an important cleanup function that would be lost by merging -- it identifies biographies that need a specific piece of important information or where status is in reasonable dispute. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to People who may still be alive. Yes, it's a longer name, but at least it's like the English wot I have read and heard!  Anyone else...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The purpose of the category is to categorize people who are possibly alive, and it's doing a good job at that. Everyone can monitor the articles for potential WP:BLP problems, if they want to. --Conti|✉ 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As far as I am concerned the main purpose of this category is nothing to do with the legal reasons given for having category:Living people, which should be deleted in my opinion. Its true value is that it identifies articles that are missing one of the most basic pieces of encyclopedic information, ie whether the subject has died and if so when. It is found not only on articles about disappeared people, but on many articles about low profile people that focus only on the peak of their careers. Sumahoy 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree with Szyslak that the point of the living persons category encompasses this category, as well.
  • Keep Unlike Category:Living people, this category can actually be used to improve Wikipedia. Chicheley 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as is, per Timrollpickering. — coelacan talk — 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Timrollpickering. —Chowbok ☠ 02:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Musicals stars

Category:Musicals stars into Category:Musical theatre actors
  • Merge, as POV. A category for "Stars" is comparable to categories for celebrities, famous people etc. Sumahoy 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Acorn Archimedes software

Category:Acorn Archimedes software into Category:RISC OS software
  • Merge: RISC OS is the native OS of the Acorn Archimedes. Newer RISC OS machines are no longer branded Archimedes so the proposed title is more general. (I'm not so sure what's best for the subcat Category:Acorn Archimedes games, because pretty much all the games are from the Archimedes period.) —Blotwell 04:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nomJohnbod 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Goatse

Category:Goatse (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete - Nonsense, and the only pages in it were goatse.cx and Westnet (which I've removed). --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The category is probably redundant, but it's not very civil to revert new user's edit with a summary "rv idiocy". Prolog 06:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This is what I'm like when I've been up all night without a glass of milk. I might go pass out on the couch. --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Aborigines

Category:Aborigines (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
  • Delete. Unqualified, the term "aborigines" is quite ambiguous, and can refer to either aboriginal/indigenous peoples in general, or alternatively is specifically associated with these peoples in certain regions (Cf. Australia, Taiwan, Canada). This recently-created category is also redundant, since other categories already exist which cover the different senses in which this term is used, such as Cat:Indigenous peoples (general/overall), Cat:Indigenous peoples of Australia, Cat:Aboriginal peoples in Canada, etc. cjllw | TALK 03:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --bainer (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Scott Davis Talk 07:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomJohnbod 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Coemgenus 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, redundant. Perhaps inform creator of category that there are other categories which should be used instead. — coelacan talk — 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)



[edit] December 13

[edit] Category:Sports figures in politics

Category:Sports figures in politics (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete This category is a month old, and wasn't a category along the lines of Category:Athlete-politicians deleted some time recently? Certainly several cross-categories of this sort have been deleted. They create clutter because people with multiple careers will be in many categories already, and the connection between the members of this category is no more than quirky trivia. Osomec 22:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Listify. Whilst cross career categories are messy, a list of politicians who are also famous for sport is of interest. Athletes turned MPs Sebastian Coe (now a Lord) and Menzies Campbell (neither of whom have so far made it into the category) are relatively unusual in the UK for having a public profile before entering politics (off the top of my head actress Glenda Jackson is the only other current MP who springs to mind) and having this kind of information on one page is handy. Timrollpickering 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 07:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Listify, great idea for a list. Recury 14:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pope John Paul II and Fidel Castro would have to be added, and that demonstrates what a bizarre stretch this category is. — coelacan talk — 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Listify because the list can better detail criteria for inclusion and be kept more manageable, so we don't have people like Coelacan with the red herring about sandlot baseball or soccer qualifying one as a "sports figure". A category won't be watched like a list will; in fact, it cannot be watched for additions though one's watchlist. Gene Nygaard 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Intel Macintosh computers

Category:Intel Macintosh computers to Category:x86 Macintosh computers
  • Rename: As others have pointed out, this sounds like Intel builds Macs. It is supposed to be for Macs using x86 (i.e. "Intel") CPUs. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename: Certainly they are Apple Macintosh computers. However, they are Intel-based or x86-based. I am not sure what the proper destination name is, but this is better than leaving it alone. TonyTheTiger 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is' although i understand your point a person may not understand what is meant by x86, i think as it is it's meaning is more obvious.--Fabio 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename: to Intel-equipped Macintosh Computers. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as empty. If kept or recreated use Category:x86 Macintosh computers since we are talking about x86 architecture based machines. Intel is not the only company that makes those chips so using Intel in the name is misleading. Vegaswikian 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Empress Dowager Cixi

Category:Empress Dowager Cixi (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete - This category is entirely superfuluous and confusing. Niohe 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - No point to it--Fabio 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nom Johnbod 23:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence here that this person merits a category. Chicheley 20:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Media arts

Category:Media arts (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Article was created then redirected to an article. The category is empty and I'm not sure if it's useful. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Empty category Dugwiki 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Confusing term. Hawkestone 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Confusing term, empty category. TonyTheTiger 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete performing no function at time--Fabio 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Neoconservatives against the Iraq War

Category:Neoconservatives against the Iraq War (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

The category name is misleading as explained on its main page. These individuals were not simply against the war, but actually promoted the war and later changed their minds. Maybe a more accurate name for the category could be employed, like "Neoconservatives with second thoughts about the Iraq war", but it seems to cumbersome. I propose deletion in the absence of renaming since the title is misleading. 70.48.70.119 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. --70.48.70.119 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Neoconservatives who formerly supported the Iraq war or Delete. Otto4711 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Which Iraq war? And what about Neoconservatives who always opposed it? And for that matter "neoconservative" is a disputed term - see Neoconservatism#Shortcomings and criticism of the term "Neoconservative". Timrollpickering 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Which Neoconservatives always opposed it? Thanks. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ambiguous POV issues per above. Dugwiki 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - disputed term, ambiguous, high potential for POV misuse. Crockspot 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We can't have categories for every twist and turn of opinion. Hawkestone 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename definatly needs at-least a rename, or failing that delete--Fabio 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename with inclusion of "2nd Iraq War" perhaps, but don't delete. Inclusion is justified & referenced within the articles I looked at, & it is an important issue.Johnbod 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why does such an overspecific subset of a political ideology need to be categorised by the convoluted position they took on a single issue? Do we want similar categories like Category:British politicians who changed their position on Hitler? (And that's frankly almost the entire of Westminster in the 1930s.) Or perhaps those who've both supported and opposed the UK's membership of the European Union in their political careers like Tony Blair. Timrollpickering 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment on last comment - I think you mean the whole of the Conservative Party in the 30's, and the whole of the Labour party on the EU! Once the last neocon switches over, that might be the time to delete the category, but right now they haven't, and a reasonably long-term topicality cannot be ignored (or an awful lot of Wikipedia editors are completely wasting their time).Johnbod 05:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment With regards Hitler it was more complicated than that - almost everybody at one point or another was advocating some form of peaceful agreement, regardless of how certain people later wrote the history books. (Almost consistently throughout the 1930s only the Communist Party was staunchly opposed. Then after the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact they denounced an Anglo-German war!) But did they necessarily change their positions on Hitler? It would be stepping into the realms of POV to categorise some. Ditto the EU - many on both left and right have seriously reappraised their position over time but not always been clearcut about it. Timrollpickering 12:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Neoconservatives who formerly supported the (2003 on) Iraq war - F.A.A.F.A. 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just not category material. Renaming would only emphasise the absurdity of this category. Sumahoy 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing opinion to pure delete, renaming is untenable. Otto4711 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:WikiProject Idaho

Delete, project category for the currently non-existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Idaho. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The problem with deleting a category like this is that we should anticipate this project and its category existing in the future. Deleting will set precedent for speedy delete even when it is needed. TonyTheTiger 21:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll note that I started the category, mainly because the template on several talk pages automatically generated the cat which was appearing as a red link; I just took the next step of getting it entered in the right place. I also agree with the preceding comment. MisfitToys 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that sooner or later, we'll be needing it ... actually my real hope is that the publicity will inspire somebody, and that by closing time there might be a project using it. After all, there are Category:Wikipedians in Idaho. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Walhalla enshrinees

Category:Walhalla enshrinees (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Not a defining characteristic; category clutter. The result is good material for the Walhalla Temple article. Oh look, these people are all listed on the Walhalla Temple article! RobertG ♬ talk 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per my nomination. RobertG ♬ talk 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Retain, if possible renaming with less barbarous title. I don't see the problem here compared to hundreds of other far more pointless biographical categories. I've never looked, but something tells me various US Halls of Fame have categories.... Johnbod 16:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Near the top of the merit scale among categories for awards and honours. Hawkestone 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per both points above--Fabio 23:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, are you telling me that this is a defining characteristic of Johann Sebastian Bach? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment reply No more than being buried in the Pantheon or using a single name pseudonym is for Voltaire, or being a vegetarian and "inductee" of 2 US Halls of Fame is for John Lennon.Johnbod 14:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, he was a great German. Category:Great Germans would be POV, but fortunately this can stand in its place. Chicheley 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Possibly the most useful way Wikipedia offers of finding articles about important Germans. Should not even be considered for deletion other than as part of a mass nomination of all similar categories. Chicheley 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Change from Keep to Rename to Persons in Walhalla Temple - maybe it just a UK thing (well UK and User:Wetman) but I find "enshrinees" just too much, nor is it in any of my dictionaries. Johnbod 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:M83 group

Category:M83 group to Category:Centaurus A/M83 Group
  • Rename - Various references refer to this as the "Cen A/M83 Group", the "Centaurus A Group", the "M83 Group", or variations of those names. The proposed name, "Centaurus A/M83 Group", is an unabbreviation version of the name used by one of the primary (and best) scientific references for the article. (Also, because the object is a specific place and hence a proper noun, the g in "group" should be capitalized.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per above. WilliamKF 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per above--Fabio 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American-Filipinos

Category:American-Filipinos (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
Delete, Another neologism for a mixed ethnic group. Yes, there are people in the Philippines with American ancestors but there appears to be no consensus on the meaning of this particular term. American-Filipino, as far as I know, is not a mainstream term like Filipino-American is. And it seems like people use American-Filipino in the sense of Filipino-American; i.e. Filipinos in the US. Article of same name is also up for deletion here. Chris S. 03:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, The Category:People of American descent Category:Filipino people by ethnic or national origin are the proper places for this category. TonyTheTiger 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
keep as with all categories for immigrants from one country to another. How else are these people to be named? Hmains 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as with all categories for immigrants from one country to another (not that these people necessarily are immigrants). Chicheley 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as with the dozen other Foo-Filipinos. Gene Nygaard 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Holy Cross High School

Delete, category for Holy Cross High School, there are at least 16 of these; they have nothing in common, apart from sharing a name. -- ProveIt (talk)
  • Delete per nom.Johnbod 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-useful category. All incarnations of the school are adequately listed in disambig page. Tinlinkin 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)



[edit] December 12

[edit] Category:Mexico's National Soccer Coaches

Category:Mexico's National Soccer Coaches (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

[edit] Category:PC DVD-9-only games

Category:PC DVD-9-only games (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
  • Delete, that the video game is released on a dual layer DVD is not a defining characteristic. Recury 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's probably a bad idea to categorize games by possible formats they might appear on. It would be a bit like categorizing films by whether or not they've appear on VHS, Beta, DvD, Blu-Ray, etc. Dugwiki 20:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Could be interpreted as spam. Xiner 03:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I think it probably is spam. — coelacan talk — 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Child villains

Category:Child villains (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Non defining subcategorization of villains. Most entries are not true villains (such as Nelson and Cartman) and those which are should be upmerged accordingly. ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep within context of Category:Fictional villains The above problems with ambiguity are due to problems in the parent category Category:Fictional villains. That is, whether or not Cartman is a villain has to do with how the parent category defines what the word "villain" means. But using the assumption that we're keeping Fictional Villains as a category, then I think Child Villains is a reasonable subcategory of that. Therefore my vote would be to keep Child Villains as a way to subcategorize members of Fictional Villains who are children. That done, it is probably worth investigating whether to tighten the category definition for Fictional Villains to clarify whether or not unlikable characters like Cartman qualify as being villainous. Dugwiki 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Why? All the "categorized by age" categories were deleted for a reason.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Also rename to Category:Fictional child villains I'd also suggest renaming the category to Fictional Child Villains to make clear that it doesn't apply to actual children who have committed heinous acts (eg real life child murderers). Dugwiki 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, definitely need to add fictional to the name. Xiner 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – This CfD discussion from July lead to the deletion of Category:Fictional children. ×Meegs 10:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Alumni of St Hilda's College, Oxford

Category:Alumni of St Hilda's College, Oxford to Category:to be determined by consensus
  • Alumnae of St Hilda's College, Oxford or Graduates of St Hilda's College, Oxford, because all graduates and former students of this college are female and will be for some time to come. Note that the college website has an "Alumnae" page. Deb 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some may wish to refer to this page. Xiner 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; see similar discussions regarding Category:Smith College alumni (kept) and Category:Wellesley College alumni (no consensus). When used universally, "alumni" is suitably "neutral" vis-à-vis Wikipedia:Categorization of people. We similarly have Category:Actors but no Category:Actresses and Category:Patrons of literature but no Category:Patronesses of literature. -choster 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think those are useful categories to compare to - they're using "Actors" and "Patrons" to encompass all genders rather than as specifically gender neutral terms that can be applied to any gender specific group. Timrollpickering 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand the distinction you draw. "Alumni" standing alone indicates former students of any gender. The existence of "alumnae," however, would imply all "alumni" categories to be male-only, and I'm not one for encouraging "Alumni and alumnae of" which would almost certainly follow.-choster 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Traditionally the same plural form is used for a male only collective and a mixed gender collective - that does not in itself sweep aside all other gender specific plural forms. "Alumni" means both "former students who are all male" and "former students of mixed gender" but not "former students of any one gender". This is explained on the page for alumnus and I don't see that it would encourage "alumni and alumnae" at all. Timrollpickering 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Category:Graduates of St Hilda's College, Oxford. This would be a mess and inconsistent with all the other alumni categories. "Graduates" means "people who have graduated" whilst alumni/ae mean "former students" and include those who didn't actually graduate. All other alumni categories are arranged on this basis. (There's also the problem that the term "Graduate" is often used around Oxford to mean "postgraduate" - indeed the infobox on St Hilda's College, Oxford uses "Graduates" in this context.) I'm undecided on alumni/alumnae - are there any other UK HEIs/colleges that are all female? Timrollpickering 23:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Since Category:Hildabeasts would be unacceptable, rename to Alumnae instead. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave as is. It is clear enough. Anyway the College has agreed to admit men even though a date has not been fixed. It is unlikely to be long in the future. --Bduke 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:University of Wisconsin alumni

Category:University of Wisconsin alumni into Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni
  • Merge, upon examination the categories appear to be duplicate in purpose. The main article is at University of Wisconsin-Madison.choster 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment UW has a number of campuses outside of Madison so a separate category for those alumni is appropriate. Any UW-Madison alumni should go to that cat but non-Madisons should not. Otto4711 20:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The text inside the first cat says "Alumni of the University of Wisconsin-Madison." This is overlap. Xiner 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to be arguing my point for me. UW-Madison is indeed the flagship campus but a graduate of, say, University of Wisconsin-Stout should not be categorized as a UW-Madison alum. If the cat is to include all graduates of the University of Wisconsin regardless of campus or location then the cat should be reverse merged to Category:University of Wisconsin alumni and perhaps renamed to Category:University of Wisconsin system alumni. If the cat is going to be Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison alumni then the cat will need to be pruned to remove any non-Madison alumni and new cats for the other alumni may be needed. Otto4711 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:White protagonist in Africa films

Delete as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristics leading to category clutter. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-defining indeed. — coelacan talk — 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, after reading the link that Muntuwandi made available. That article could use some work, but the external links demonstrate that this is a real phenomenon that has been observed and noted by reliable sources. I don't know if I'd call it a "genre" exactly, but it's something, and while this characteristic may or may not be defining for each particular movie, together they construct a larger frame that this category does a good job of cataloguing. I would recommend all future voters read those external links in White protagonist in Africa films. — coelacan talk — 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Characteristics are not trivial. Where there is a definite trend, the information is useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chifumbe (talk • contribs) 14:28, 12 December 2006.
  • Delete per nom. Xiner 03:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to "Strong Rename". It is possible the topic justifies a category, but consider "I love New York apples" and "I love New York films". It's simply unclear whether here you're talking about films made in Africa, set in Africa, or made about Africa. As it stands brings up too divisive an image, perhaps unintentionally, but divisive nonetheless. I certainly see your point; you can make the same case for Chinatown films. I strongly urge a rename, including for the article. Xiner 15:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the title is unclear, but "Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa" would also work. How do you feel about that title? — coelacan talk — 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd support that. Xiner 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep see White protagonist in Africa films for more information.Muntuwandi 06:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The cat name is misleading, and I'd support a merge into Hollywood films set in Africa. Xiner 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • what is misleading about the name. If it is, renaming is an optionMuntuwandi 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That is worse, as not all Western films are made in Hollywood. Hawkestone 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic. Hawkestone 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a defining characteristic. Isn't it ironic that most of the movies about Africa are actually about Non-Africans. The purpose of the category is to highlight such films or trends in such films.Muntuwandi 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The concept can be extended infinitely to any film where the setting is secondary and people associated with the setting are ignored or dehumanized; q.v. orientalism. I could argue the Bridget Jones sequel fits—big parts of the plot is driven by an English woman (played by an American) and two English men in Austria (where the people in the movie speak the wrong dialect) and Thailand (where the most prominent Thais are prostitutes being held in a jail). -choster 15:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually the concept can't be extended infinitely on Wikipedia, because we are limited by WP:NOR. In this case, original research doesn't play into it, the external links document that this is a phenomenon discussed widely enough for notability here. There's no need to worry about this being a run-away train of new categories, because of WP:NOR. — coelacan talk — 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes the concept can be extended infinitely. But I Think Africa is in a unique situation because relatively speaking not many films are set in Africa. Therefore the few that are will have a significant effect in influencing the viewers perceptions about Africa.Muntuwandi 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:LGBT historians

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was a speedy deletion per Otto4711 below. David Kernow (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:LGBT historians (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete - Created in error during discussion of the now-renamed Category:Historians of LGBT topics. Duplicative. Otto4711 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Was anyone ever placed in this category andif so have they been properly moved to the other category? — coelacan talk — 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the category was never populated. Otto4711 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hoylake 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Women with very long hair

Delete as categorization by non-defining or trivial characteristics leading to category clutter. No objection to creating a list article. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Astounding that this exists. Is this someone's fetish? — coelacan talk — 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Dugwiki 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ridiculous fetish listcruft. Alphachimp 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-defining characteristic. Created by User:Longhairadmirer, possibly that's why. Crystallina 22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is just silly.--SeizureDog 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, yes, it really is a fetish. There are web sites, web forums, and magazines dedicated to this. Dismas|(talk) 13:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Valrith 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of above stated reasons, plus one more: women's hair lengths can vary. Trying to decide if a woman who was on this list (for instance, Crystal Gayle) who cuts her hair short, if she be removed or left on it due to her earlier prominence where she was characterized by her long hair strikes me as trivial and distracting. Tabercil 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue

Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue to Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue
  • Rename, Capitalisation, even though it is often abreviated to ISIHAC. Simply south 13:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per Simply south ... note it does qualify for speedy rename. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename It doesn't appear this category is even necessary. Generally it's a bad idea to create unique categories for specific shows and films, including radio shows. Cast lists instead simply can appear in the main article with links to the actors/participants, or in a sub-article as a list. Recommend deletion, or if kept then the rename is fine. Dugwiki 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This cat is not just the cast, it includes articles on ISIHAC games and characters. (I'm shocked and disapointed that we don't yet have bios of Mrs Trellis or the lovely Samantha ;-) ) -- AJR | Talk 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Characters on radio shows are already (or should be) subcategorized under Category:Radio characters. Actors on radio shows are under Category:Radio actors, and other personalities would be under Category:Radio personalities (or one of its subcategories). The only thing that might justify this having its own category (in my opinion) would be the mini-game articles, which don't appear to have an appropriate parent category on their own. (Category:Radio games is more for the actual shows than the mini-games within the shows.). So barring a way to subcategorize the mini-game articles such as One Song to the Tune of Another I don't see a good alternative at the moment to keeping the category. Dugwiki 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom...to match the title used by the BBC. The category should be kept, it is useful for linking together the articles on the various aspects of the show - it is more than just a cast list (which already exists in the main article). EdJogg 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that the main article already serves the purpose of linking articles related to the show. A reader interested in reading about any of the actors or characters or other information can simply visit the main article for the show and click the appropriate link. Thus a category is not actually needed for that purpose. Dugwiki 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • rename and definitely do not delete. Tim! 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to usual capitalisation. -- AJR | Talk 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:I'm Sorry, I Haven't a Clue providine you have straddled the Metropolitan line between Euston Square and Liverpool Street and are not in nip. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename for capitalisation - definitely don't delete. Squeezeweasel 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Pittsburgh Pirates coaches

Category:Pittsburgh Pirates coaches to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates coaches (NHL)
  • Rename, To be consistent with other entries of Category:National Hockey League coaches by team for teams which have similar names in other leagues.  — MrDolomite | Talk 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates (NHL) coaches, which is how the other categories are named. It does need disambiguation from the baseball team though, for sure. Recury 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, you are correct, Recury. I hate when I drop my parenthetical league reference in the wrong spot. Thanks! :) — MrDolomite | Talk 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anthropomorphic martial artists

Category:Anthropomorphic martial artists (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
Category:Anthropomorphic samurai (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Very few articles, some of which seem only tenuously related to the category. Very little potential for useful expansion. Subcat bundled for this discussion, same justifications. Serpent's Choice 11:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - the categories are a bit silly perhaps but I've seen sillier. The entries seem appropriate to the cats. Otto4711 20:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Many are about a topic that includes anthropomorphic martial artists/samurai, but that are not one themselves. I'm uncertain if that's an appropriate use of the cat. Notably, Jadeclaw is a roleplaying game (in-universe characters are anthropomorphic martial artists, but so are some characters in a great many RPGs...). Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (action figures) is about the toy product, not the characters themselves. Kung Fu Panda is a somewhat crystalball-ish 2008 movie entry (although its characters would certainly qualify). Kemono is a category of Japanese art. Also, the Komodo Brothers are Arabian Nights-style characters who wield scimitars (and are certainly not samurai, and arguably not martial artists). Regardless, I wouldn't object to the merge suggestion below, with some cleanup. Serpent's Choice 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Silly cat, but there's a place for it. Not enough for two though. Xiner 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Overcategorisation: none of the sub-categories which I have examined contains more than six articles, and many are empty. There is also a conflict between the definition of this category and its parent: Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State arranges bishops "by the U.S. State(s) to which each is/was assigned"; whereas Category:American United Methodist bishops includes only bishops who are "who are American by nationality". It seems unwise to presume that Bishops serving in the US will always be American by nationality, and while this could perhaps be resolved by assigning to a different parent category rather than deleting, it does suggest some confusion of purpose in this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just done some counting. This category tree contsains 74 entries, amounting to to only 55 unique articles. That's a total of 51 categories for 55 people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP all of these categories will become very helpful as more and more biographies of U.M. Bishops are written. It will help categorize them in ways to make each easily accessible and comparable to each other. Countering BrownHairedGirl, of course Bishops serving in the U.S. ARE American by nationality (though they may be of various ethnicities). No foreign Bishop is allowed to serve in the U.S.A. because foreign U.M. Bishops are elected under different rules, with term-limits and such. Bishops from outside the U.S. are elected for service in their geographical/national areas. This is all according to the Book of Discipline of the U.M. Church!! So Category:American United Methodist bishops is only for the purpose of NATIONALITY, not assignment or areas of service. The Area categories organize Bishops by where they are/were assigned. The State categories do as well, as do many other categories by U.S. States. Another argument BrownHairedGirl makes is that there are few articles in some of these categories. But there are hundreds of such underpopulated categories in Wikipedia! Shall we delete ALL of them?!?! Again, as more of these articles are completed, these categories will become more populated. If I am quick to create categories, some others are way too quick to delete them! Any other questions about any of these categories I will be happy to answer. Thanks! Pastorwayne 12:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If these actegories were an appropriate way of subdivinding the bishops, the categorisation could be done when there are enough articles to populate the categories. But 51 categories for 55 articles is just category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Upmerge all to Category:American United Methodist bishops and bar Pastorwayne from category creation - Bishops should be sorted according to diocese, not state. Note that most of Pastorwayne's categoreies are simply impractical, as can be seen in most clergy-related category discussions in November and December 2006. Many of the newer categories are only slightly different from previously deleted categories. (I believe categories such as "Bishops of Ohio" and "Bishops of Texas" categories have already been nominated for deletion in WP:CFD, with strong support for deletion.) Pastorwayne's category creation is becoming disruptive; administrative intervention may be warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • To support my point, Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Ohio, which was created by Pastorwayne, is nominated for deletion, with the majority of votes to delete or upmerge. Dr. Submillimeter 13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • But if you upmerge to Category:American United Methodist bishops then that will be incorrect, since Category:American United Methodist bishops is only for Bishops who are American by NATIONALITY, not necessarily by assignment. Moreover, U.M. Bishops are not assigned to Dioceses. The Areas to which they are assigned are of a variety of geographic areas, so the State categories are helpful to know where each also serves. Plus, just as many other categories are organized by U.S. State, the same applies to these categories and subcats. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Pastorwayne, if the upmerging would lead to the articles being incorrectly categorised, then the categories have been incorrectly categorised (I noted the problem in the nomination). I have to say that given the number of ill-considered categories which you have created, I have to support Dr. Submillimeter's proposal to bar Pastorwayne from category creation, but that is is a discussion which belongs at WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Note that Pastorwayne's contributions here are self-contradictory: at 12:14 he says that "No foreign Bishop is allowed to serve in the U.S.A", but at 13:13 he says that upmeging would lead to incorrect categorisation. This confusion in purpose is becoming disruptive :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Rather than attack a user, why not just ask for clarification. What I meant to say (and if I contradicted myself, of course I appologize) is that U.S. UMC Bishops serve in the U.S. Non-U.S. Bishops serve elsewhere in the World (though at one time U.S. Bishops served elsewhere in the World, too). Since Category:American United Methodist bishops is for American (by Nationality) Bishops, to upmerge all Area subcats to this would be incorrect, since some of those Areas are overseas (i.e., served by non-American Bishops). Only American (Nationality) Bishops should be in Category:American United Methodist bishops. CIVILITY, please! Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Merge all to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church - I found the original parent category and changed my vote accordingly. I still advocate barring Pastorwayne from category creation, at least for a probationary period. Dr. Submillimeter 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment some of these categories (the ones ending in 'Area') are for the equivalent of dioceses (called episcopal areas in the United Methodist Church), and therefore categorize based on the specific office that the person held. Mairi 03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep Categories that end in "Area"; Merge others to Category:Bishops of the United Methodist Church - Mairi and Alynna have provided a good justification for keeping categories that end in "Area" (although the categories need explanations to explain what an "Area" is). The state categories should still be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all into Category:United Methodist bishops. Apparently there's a total of 51 categories for 55 people, and yet somehow the most natural and obvious of them all is strangely missing. The first place anyone would look just isn't there. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Upmerge all (for now) With only 55 or so total articles it's unnecessary to subdivide them by state. If and when there are a couple hundred such articles, I'd support subdivision by either state or diocese (whatever is most appropriate). But for now it appears that dividing by state, while possibly forward thinking, is overkill. Dugwiki 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • so let me ask a simple question: the ONLY reason for subcats is when cats become too large? Are not subcats also for helpfully organizing articles for easy discovery and comparison? Thanks. Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The answer is that subdividing by state is mainly helpful for organization when it subdivides a large number of articles. When only a small number are subdivided, though, it just adds an extra layer of division that makes it harder for readers to find the article they're looking for because rather than having one page worth to scan, they instead have numerous subcategories to browse each of which is on its own page. So I think it's best to hold off on this sort of subdivision until it's actually needed. Dugwiki 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • thank you for a most helpful answer! I will seek to restrain myself from creating subcats only because I find them helpful, until largeness of cats suggests it. God bless! Pastorwayne 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of you seem to think the only reason to create a subcat is because the parent cat is too full (100's of articles, for example). However, I find NOthing in the guidelines about cats and subcats that says this is the only reason! Indeed, I find nothing there that really says this is the most important reason. Instead, it says to use subcats when that would make it easier for users to find articles: like when you want to know all the U.M. Bishops in a particular U.S. State or Episcopal Area!! Or when you want to compare and contrast various Religious leaders in a U.S. State, etc., etc., etc. Lots and lots and LOTS of cats have very few articles. That does not make them unhelpful or uncyclopeadic. As such, it sure seems you are being way to anxious to delete a number of helpful cats and subcats!! Wouldn't it make more sense to have a discussion on a subcat's talk page as to it's helpfulness? I only create subcats that appear helpful in understanding a topic better, making interesting comparisons between articles, etc. But I am always willing to answer questions from folks who may not see it this way. Pastorwayne 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And don't some of you have much BETTER things to do than to worry about how such a small part of Wikipedia is being categorized? I bet there are much more popular areas that would be better served by all of your boundless energy! Of course, you'd probably say the same thing (and HAVE) about my interest in creating categories. Touche' God bless you! Pastorwayne 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This line of reasoning won't hold water whatever you do when we're encouraged to fix even the smallest typo. Xiner 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See also a related discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Would it be possible to divide this discussion into the state categories and the Episcopal Area categories? The state categories should definitely be deleted. Not only are they overcategorisation, but they overlap the actual areas bishops are assigned to. The Episcopal Area categories, on the other hand... The only issue with these is their underpopulation. As they are organised according to the actual position held by the bishops, they are potentially useful. --Alynna 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete category and first level subcategories not containing "Area" (all of the state categories which contain area subcategories). For now, keep already existing Category:United Methodist bishops by Episcopal Area and its subcategories, subject to later reexamingation. Gene Nygaard 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Keep per Gene Nygaard. Bishops by their Area is a logical way to group these. Vegaswikian 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Stampede Wrestling roster

Category:Stampede Wrestling roster to Category:Stampede Wrestling alumni
  • Rename, this is a category containing former roster members (alumni), not current roster members, and to bring it in line with other pro wrestling alumni categories. James Duggan 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per above comments. RobJ1981 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per above comments. Geoffg 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussions of September 21st and October 22nd. How many times do we have to go through this? -- ProveIt (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per ProveIt and previous discussions. Otto4711 15:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename Incorrect as it stands. Xiner 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster

Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster to Category:Extreme Championship alumni
  • Rename, it's a category containing former roster members (alumni), not current roster members, and to bring it in line with other pro wrestling alumni categories. James Duggan 08:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per above comments. RobJ1981 09:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per above comments. Geoffg 15:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussions of November 12th and November 25th. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A while back, there was a big debate on what the article World Wrestling Entertainment alumni should be called because people kept renaming it. We debated this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling a while back and agreed that the most appropriate term for former roster members is alumni and that roster denotes current roster, and all pages dealing with alumni were changed to that name. Since these categories are basically the category version of these alumni pages, they should also be named alumni for that same reason. James Duggan 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep It looks like this discussion already took place on November 12 above. Unless something has significantly changed the category name should remain in place as a procedural matter (to allow for consistency and closure in previously decided cfd's). Dugwiki 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds like the new system actually conflicts with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) - People/Occupation. The guideline specifies that Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. For example, Category:Former child actors and Category:Current Minnesota Twins players should not exist. Therefore the categories you mentioned that break wrestlers down between current-and-former categories should probably all be merged. Dugwiki 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm just looking for name consistency, as I pointed out with the other categories above. I would suggest bringing this up to WP:PW on our talk page because we obviously didn't know about that guidline. I still don't like "roster" because it can denote current (just look at the roster articles, they are all current rosters). Maybe using "wrestlers" at the end instead of either "alumni" or "roster", and we can include both past and present roster members. Or we can just scrap these categories. Anyway, this issue has become too complicate now to wrap my head around, so bringing it up to the Pro wrestling WikiProject might help us best decide on the direction these categories go. James Duggan 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good idea. I'll post a thread at that project. Meanwhile, I'd suggest holding off on changing this category until you guys have a chance to review the guideline I mentioned and see how it might affect your other related categories. Then perhaps do an umbrella cfd nomination for all the similarly named categories to get them either renamed or deleted as appropriate. Dugwiki 16:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. In the mean time though, I think they should all be the same name, regardless of the rules, just for consistency sakes, while we discuss what name they should actually be at, as I doubt that "roster" will be the name settled on. James Duggan 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename Roster implies the present. Alumni is more accurate. Xiner 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that per the Nov 25 discussion, the phrase "roster" was chosen specifically because it can include both former and present members. Also note that, as I mentioned above, Wiki categorization guidelines for people say that occupation categories should not be divided into current and former subcategories. Dugwiki 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per Dubhagan and comments at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:UN Secretaries-General

rename as United Nations Secretary-General.--Mukuixi 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • rename as Cat:United Nations Secretaries-General - removing the abbreviation but keeping it plural as per similar categories and reflecting its contents. Grutness...wha? 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as Cat:United Nations Secretaries-General per Grutness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as Cat:United Nations Secretaries-General per convention. Hoylake 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as Cat:United Nations Secretaries-General per above. Timrollpickering 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • rename per Grutness; this is a plural Hmains 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Euromalays

Category:Euromalays (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete, A neologism and redundant category since Eurasians and oodles of other ethnic categories, which are getting out of hand, already exist. Chris S. 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim scholars

Relisting from December 2 CfD. Previous discussion:
Category:Sunni Muslim scholars to Category:Sunni scholars
Category:Sunni Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Sunni Islamic scholars
Category:Shi'a Muslim scholars to Category:Shi'a scholars
Category:Shi'a Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Shi'a Islamic scholars
  • Rename, The use of "Muslim" is redundant and not needed. BhaiSaab talk 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as per nom. Seems reasonable. Sunni and Shi'a are fairly specific. -- Necrothesp 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While Sunni and Shi'a are currently well-understood in the West and identified as "Muslim", in part because of the current problems in the Middle East, I don't believe that the average English-speaker would identify, for example, Ibadi as Muslim. There is no "Ibadi Muslim scholars" category currently, but I still believe that the extra identifying word in the category name is descriptive and necessary. JRP 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I would consider it less of an understood reasoning and more for simplicity. If someone does not know what Shi'a is, they can look it up but the categories are already subcats of Category:Muslim scholars with a diagram on each category's page. The only way it would be needed is if there are two identical Shi'a categories and they needed distinguishing. -- CobraWiki (jabber|stuff) 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral i was about to support, but considering the above... --Striver 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Famous Beşiktaş J.K. fans

Category:Famous Beşiktaş J.K. fans (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete Football club fanship is not a defining characteristic. Chicheley 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Official residences in South Korea

Category:Official residences in South Korea
Delete, there is only one entry, and no need for an entire category. JCO312 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People from Canada in broadcasting

Category:People from Canada in broadcasting to Category:Canadians in broadcasting
To follow all other subcategories of Canadian people by occupation

[edit] Category:Waltisim

Category:Waltisim (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete. Nonsense category obviously created as someone's private joke (not even spelled correctly). Russ (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as mis-spelt nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Dugwiki 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete POV nonsense--Bilbo B 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Cute joke, not an encyclopedia entry and most of all I object to categorising the targets of the humour under it. Salvianus 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO. Also, please take a look at the other articles created by the same editor Special:Contributions/Jetwave_Dave, they have a history of strange article creation. L0b0t 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Website Design Companies

Category:Website Design Companies to Category:Web design companies

[edit] Category:List of Korean breakdancing crews

Category:List of Korean breakdancing crews to Category:Breakdancing groups
  • Rename, The subject is not notable enough to be split by nationality. The category only contains 1 item. Changing it to include all countries will allow it to be populated, rather than hundreds of categories being created for every country and only containing a few items. To note, this is the only breakdancing groups category in existence. - Tutmosis 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. If and when the number of such groups becomes significantly larger, I'd support dividing by nationality. But for now it's not necessary. Dugwiki 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not encyclopedia material in my opinion. -RiverHockey 22:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion doesn't mean anything unless you can demonstrate a rationale that involves WP:N. — coelacan talk — 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Outstanding Canadians

DO NOT DELETE - FOR MY STUDENTS, THIS CATEGORY IS AN IMPORTANT LEARNING RESOURCE, AND YOU GUYS HAVE NO RIGHT TO BAN SCHOOLCHILDREN FORM LEARNING ABOUT THEIR CULTURE AND HISTORY. WHO GAVE YOU THIS RIGHT???

Category:Outstanding Canadians (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Obvious POV - speedy. –Outriggr § 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as category will always be empty. Sorry, I kid, I kid. Delete per nominator, category will always be POV. — coelacan talk — 01:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Boo! –Outriggr § 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a fork (in effect) of Canadian people. David Kernow (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Chicheley 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and add Outstanding to the red flag list, along with Famous, Notable and Eminent. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Dugwiki 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly POV. Tim! 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete bogdan 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless consensus can be reached for a complimentary Category:Canadians who are all-in-all pretty average and unremarkable when you think about it. --W.marsh 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Artists remixed by Fluke

Category:Artists remixed by Fluke (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

As far as I can tell, getting remixed by Fluke is not particularly more significant than getting remixed by anybody else. As such, there's no reason that getting remixed by anybody would be a useful characteristic to categorize by. Unint 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, in that case then just delete-ify. :) Dugwiki 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary category. Definitely not encyclopedia material.... -RiverHockey 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sportspeople by religion

Delete, per discussion of July 25th, Mark Category:Sportspeople by religion. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per earlier debate given by nominator, but note: Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople is already salted. Recommend salting of these other categories as well. — coelacan talk — 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, one is already blocked, I've removed it from the list. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as irrelevant intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I dont see any reason to delete this category. It’s a fact, For example, The Brazilian footballer Kaká who is regarded by many as the best footballer in the world, Is a strongly religious and he tithed his income from football to his Church † The Guest 16:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)}}
    • Comment: It's also a fact that John Major likes watching cricket, and Margaret Thatcher likes (or used to like) drinking whisky. But that is insufficient reason to create a Category:Prime Ministers who like cricket or a Category:Prime Ministers who drink whisky. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, things like Kaka tithing his money to his Church would be best mentioned in his article. Recury 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hoylake 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a matter of time denominational conflicts spring up. Xiner 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Categories should only exist where the characteristic is nearly always relevant, and not where it is relevant in just a few cases. Hawkestone 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and see indeed Category:Catholic footballers I nominated on its own accidentally. Amoruso 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] December 11

[edit] Category:Latter-day Saint singers

Category:Latter-day Saint singers (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
Category:Latter-day Saint musicians (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
Category:Latter-day Saint musical groups (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
Category:Mormon composers (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Over categorization intersection. Vegaswikian 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as overcategorization. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above (otherwise suggest it'd need renaming). David Kernow (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion

Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians Against Abortion
Category:Pro-Choice Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians For Legal Abortion
  • Rename, Pro-life is a loaded term, as is pro-choice. Wikipedia should not be a place for politicking, and divisive/explosive categories such as these should not carry controversial terms. As it stands these two categories violate rule #8 of the guidelines, namely by being controversial and POV. They probably don't belong in Wikipedia, but if they must, they should state what they are, and no more. Xiner 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not rename. "Pro-choice" does not mean "for abortion" it means "for reproductive rights." There are lots of people who are pro-choice who do not like abortion but feel that outlawing it only makes problems worse. If these categories shouldn't be named as they aren, there's probably no better name for them. I'm voting keep as well because I disagree with the notion that we should not be allowed to categorize ourselves as we see fit. The old T2 destruction of userboxes was a fiasco that should never be repeated. — coelacan talk — 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    Rights is itself a loaded term. For vs. Against is the best I can come up with now. My userbox was T1 deleted, and since these categories had inspired me to create it in the first place, I think we should rename them. Xiner 22:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well you'll have to come up with something better. "For abortion" is factually inaccurate, and worse than the current names, which are at least each embraced by their respective sides. — coelacan talk — 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Your userbox is clever though, I might have to borrow it for myself. — coelacan talk — 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Acceptance by the respective groups is not the issue here. There are people in this world who'd support the category "Death to Infidels" or "Death to Abortionists". Xiner 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is not a controversial or loaded term. Just another English term that can be used as a categoryRaveenS 22:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. I've updated this nomination per Coelacan. Xiner 22:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak rename. That's much better. I might drop the "s" on abortions though. The debate itself is usually just termed "abortion". — coelacan talk — 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not rename. The categories are very clear for meaning pertaining to user-belief with the current titles. I am against all abortions, legal or illegal (except in cases where the mother could die). So the wording now is correct. Therefore, keep as-is. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    I understand your point, but like I said, pro-life is POV. Xiner 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. I've updated this nomination per JungleCat. You people are hard to please. Xiner 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does no one else see the gigantic red notice at the top of the page that this discussion belongs at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion? But while I'm here, "pro-life" is not as simplistic as "anti-abortion" either. Most people I know who would describe themselves as pro-life would consider it shorthand for "pro-life from conception to natural death". Generally, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the most succinct terms to use and these names have been retained in previous CfDs.-choster 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    Please look at the relevant section in Pro-life. It is generally agreed that pro-life and pro-choice are loaded terms. Just because they were left alone undeleted doesn't mean I don't have a valid case. Xiner 23:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, it can be difficult to "aim at a moving target". If you keep changing the objective, you need to withdraw this and start over. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right. The net effect so far is one word, though, so I'm reluctant to delete what has been a productive debate. Xiner 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote. Now the names enforce a false dichotomy. As I noted before, there are pro-choice people who do not like abortion, who are indeed "against abortion" but who feel that law enforcement is the wrong approach and makes things worse. So there are actually people who are "against abortion" and "for legal abortion", just like there are people who oppose both alcohol and prohibition. I really don't feel that this is a minor quibble, as this view is quite common in the pro-choice movement. — coelacan talk — 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    To me that's great news. Try to look at it this way...you can now proclaim your views more accurately. Proudly include both cats on your user page. Xiner 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My first preference is delete because all associations of Wikipedians by POV are damaging. However, if that's not accepted, do not rename. Present names are simpler and more user-friendly. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    I don't find the current names user-friendly. I'm not anti-life. Xiner 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    I don't find that it calls you that. The issue in regards to abortion are two competing principles: 1) that life should be preserved, 2) that people should be able to choose what happens with their own bodies. If you think 1) is more important, you're pro-life; doesn't mean you're anti-choice, just that you think that preserving life is more important in this case. And vice-versa. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Funny, you're using the term life the way I am objecting to. Xiner 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    I can appreciate that opinions do differ on this issue, but I don't think they differ among those who would put themselves in the category. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    The only reason anyone'd put themselves in any category is that they ID themselves with it. That doesn't remove my POV objection, and in fact is one of the main reasons that led to it. Xiner 15:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not wild about the exact proposed renaming, I think Xiner's got a point that the current names are inherently POV. The proposal is preferable to the originals, although the enforced false dichotomy still bugs me. The argument that it's not a false dichotomy because one can choose to take both categories may have merit, although it smells funny, like a post-hoc rationalizaton. — coelacan talk — 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If it smells like a post-hoc rationalizaton, it is a post-hoc rationalizaton. I admit it. I hope, however, that the dichotomy that already exists will be bridged somewhat by the proposal, which at least allows users like you to state your principle without being obligated to ride it over others. Xiner 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians with strong feelings about abortion, then everyone can have a userbox that says whatever they need it to without overcategorization (Category:Wikipedians against legal abortion without parental consent and only in the first trimester), wordsmithing, or post-hoc rationalization. ~ BigrTex 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    No matter what disagreement I have with a fellow editor, Wikipedia has a way to pleasantly surprise me and restore my faith in the community. This is a great proposal and I'm changing my vote. Xiner 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Can people add their opinions to this discussion again? We need consensus on this new proposal. Xiner 15:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Remakes

Category:Remakes - Holds two disparate subcategories: Computer-related remakes and Film remakes. Both are already sub-categorised elsewhere, more appropriately. - jc37 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - as nominator. - jc37 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem like a necessary parent category. Dugwiki 16:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Otherwise there could be a Originals and Remakes. Xiner 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-Islam writers

Category:Anti-Islam writers (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Article name is inherently POV. Stong potential for writers who should simply be listed at Category:Critics of Islam to be listed here. I would have suggested merge, but at this time all the entries in the category are already in Category:Critics of Islam. — coelacan talk — 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. For very real safety reasons, Wikipedia shouldn't host what can amount to a hit list compiled by editors. Terrorists and radicals can just look at the list and be saved a lot of time. If the safety concerns weren't a real problem it would be a very different matter. If this sounds paranoid or crazy, stop and think about who we are dealing with -- people who are not acting normally, but who do target any public critics they can get an eye on, and Wikipedia shouldn't make it easy for them. -- Fyslee 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's a good point. Should we request then that the category cannot be recreated? — coelacan talk — 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably so. There is nothing in the foreseeable future that indicates a whole generation of discontented young men and women with radical tendencies are going to suddenly change their minds. It's a sad situation all around. In this case we need to see realities in the eye and not do anything that can endanger anyone. -- Fyslee 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing to merge. Everyone in this category is already in Category:Critics of Islam. That was stated clearly in the nomination. — coelacan talk — 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete I don't see any reason to delay this nom. Someone should propose it for speedy deletion, if it's not already. Xiner 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
How does one propose something for speedy deletion? — coelacan talk — 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Under what criteria of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion? Vegaswikian 01:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
General criteria #10 (#9 would be overkill). Xiner 01:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not particularly an attack page. It may have some people inappropriately listed but (as I mention below) some of the people do identify as anti-Islam. gren グレン 01:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Upon further investigation of some of the subjects included in the category, I am changing my vote to Delete per gren. Xiner 01:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, it inflammatory but it's not exactly 'wrong' to put some people in this. Some of the people in this category have identified themselves as anti-Islamic explicitly. So, to call it a hit list is silly. But, I will agree this is as worthless as Category:Critics of Islam. Because it's vague and we don't really have any set criteria for inclusion. gren グレン 01:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 02:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, POV issues. Dugwiki 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a topic area full of shades of grey, but this category is black and white, so it is not appropriate. Hawkestone 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Catholic footballers

Category:Catholic footballers (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
This category has serious POV and OR issues. It's added wholesale to football players that are from certain countries without any references, and I don't see how it's useful. Amoruso 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nom. Amoruso 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete although I was sorely tempted to forget WP:POINT for a while and add Pope John Paul II to the category. Unless the footballers have been prominently identified as Catholics (and they haven't), the category is pointless. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and fys. — coelacan talk — 20:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many Famous catholics players and who has been added to this category are known catholics and Theyre into religion, and I don't see any problem with this category —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dino777 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 December 2006.
  • Delete, religion seems an unusual way to subdivide football players; I couldn't find any mentions of it in any article at FIFA's website, for example. -choster 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't you just categorize the footballers as Catholic (or Buddhist, for say the Divine Ponytail)? Xiner 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as repost of Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Many of these players are religious like Luis figo, Javier Zanetti, Ze Roberto, Lilian Thuram, Kaka, lucio and also Diego Maradona is a known catholic ronaldinho also and sirgeo ramos and all of these players have relation to religion theyre not just a "football players" and why the objection only comes from jewish and atheists??? if you want to delete the Christians Category So I offeror to delete also the Categorys of all jewish and muslims and atheists people.

89.139.246.65 02:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)}}

  • Actually, most people are religious. That's why I said what I said above. Xiner 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as overly specific. Besides the place seems to be moving against any mixing of athletics with religion. Whether that's right or wrong I'm not sure, but it's the way the game is going now.--T. Anthony 08:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as irrelevant intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I dont see any reason to delete this category. It’s a fact, For example, The Brazilian footballer Kaká who is regarded by many as the best footballer in the world, Is a strongly religious and he tithed his income from football to his Church † The Guest 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)}}
    This is an unnecessarily divisive categorization that can be easily avoided with the Catholic category. I don't want to see Buddhist Footballer spring up next. Xiner 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Irrelevant to on field achievements. Hoylake 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Categories should only be used for characteristics that are nearly always significant to the people involved, not for characteristics such as this one which are only significant in a minority of cases. Hawkestone 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Immigrants to England

Category:Immigrants to England (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Survived a group nomination in July but I want to consider this one individually. Firstly, why have England separately? Someone has added Tony Blair to the category on the grounds that he was born in Scotland, which is stretching a point too far. Secondly, what counts as an 'immigrant'? Paddy Ashdown is in the category, because he was born in India, but he was born to an English family. Spike Milligan is also there, again born in India, but he was very much conscious about his Irish ancestry. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dying

Delete We're all dying. Need I say anymore?--Zleitzen 16:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- the nomination fails to state a valid reason for deletion. Most of us have not been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Such a diagnosis marks a significant milestone in an individual's life and it should be recorded as such. It's also not all that difficult to find verifiable sources for such a diagnosis. A category grouping for these individuals allows readers to quickly identify living people with a terminal diagnosis and thereby track notable people quickly. I suspect that this category would be highly useful to journalists, researchers, and friends. Rklawton 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to something like Category:People diagnosed with a terminal illness or Category:Terminally ill people or something better if you have it. The cat mey be useful but the name is not. Otto4711 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I fail to see an encyclopedic value which justifies having this category. I could potentially support a rename as suggested by Otto4711. BruceHallman 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:People diagnosed with a terminal illness I support that rename suggested by Otto. FYI, I also made this category a subcategory of Category:People by medical or psychological condition, as it seemed like a natural parent. I'm not sure the category needs to be deleted, though. The only problem I see with it would be maintainence, since it can theoretically be added to any biography if and when they become teriminally ill. Dugwiki 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I should add that the key question that needs to be answered is which of two schemes are more useful. The first scheme is to include only living people with terminal illnesses and, when the person dies, remove the category from the article. In that case, I'd suggest renaming it to something like "Category:Terminally ill living people" or "Category:Terminally ill people". The other scheme is to include people both living and dead who, at some point, were diagnosed with a terminal illness. The advantage to that scheme is that once the category is added, it always applies. So from a maintainence standpoint, once someone is diagnosed with terminal cancer, for example, you can add this category and don't have to worry about revisiting the article after the person dies. If this scheme were adopted, I'd suggest the name Category:People by medical or psychological condition. Dugwiki 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think renaming is fine, so long as it's clear that the subject is currently alive but diagnosed as terminal. Rklawton 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As far as encyclopedic value goes, this category provides a quick index using information that's already contained within biographical articles. I can think of a lot of uses for such a category: media researchers, celebrity fans, prayer groups, etc.Rklawton 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This category is not related to individuals' encyclopedic achievements. Osomec 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Most categories do not relate to encyclopedic achievements. Think about birth years, death years, persons still living, religion, nationality, etc. Rklawton 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Rklawton. Categorization is normally based on whether the category represents something notable and important about the article and that places it in a similar category with other like articles. It doesn't have to be an "achievement", but can also be a vital trait such as whether or not the person is living or dead. In this case, I think you can reasonably argue that whether or not a person is terminally ill is an important, vital characteristic. So other problems of maintainence aside, I think this category does have encyclopedic value. Dugwiki 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I think the concept is problematic as whether a chronic condition is "terminal" or not may be disputable. For one, "terminal" in the sense of malignant cancer that will kill you in 6 months is quite a different thing from "terminal" in the sense of a neurodegenerative condition that will kill you in 10 years. For another, the lethality of a particular condition may change as medical science advances. "Consumption" was a death sentence before antibiotics, but non-MDR-TB tuberculosis is not feared in the industrialized world; an HIV-positive person in 2006 can potentially live for decades with treatment— perhaps longer than the average person in some parts of the world. We all eventually die of something.-choster 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comments - this is no more problematic than any other fact about a person's life. As editors, We don't make the diagnosis (for the very reasons you point out). We either find a verifiable source that makes that specific prognosis (terminal), or we don't apply the category. Take Patricia C. Dunn for example. I found a lot of sources that say she's got stage IV ovarian cancer (about as bad as it gets), but I could find no source willing to say she was "terminal", so I wouldn't recommend adding this category to her article. It's all about WP:V. Maintenance really isn't a problem, either. When a notable person passes away, we're already in the habit of adding this date to their biography. We just remove the category at the same time. Since we include birth/death dates in a biography's first line anyway, scanning through biographies within this category to make certain the person still belongs would really be quite simple. Rklawton 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per User:Otto4711. Thanks RaveenS
  • Delete per choster. Compromise would be rename to specific diseases. Xiner 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per choster. — coelacan talk — 03:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per choster. If kept, rename, because the category isn't for the act or process of dying, it's for people who suffer from terminal illnesses. -Sean Curtin 03:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete inappropriate and undefined category. We are ALL dying. Doczilla 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete inappropriate and undefined category. Tasteless as well.... People Suffering from Terminal Illnesses would be a better name, but I find that unnecessary as well. -RiverHockey 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unnecessary, too prone to incorrect use. Many who are dying do not announce such in advance. -- Beardo 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Automotive braking technologies

Rename to the more general Category:Vehicle braking technologies--Hooperbloob 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Roman Catholic bishops in California

Merge into Category:American Roman Catholic bishops, which contains only 59 members. See discussions of December 6th and December 7th. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge for now. No need to get this specific if the parent category is so sparsely populated at this time. — coelacan talk — 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Upmerge for now, per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Upmerge following precedent - Dr. Submillimeter 13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Quackery

Relisting from November 30 CfD. Previous discussion:

The following three options suggested by Loxlie 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename - The term (and even the definition in the Wiki article) is controversial. Its been subject to a deletion discussion before, and, under the current name, causes silly and endless POV wars in many controversial subjects (see talk:homeopathy). Its an archaic and unspecific term, which only serves to further entrench already entrenched opinions.
If Category:Medical Pseudoscience is accepted, it could become a subcategory of category:pseudoscience, which would be subject to a separate discussion'.
or... Merge - Much as I personally agree, such a merger would inevitably be controversial, and therefore not helpful...
or... Merge - If anyone agrees there's no need to have seperate category ...
  • Comment wouldn't Category:Medical pseudoscience be the correct capitalization for the first option? Mairi 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Medical pseudoscience per Loxlie and Mairi. I just noticed that Category:Quackery is a subcat of Category:Fraud. I think that Category:Medical pseudoscience should not be listed under "fraud", because not all pseudosciences are deliberate frauds; some are delusions or simply obsolete. OTOH, all quacks are frauds, by definition. Therefore, I'm changing my vote to Keep, with a second choice of rename per Mairi and remove from the "Fraud" supercat. --Quuxplusone 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is now removed from the Fraud category. (Someone didn't understand what they were doing.) You are quite right. While they are often related, most quackery is probably practiced by innocents, ignorants, or true believers who aren't intent on defrauding anyone. BTW, not all quacks are frauds, at least not by intent. -- Fyslee 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Medical protoscience a subcategory of Category:Protoscience My second choice would be Category:Medical pseudoscience (I've changed my vote based on the concerns raised by Leifern below.) --Lee Hunter 14:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The material here isn't protoscience, its pseudoscience at best. JoshuaZ 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - this would also cause revert wars sooner or later down the road. I think the point we are trying to make is that there are varying levels of controversy about certain practices that claim to have medical benefits, ranging from virtually undisputed (antibiotics for pneumonia) to overwhelmingly disputed (I don't know, voodoo) with lots of stuff in between. We run into all kinds of problems here - we might be accused of ethnocentrism if we slap a derogatory category on aryuvedic and chinese herbal medicine, people who are convinced that their particular practice really helps them, and then the whole issue of protoscience. I'd like to find a solution that forestalls another round on another term at some future date, as more and more editors get involved in Wikipedia. I have to consider this a while longer before I come up with a solution, but I'd recommend that we not just jump to another category. --Leifern 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Medical pseudoscience. -Sean Curtin 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Medical pseudoscience is just a euphemism; there would also be revert wars as true-believers crawl out of the woodwork to babysit the articles about their favorite schemes and scams. The category is useful and its title is the common word for its contents. Bkalafut 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Rename Bordering on keep Medical pseudoscience is reasonable. Aside from reasons already discussed, quakery is simply not that common a term. However, Bk is correct that renaming won't stop the POV warriors. JoshuaZ 01:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree that medical pseudoscience is simply a euphamism. Renaming would be weasel wording. Jefffire 10:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Just wanted to note that just about all of the people who have voted here (including myself) have been involved in a revert war regarding the use of the Quackery cat on the homeopathy article. It would be nice to hear from disinterested parties.--Lee Hunter 13:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Rename (see below). This won't solve the problems, but the suggested solutions won't either. The conflicts will first end when editors accept the category for what it is, which is not a declaration that something actually is quackery, but that it is considered to be so by scientific critics and skeptics. That's in keeping with the NPOV policy here, and therefore any objections to its use are policy violations based on POV suppression. Category tags are only aids to help people find related topics. The category already contains subjects that are obviously not quackery (in fact anti-quackery), but that are related to the subject. A better solution would be a disclaimer automatically added to all category pages explaining the nature of categories: "Inclusion in this category is only an aid to finding subjects possibly related to the category topic. In some cases the relationship may only be peripheral. Bla, bla, bla....or something like that." Thereafter the only discussions would be if there was a relationship or not. -- Fyslee 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename. The problem here is that POW warriors would probably want to include each and every article under the category Alternative Medicine under the Category Quackery. So what is then the point with this category? To add a few anti-quack entries to a long list of everything alternative? Another comment: As the term Quackery is derogatory it should require more than just that some party claims that X is quackery for inclusion in a list such as this one. The disclaimer in the beginning is easily missed and a sloppy reader will be misled into believing that all the entries in the list are quackery. A better way is to add relevant entries from this category to the list “List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts”. A new list with Medical Pseudoscience can be created. In this way each entry has to be justified. The five(?) anti-qauck entries in the Quackery Category can easily be cross-referenced by links in each article. MaxPont 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If "Quackery" too derogatory, "Medical pseudoscience" still judgemental, but "Alternative medicine" confusing and/or too tame, how about Non-scientific medicine (plus brief explanation on category page indicating that these other names used depending on POV)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking along similar lines. I don't think the science-minded would like the term "Non-scientific medicine", however, for it'd confer the cat medicine to the "quackery". How about "Practices not accepted by peer-reviewed science"? Xiner 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Question Are there any other WP categories that are equally pejorative, POV and ambiguous? I've been looking for a while now and I can't find any. The guidelines for categorization are clear "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Quackery is obviously not self-evident to many people and it is highly controversial. --Lee Hunter 14:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or, if kept, oppose rename Based on the above discussion and previous discussions, my opinion is that the category probably should be deleted due to POV problems. One scientist's quackery might be another scientist's legitimate area of study. However, if kept, I don't like the proposed rename based on comments in the discussions that indicate that the terms "quackery" and "pseudoscience" refer to slightly different things (the difference appears to be related to a level of consensus among mainstream scientists as to the invalidity of that particular area of study. If something is generally considered slightly possible, but not verified, it's "pseudoscience". If it's considered virtually impossible or even fraudulent, it's "quackery".) Dugwiki 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Just about everything currently in the Quackery category (including the article which spawned this, in my opinion bad-faith, request for deletion), is not really subject to dispute between real scientists. That, (e.g.) homeopathic remedies are mere placebos given fancy names and dressed up with a theory any informed modern layman can recognize as bogus is not a matter of scientific controversy. 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)~
  • Delete - I nominated this cat for deletion in May, but there was no consensus. Nothing I have read since has changed my mind. It is basically an "attack category". --Mais oui! 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Attack? No, it's a descriptor. Visit the category, have a look at the clarifying changes.Bkalafut 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

*Rename to Quackery-related subjects. The description is now changed to make it a useful aid to study. It already is intended to be so, as it includes articles that are obviously not meant to be understood as quackery. This new title, and the new description, gives this category great potential for usefulness. -- Fyslee 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Why keep such a opinion-driven inflamatory label? What purpose does it serve other than allowing skeptics to name-call something which they don't like. It is one thing if someone is knowingly commiting fraud, but if it is a case where someone belives in what they are doing and someone does not, then we are dealing with a POV label. And it is not the job of Wikipedia to choose one side or another when it comes to such labels. This is tantamount to having a category entitled "Liar" and putting a political party in there. Levine2112 19:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it is not, because the criteria for being quackery are rooted in scientific merit, which is objective. Whether or not a practice is quackery is not a matter of journalistic opinion. Bkalafut 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. But too often on Wikipedia it is used as such. And much of the edit wars and debate occur over items which some are so sure are quackery and others are sure of just the opposite. What to do when both camps have scientific evidence supporting their side?Levine2112 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't merge, because quackery and pseudoscience are two different (though related) concepts. Keep is OK or, if it were to be renamed because of POV concerns, the appropriate name would be something like Category:Alleged quackery, by analogy to Category:Accused Soviet spies. These are much more specific than a useless category for every person or entity accused of lying. The description of Category:Alleged quackery, if that name is used, should limit the category to what's considered quackery by the scientific community. A couple of nutjobs who allege that vaccination is "quackery" wouldn't put Vaccine in the category. It's NPOV to report the scientific community's nonacceptance of things like homeopathy. JamesMLane t c 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • After thinking this through I think "alleged quackery" may make the most sense. In any event, deletion is unnacceptable and indeed could be viewed as almost be nature leading to undue weight problems. JoshuaZ 21:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Alleged quackery. Quackery is a useful category, and if "alleged" is what will get the true believers in the various forms of hucksterism to leave it alone, then let's add it.Bkalafut 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it is a neutral term not an attack term and is encyclopedic to keep as suchRaveenS 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Alleged quackery per Bkalafut. This may be workable as it is an NPOV title. The category description would need to be more specific again, and not as broad as it is now. When in use, removal of the category would then be a clear POV violation in the form of suppression of opposing POV. -- Fyslee 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Another suggestion, avoiding that judgemental/emotive word "quackery": Unorthodox medicine...?  David Kernow (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Unorthodox is fashionable right now. Too nice. Xiner 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be nice? We need to be NPOV. We don't need to be mean. -Will Beback · † · 06:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perjorative. Quackery means fraud. There are some people trying to change the definition to serve their own purposes, but the standard, time-honored definition implies fraud. This is a horribly ignorant category which belittles any encyclopedia of knowledge. TheDoctorIsIn 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Levine2112 & TheDoctorIsIn, negative opinion driven, frequently pushing a reactionary POV, especially science v medicine cases, since paradigm shifting science often leads medicine by several generations. Considering how often "mainstream medicine" does polar flip-flops, one could make a case that the category is also somewhat redundant. Oppose "alleged quackery" even more as expanding the POV attack problem. Already have several overlapping categories for a number of shades of doubt. One man's "magic" is another man's engineering.-Robert A. Heinlein--TheNautilus 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't need a category for everything and this one is too subjective with built in pejorative meaning. As this category only serves the purpose of harrassing perfectly good editors who are trying to create good articles, it is only counterproductive and leads to the loss of experts in fields that we need to have quality articles written. The concept can well be discussed within the article without labeling at the bottom of the page. We will have the same discussion with medical pseudoscience as it too is subjective. --Dematt 13:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or possibly Rename to Alleged Quackery. I changed my mind after reading more postings here. The arguments for deleting are viable. Quackery is an attack category. Don't forget that the quackbusters often make a logical fallacy. Claiming that "there is no scientific proof for method X" is not equal to "it is scientifically proven that method X never never works". MaxPont 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a straw man situation, and not a good example of a logical fallacy. What you are expecting in the last phrase is a logical fallacy, and one a scientist wouldn't usually state or believe. You're asking for proof of a negative. The burden of proof is on those making unusual claims. In the face of unusual claims that go against all known scientific knowledge of how things work, skepticism is the correct position to take. Watch and wait. If the claimant can prove their point, then skepticism gives way to acceptance. That's how science works. In practice, quackbusters are dealing not only with unusual claims that are not adequately backed by verifiable proof, they are dealing with commercial interests exploiting these dubious claims for a profit at the expense of the lives and well-being of desperately ill people. -- Fyslee 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, but the quackbusters seldom make that distinction. In their world, Science and Absolute Certainty are their guiding principles. MaxPont 09:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would favor deletion because Quackery is a value judgement. No system of healing, even if not accepted by the medical mainstream, should be thrown into a derogatory category even if it has not been scientifically validated. If not deleted, perhaps the category should be re-named Unconfirmed medical practice or Healing. * SeppH 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    Unconfirmed medical practice and Healing are POV. Xiner 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


  • DELETE Oppose Rename I would have to agree with the others. The terms ‘quackery’ and ‘skeptics’ have been hijacked by some claiming to be so-called ‘experts’ and used as instruments to force-feed POV and fuel edit wars. The ‘quackbusters’ have appointed themselves the arbiters of good and evil. Yet many medical practices are conveniently left out of their terrorist attacks. Psychiatry, for example, is the gold-standard of pseudo-science that has been made legitimate by standing under medicine’s umbrella. A self-annointed quackbuster’ Stephen Barrett is an ex-psychiatrist who failed his boards, as has been discussed at length on the pages of Wikipedia. But his only area of training, psychiatry, is somehow ignored as evidenced by the numerous links to his websites placed here and around WP by his sycophants.
The only loss will be in donations (Gladly accepted!) to these supposedly ‘non-profit’ hate-groups. Quackery and similar categories at WP have been exploited as link farms to generate traffic and search engine rankings. They are subjective terms and used pejoritively for attack purposes. Time for removal. Steth 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Already The description and current usage of the Quackery category both put to rest most of the above objections, and Alleged quackery would mean that it no longer looks like an ex cathedra judgement from Wikipedia. Prancybald 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is the category's opening: This category is about the subject of quackery, which is a pejorative term defined as "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings." A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan." How does this "put to rest" Steth objections? It doesn't. Bottomline, "quackery" is a pejorative term; "quack" implies fraud and while there may possibly be some scientific or legal standard of what is and what isn't "quackery" and who is and who isn't a "quack", I assure you that this is not how it is being used at Wikipedia. On the whole, this category has been used very subjectively to push a very particular POV. This is a category of hate and has no place at Wikipedia. Please delete swiftly! Levine2112 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      I've to agree that the category cannot stay named as it is. Anyone trying to deny that reality is doing a disservice to the cause. Xiner 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Then let me ask: Why do we need a category like this? What categorization purpose does it serve? What are we trying to distinguish and why? Levine2112 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Because science is the ultimate NPOV topic and there is a place in Wikipedia for critiques of people and methods that reject the scientific method. Xiner 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Ever heard about paradigms? Who is to say that positivistic-reductionistic-atomistic-Decartesian-physics envy-mechanistic-Evidence Based Medicine is the culmination of human knowledge. Most non-orthodox medicine respect empirical observations, they just don’t subscribe to the POW way of defining science of conventional medicine. MaxPont 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
            • You're demonstrating my point exactly. Xiner 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
              • But that certainly doesn't relegate anything to "quackery" by definition. If there is "a place in Wikipedia for critiques of people and methods that reject the scientific method" it certainly isn't in the category space. It should be in the article. And most - if not all - of the disciplines and people who are, have been, or would be associated with the pejorative category have articles replete with critical analysis from skeptics and what-not. Levine2112 19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
              • To continue relegating anything to "quackery" would indeed be wrong. That is not what I've been arguing. Xiner 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Aside from being argumentative, ambiguous and accusatory, it's impossible to apply in a consistent and encyclopedic manner. Among the fields that have been described as quackery are herbal medicine, acupuncture, traditional medicine, homeopathy, faith healing, alternative medicine in general, various aspects of modern medicine, chiropractic care and the list goes on and on.--Lee Hunter 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but change criteria to only include articles that are about "quackery" (right now just that and Quackwatch), removing all the examples of quackery. Create a subcategory for convicted quacks, like José Arigó. Create a totally separate category with some precise name and criteria for unproven, unorthodox, alternative, Medicare-won't-pay-for-it type medicine. Move the category:Obsolete medical theories up a notch in the category hierachy to Category:Healthcare. -Will Beback · † · 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: current scope is highly problematic as regards NPOV, proposed restriction above is both too narrow, and too tempting a target for scope-creep. Deal with "examples of quackery" per Will Beback. Alai 17:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Westnet

Category:Westnet (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

No reason for the Westnet article to reside in a category of its' own. -- Longhair\talk 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Upmerge overcategorization. ~ BigrTex 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there such a thing as Speedy Upmerge? Xiner 01:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Programmes on Current TV

Rename to Category:Current TV network series, convention of Category:Television series by network. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Current TV (network) series. Proposed renaming would be ambiguous (confusion with current series on TV networks). However, I predominately see the suffix "shows" in other subcats of Category:Television series by network. Tinlinkin 12:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a television listings magazine. Osomec 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's a long-standing convention to have categories of this sort. We have some radio/tv hobbyists like this user who edit here doing this kind of categorization and no one's opposed them before. No reason to get in their way now, and it's a useful sort of category. — coelacan talk — 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Current TV (network) shows per Tinlinkin. — coelacan talk — 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename Useful for liberals as a similar category for Fox News shows would be for right-wingers. Xiner 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to Keep. A user would be confused whether there's a parenthesis or the word "network" or not. As it stands, there's no confusion that Current TV represents a network. Xiner 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd like to change my vote to Delete, but I'm totally confused now. Is there even a page for the British version or whatever it is? I've been under the impression that it's about Current TV or Category:Current TV, and no one ever corrected that impression. Xiner 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic and U.S. centric ("network" is American English). Hoylake 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    American English is not a reason to reject anything in Wikipedia. Category:Television_series_by_network validates this kind of categories. Xiner 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. If kept rename to Category:Current television shows as "network" is redundant and uses a specific version of English when doing so adds no value whatsoever. Hawkestone 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just realized that the shows listed in the category are American and the version of Current TV refers to the British version, which means that this category contains American series aired on British television. (The American Current TV doesn't air television series, not from what I can surmise.) In that case, Current TV is comparable to channels that broadcast international shows like Warner Channel, Studio 23, or Kanal 5 (Sweden) (chosen at random). I don't see any original British Current TV-produced programmes. If this is the case, I am leaning towards delete. Tinlinkin 12:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] December 10

[edit] American Veteran Politicians

Category:American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran democrat politicians

American Veteran Politicians(Republican) -> Category:American veteran republican politicians

American Veteran Politicians(Deceased) -> Category:American veteran deceased politicians

Category:American veteran independant politicians

There seems to be an urge to merge these categories when all that is necessary is making the names lower case. I think the categories should remain seperate so that wikipedia can provide a more useful delination fo this information to people. I don;t have a problem changing the names, I'll even do the work myself. How Do I declare the discussion ended? --Dr who1975 20:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • See discussions of December 8th and December 9th. You can't summarily declare the discussion closed, all you can do is argue as to why you think these categories should stay. However, if they do stay, they should be renamed as you have suggested. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as duplicate. Osomec 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Raven-Symoné singles

Rename to Category:Raven-Symoné songs, per convention of Category:Songs by artist and discussion of June 9th. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:One Buck Short

Category:One Buck Short (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Article created in the category space, I think Stifle (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, looks like a category about the band One Buck Short to me. ~ BigrTex 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - even the main article for the group is borderline in terms of content and notability; an entire cat for a marginal band seems unnecessary. Doc Tropics 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Disc galaxies

Category:Disc galaxies into Category:Galaxies

[edit] Category:Wheaton College alumni

Delete, as ambiguous, see Wheaton College (Illinois) and Wheaton College (Massachusetts). -- ProveIt (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladeshi cricketers by century

Merge both into Category:Bangladeshi cricketers, overcategorization. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is a knee jerk reaction by ProveIt who proves nothing here by hitting an ongoing (indeed, just started) piece of work that is taking place across several similar categories. The object of the exercise is to break down very large player categories (in a dozen countries) by timespan (there is already a spatial divide in most of the countries by team, though not in Bangladesh as it happens). It is true that as yet there are not as many Bangladeshi cricketers as there are in the other Test Match countries but that does not mean we should be inconsistent. The reason given of overcategorisation simply does not take account of the scale of the exercise, both actual and potential. --BlackJack | talk page 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, there's some precedent, see, for example, Category:Mathematicians by century, however I think that's more appropriate when there are hundreds of years of history involved. But in this case the parent category is still very small. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The operative word there being "still" but that is a temporary state of affairs as the "parent category" will become very large very soon as per every cricketer by country category. When that happens, we will need an approach to Bangladesh that is consistent with the other countries. I fail to see what is wrong with pre-empting the need for this approach and doing things by using a planned, top-down, structured method instead of having to react sometime next year to yet another over-large category. And why not ask me first via the talk page what I am trying to achieve instead of going straight to CfD? --BlackJack | talk page 17:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I'm principally a reader rather than a writer of WP but well aware of the restructure of the cricket history category which is definitely needed. Bangladesh is not big yet but soon will be. The word is consistency. If doing this for England, etc. it must be done for all Test countries. This proposal is unwarranted and any suggestion that Bangladesh should not be treated the same as the rest should wait until the current exercise is complete. In other words, review after not during. --GeorgeWilliams 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The objective of the two categories is to provide readers with a needed temporal analysis so that they can see which players were active before Bangladesh began playing Test cricket and which after. Bangladesh's first Test match was right at the end of the 20th century so this is not a mere "century split". The country also needs a spatial analysis of players by first-class team (e.g., Category:Barisal Division cricketers). This follows the English model whereby you have the huge "master category" category:English cricketers which is of no real benefit to readers who are interested in particular teams or eras. Hence you have spatial categories such as category:Kent cricketers and temporal such as category:English cricketers of the 18th century. The only difference between England (300 seasons) and Bangladesh (30 seasons) is scale. It is not "overcategorisation" to provide readers with separate analyses of a huge file of names. Furthermore, category:Bangladeshi cricketers is nowhere near complete even in past and present terms (let alone future players) and it is NOT the "parent category" of the two categories under discussion: their parent (indeed grandparent) is category:History of Bangladeshi cricket which again underlines the temporal reason for their existence. --BlackJack | talk page 06:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Definitely KEEP the two categories separate as this is the correct approach to a study of Bangladesh cricket. It has two distinct eras - before Tests and after Tests. The arrival of Test cricket completely transformed the cricket scene there. I know because I have been there and have a personal interest in the place and its cricketers. The proposal here is misguided and is in any case wrong on two other counts: "overcategorisation" is a non-word and surely if it means anything it means that a category has exceeded capacity (!?); second, these two categories are in a history thread and have no direct connection with the main cricketers category (see also England and West Indies which use same model). --AlbertMW 06:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn It seems the people who know and care about cricket prefer it this way. I only hope this doesn't lead to more sportspeople by century cats.-- ProveIt (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you and much appreciated. Don't worry about the cricket project which is run responsibly and has everything done to provide useful information. But I do take your point about certain other sports. Best wishes and a great 2007. --BlackJack | talk page 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category:African football (soccer)

[edit] category:Asian football (soccer)

[edit] category:Central American football (soccer)

[edit] category:European football (soccer)

[edit] category:North American football (soccer)

[edit] category:Oceanian football (soccer)

[edit] category:South American football (soccer)

Rename all to the same format as the national categories for sports:

  • category:Football (soccer) in Africa
  • category:Football (soccer) in Asia
  • category:Football (soccer) in Central America
  • category:Football (soccer) in Europe
  • category:Football (soccer) in North America
  • category:Football (soccer) in Oceania
  • category:Football (soccer) in South America

Wilchett 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I support those renames.... the "Football (soccer)" part seems a little... odd. But I'll leave that for a different debate:) ---J.S (T/C) 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose this naming scheme; suggest the following scheme instead:
    • category:Football (soccer) in AFC countries
    • category:Football (soccer) in CAF countries
    • category:Football (soccer) in CONCACAF countries
    • category:Football (soccer) in CONMEBOL countries
    • category:Football (soccer) in OFC countries
    • category:Football (soccer) in UEFA countries
My reasoning is that many countries are not in the continental confederation suggested by their geography. Australia is in the AFC, having moved from OFC in 2006. Turkey, Israel, and some CIS countries (depending on the definition of "Asia") are geographically in Asia (partially in the case of Turkey) but members of UEFA. Guyana and Suriname are full members, and French Guiana is an associate member, of CONCACAF despite being geographically in South America. — Dale Arnett 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Updated comment for above: Forgot to mention that North and Central America are combined into a single confederation. IMHO, subdividing by continental confederation makes more sense, since qualification for all FIFA competitions is based on confederation. — Dale Arnett 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Support The teams are in countries; where they compete can be discussed in the articles. The purpose of categories is to find the information. People will know, or can determine, what continent a country is on; they shouldn't have to know in what cryptic, abbreviated "confederation" some team plays in to find it in Category:Football (soccer) by country, the parent category of these categories. Of course, Category:Football (soccer) in Turkey can be included in both the Europe and Asia categories, so that won't cause any problems either. Gene Nygaard 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Galactic images

Category:Galactic images to Category:Galaxy images
  • Rename - The term "galactic" in astronomy is frequently used to refer to the Milky Way Galaxy. However, this category contains images of other galaxies. For clarity, I suggest renaming this category to "Galaxy images". Dr. Submillimeter 15:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support 132.205.93.16 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support WilliamKF 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support rename for accuracy. Doc Tropics 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Passenger train stations in Arizona

[edit] Category:Train stations in Chicago

[edit] Category:New Mexico train stations

[edit] Category:New York train stations

[edit] Category:Passenger train stations in North Carolina

[edit] Category:Train stations in Ohio

[edit] Category:Passenger train stations in Virginia

These categories are not named consistently. Perhaps they should all be renamed to "Category:Railway stations in ..." as they are subcategories of Category:Railway stations in the United States. Craig.Scott 14:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Or possibly "Railroad stations in..." Craig.Scott 14:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer "railway stations in". Stifle (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd support renaming to any reasonable naming scheme, but I'm neutral to what scheme to use. ---J.S (T/C) 02:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I support renaming for consistency, but I'm neutral per J.smith. However I think "train stations" is the predominant term in the U.S. over "railway stations." Tinlinkin 13:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support consistency. As to the terms, I would accept any of the three proposals so far with no strong preference for any (but I've seen them called "train stations" by the general public more often than the other two). Slambo (Speak) 14:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support to train stations. This seems to be the common usage in the US where you travel by train. Vegaswikian 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support to 'Passenger train stations' which is what they all are, after all. Hmains 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support any above rename, with a preference for "Railway stations in..." for consistency with the parent; all of the mentioned constructions are used to some extent (and are well understood) in the United States. —CComMack (t–c) 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Category:Railway stations in ..." per nominator, for consistency with parent category. (some of the other sub-cates also need renaming). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Category:Railway stations in ..." as that form is consistent and, it seems is not wrong in an American context. Hoylake 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support renaming for consistency per nominator. I'm neutral on what scheme to use per J.smith Thryduulf 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Mighty Max episodes

rename. Mighty Max (TV series) episode article category.--Rocking1 12:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not a necessary disambiguation. Far as I can tell there's nothing else that "Mighty Max episodes" can refer to other than the tv series. Dugwiki 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Personally I think all TV episode categories are redundant because episode lists already exist. Xiner 20:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Khmer Motivational writers

Category:Khmer Motivational writers (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

This category is empty, except of the categorization of Category:American motivational writers into it (!) and the text: In Cambodia have only one famous Khmer motivational author. His name was Vichey. This is his pen-name. The category itself is categorized into Category:Khmer Motivational Writers (only diffference: capital "W"). Delete. Béka 11:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Osomec 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:The Wendy Williams Experience guests

Category:The Wendy Williams Experience guests (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Category for celebrities who have made guest appearances on a gossip/talk show. Overly broad; simply appearing on a talk show is not something that should appear in a celebrity's biography. —tregoweth (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's what categories are for. --Chris Brown's boo 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Lajbi Holla @ me 07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This criteria is not important enough for an own category. Béka 11:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, guest star categories just lead to clutter. No objection to a list of guest stars article. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. gossip shows have no relevancy. 24.148.67.71 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really see the point in a cat like this. Seems like over categorising. I suggest Deleteing the cat. ---J.S (T/C) 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Modern Magic Dealers

Category:Modern Magic Dealers (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Empty category, does not seem to serve much purpose since I'm pretty sure that 95% of articles created about magic dealers will be speedied under G11 anyways... If by some miracle this is kept, the capitalization should be fixed.Pascal.Tesson 05:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I can't imaging there will ever be more then a half-dozen notable magic-suppliers on wikipedia. I could be wrong. Recreate the cat then. Delete for now. ---J.S (T/C)
  • Delete Mistitled category of very doubtful value. Hawkestone 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Big Bads

Category:Big Bads (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete, Category is vague, and almost too far-reaching -- it could easily contain every fictional bad guy ever. Additionally, the title of the category is very vague. Until you read the description on the page, one could argue that history's greatest villains might belong here also. Right now, it appears to merely be a list of Power Rangers or Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. What's next? Zany Sidekicks? JPG-GR 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - This is actually a legitimate term with a fairly narrow scope. I understand the concern for potential abuse/overuse as a cat, but it only applies correctly to major, recurring villains...usually those who are dominant in a seasonal story-arc. The examples from the Buffyverse are characters who appeared in a minimum of 2 dozen episodes, some of them (Spike and Angel) were featured in several dozen. Doc Tropics 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and listify over-Buffy-ification 70.51.9.22 07:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe the correct term is "wacky sidekicks." Otto4711 13:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wilchett 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I created this as a subcategory of television villains because I felt that certain characters entered a scope separate to minor villains {e.g. Mister Trick) which became partially synonymous with major characters, and is a crossover trope across many television shows of the telefantasy genre, requiring at least partial expansion to incorporate this trend. I do not feel this is overbuffyfication - the term was coined in Buffy and since applied to other media. A list would not be terrible, as I believe it's significantly more definable than even protagonists.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - speaking to my area of expertise (Power Rangers), the main villain of every year could be considered a "big bad", but on the same hand, this "big bad" is superceded by the next year's main villain. Perhaps it works for Buffy. Perhaps it works in general, but it sure doesn't work for PR. JPG-GR 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Yes that's exactly it. The Buffy/PR formula for villains is frighteningly similar.~ZytheTalk to me! 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Inclusion into this cat seems very subjective.... Either Delete or Rename as "Category:Television Antagonists" or something encyclopedic. ---J.S (T/C) 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for being too subjective. Osomec 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as subjective (and a neologism at that). -Sean Curtin 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a Buffy fan, but I don't see the value of this category. Xiner 20:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Cognitive intelligence

Category:Cognitive intelligence (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

No indication that the term is used anywhere. In any case, obvious vandal creation. Pascal.Tesson 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - Nonsense entry, just vanish it. Doc Tropics 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as misuse of category space - it is an article. Wilchett 15:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest turning it into an article, but it is basically OR with no sources... so just Delete. ---J.S (T/C) 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Weapons of Ukraine

Category:Weapons of Ukraine into Category:Military equipment of Ukraine
  • Merge, redundant categories. Pascal.Tesson 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom, "Military equipment" is more populated. Doc Tropics 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. ---J.S (T/C) 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent by settlement

Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent by settlement (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Seems like a definite over-categorization. Not clear how subdividing the category into tiny parcels will be helpful. Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent contains 83 people, not so huge as to merit subcategories. Pascal.Tesson 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per Regan123, & with a view to populating the sub-categories. Jhamez84 14:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the format that is being rolled out across the UK places and is standardised. Regan123 12:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is what is being done in all other districts in England. There are still numerous settlements and people who have not been added to Wikipedia yet, this categorisation is a robust attempt to deal with further additions. MRSC • Talk
  • Delete Stoke on Trent is not large enough for this to be sensible. For that matter I am not sure it is even a good idea for London. I'm English and I haven't heard of most of these places. It is more helpful to be told that someone comes from a place I have heard of than one I haven't. Osomec 19:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Stoke is one of the 20th largest connurbations in the UK and is made up of six distinct towns. London has a larger population than Scotland and multiple boroughs, some of which have been absorbed over the years. A single London cat would run to thousand+ over time. I have gone through all articles linked to Stoke and have now added around 20-30 more people born to the original cat. Another example is Stafford Borough which contains two towns. People from Stone would not take kindly to being told they are from Stafford. Regan123 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as overcategorization. Hoylake 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent is sufficient. Xiner 20:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OTT. New York was only broken down by borough (of which there are 5) last time I looked, and I wouldn't want to see it broken down further. Wikipedia is aimed at a global audience, not a local audience. Hawkestone 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • What exactly is being proposed now? The deletion of Category:People from Stoke-on-Trent by settlement or all its sub-cats too? This has far wider implications. There are hundreds of these 'People by locality' categories. I for one, do not wish to see people categorised by local government district only, which would in many cases be anachronistic as the boundaries were often only set in 1974. MRSC • Talk 20:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Surely what matters is what people define locally. Of course, Wikipedia is aimed at a global audience, but part of that is helping people understand the local breakdowns. Robbie Williams, for example, is very keen to remind people his is from Burslem in Stoke-on-Trent. To many it is like telling a Scotsman that he is from England or the United Kingdom. If New York is organised that way, then fair enough. I know little of the structure of New York beyond the boroughs. I will have to make the effort to learn more. Regan123 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] December 9

[edit] Category:Cardinal

Category:Cardinal to Category:Cardinalate

[edit] Category:Slug Club

Category:Slug Club (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
  • Delete. Small category consisting of main article Slug Club, an article Minor Slug Club members, and four principal Harry Potter characters who happen to be members as well. Not enough to merit a category. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or at least rename with some context... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor Slug Club members ought to be merged into something else, probably minor HP characters, anyway. Sandpiper 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Spainish record label stubs

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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (G7). Mairi 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Spainish record label stubs (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
  • Speedy delete Created category with correct spelling before I knew I could just rename this one... Lugnuts 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Category:Armenian-Bands

Category:Armenian-Bands into Category:Armenian musical groups
  • Merge, Clearly redundant Pascal.Tesson 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Armenian musical groups is enough IMO Fedayee 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. Wimstead 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge duplicate, inappropriately hyphenated, inappropriately punctuated category. Doczilla 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:P!nk songs

Category:P!nk songs to Category:Pink songs

[edit] Category:Railway stations in East Riding of Yorkshire

Category:Railway stations in East Riding of Yorkshire to Category:Railway stations in the East Riding of Yorkshire

[edit] Category:Lacan

Category:Lacan to Category:Jacques Lacan
  • Rename, for clarity as the category related to an individual, not a family, a place or anything else that Lacan might be. Chicheley 15:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Characters from That '70s Show

Merge into Category:That '70s Show characters, duplicate. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge duplicate category. Doczilla 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Queen Elizabeth II

Category:Queen Elizabeth II into Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
  • Merge, the original category was listed on CFD here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1#Category:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom, but someone has boldly redirected it, but this is not normal naming convention and should be reversed. Tim! 09:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy merge This is a blatant attempt to override the result of the previous discussion by a user who opposed the result. Chicheley 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep That was closed as no consensus, what policy did I break Mr Chicheley, I followed wikipedias rules. If you bothered to read that last CfD you would see that a lot of people wanted it changed, and Mr Chicheley, because it was closed for as no consensus, I was bold and moved it. This cat should not be called "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" due to the fact that its on many articles that talk about the Queen's other rolls. For example, "Head of The Commonwealth" "Monarchy in Canada" "Monarchy in Australia" "Monarchy in New Zealand" and others. The Queen is not "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" in those rolls. It is important that this cat could serious mislead readers of those article. Customs 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a shameless abuse of the concept of being bold. No consensus means no change. You have simply treated those who disagree with you with contempt. What would you think if every time you were in the majority a member of the minority simply did the opposite? Hawkestone 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy merge, this has been debated to death. The category and article titles should match. Timrollpickering 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Immediate speedy merge and send the unrepentent sinner to the sin bin. Hawkestone 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Symbolic keep Per my last CfD comments Brian | (Talk) 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy merge Someone can just go ahead and do this. We shouldn't be starting from this point, so voting keep is improper. Wimstead 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy merge per nom and Chicheley Wilchett 15:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy merge as it was created out of process. Osomec 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy merge per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fictional Bald Characters

Category:Fictional Bald Characters (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

We've had fictional blondes, brunettes etc. deleted in the past, this is no different. Tim! 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Wimstead 04:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (and capital-case). David Kernow (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete-Releeshan 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. and many, many hair-based character category deletion precedents. Doczilla 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Chinese Japanese people

Category:Chinese Japanese people (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete: Category name is a neologism (see Chinese Japanese). In process of listifying as per previous cfd. Note that the category was deleted on jawiki as well (see ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/Category:日中人) cab 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Question: What makes Chinese Japanese different than Italian-American or German-French? -- ProveIt (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Use of the term Chinese Japanese in the manner which it is being used in this category name, specifically, to refer to people of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent, is comparatively rare in reliable sources. "Chinese Japanese" does get 32900 hits on Google Books, but of the first 100, they're all using it either in a list of countries, to refer to relations between the two countries, or in the sense of Sino-Japanese language. (Incidentally, that's why Chinese Japanese is a disambig page: because the term doesn't have any widely agreed meaning in English). cab 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete inappropriate categorization. Is there a "White people" category? A "French Chinese" category? Doczilla 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per African American and Italian American. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • An Italian American is not a person of mixed Italian and "American" descent. S/he is a person of Italian heritage who lives in the United States, possibly with all Italian ancestors (i.e. not mixed). The category is being used for people of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent living anywhere in the world, not for people of Chinese heritage who live in Japan (nor for people of Japanese heritage who live in China). And anyway, not everyone in the world follows American conventions for naming ethnic groups (not even other Anglophone nations). cab 00:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I still find the category useful and don't think it should be deleted despite the naming problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay. In the previous cfd, I suggested Category:People of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent. Tell us if you support a move to that name, or have some other suggestion. cab 03:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Chinese Spaniards

Category:Chinese Spaniards (edit|talk|links|history|logs)
  • Delete, category name is a neologism, only one entry and unlikely to expand significantly cab 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Who are we to determine unlikely?Bakaman 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but that still doesn't address the fact that "Chinese Spaniard" is basically a neologism that someone made up one day on Wikipedia, and is not used in the real world in the sense of "Chinese people in Spain". cab 01:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, it would be for "Spanish people of Chinese ancestry", by usual convention. However, this kind of categorization eventually fails when confronted with people like Soledad O'Brien or Tiger Woods. -- ProveIt (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
        • There's no real 'usual convention' for this in English. Americans, Canadians, and Australians do it one way (Italian-American, Trinidadian Canadian, Greek Australian) while in the UK and Malaysia it's often the other way around (British Chinese, Malaysian Chinese). Not to mention ones from outside the Anglosphere like Thai Chinese. At least for articles, the usual standard is to go by the common name (which in this case doesn't exist) or a descriptive name, e.g. 'Foovians in Barland'. And there is no convention whatsoever in English for referring to Spanish citizens of foreign descent as 'Foovian Spaniards'. cab 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete inappropriate category. I have ancestors from at least twenty different countries. Should I have twenty different descent-based categorizations? Heck, no. That's impractical. Doczilla 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ethnic categories are out of control. There are far more of them than their encyclopedic relevance justifies. This is an example of systemic bias. Osomec 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Having visited most of the major cities in Spain I will take it on myself to determine "unlikely". Hawkestone 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Restaurants in Georgia

Category:Restaurants in Georgia to Category:Restaurants in Georgia (U.S. state)
  • Rename to disambiguate, per standard practice for ambiguous names relating to the Georgias. It is perfectly reasonable (WP:CSB issues notwithstanding) that we might want Category:Restaurants in Georgia (country), and therefore we should disambiguate the category name. AJR | Talk 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename. Thanks for the nomination, I saw this in doing some other work and did not get back to nominate it. Vegaswikian 02:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per Category:Georgia (U.S. state). -- ProveIt (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Wilchett 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename, but nom should be forced to write some articles about the famous restaurants in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia to justify the change. ;) Kafziel Talk 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American veteran politicians

Merge all into Category:American veteran politicians, overcategorization, see also December 8th discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Plus the caps and spacing are wrong. -Will Beback · † · 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Indeed! —75.42.174.181 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. They are currently pretty awkward. Jasper23 04:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all for uselessness. The vast majority of mid 20th century politicians were "veterans", as were hundreds from other eras. All of them should have at least one military related category, which is sufficient. These categories serve the POV purpose of burnishing the military credentials of certain politicians. Chicheley 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all or at least Merge all as per arguments above. —SlamDiego 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. No need to break out by party (or living status). --StuffOfInterest 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, or if not deleted, then merge. Wilchett 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all ack Chicheley. – flamurai (t) 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and suggestion - I think it is a useful category, but the name is a little confusing, could imply "veteran politicians" instead of "politicians who are veterans", though the cat page clears that up. I also think that the merged category should be made a subcategory of "American politicians", which already exists. Again, I think it is useful to be able to categorize politicians who are military veterans, so these cats should not just be deleted. - Crockspot 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • additional comment - It may even be appropriate and useful to maintain the party-specific cats. Unlike many of the party-identifier categories that I would normally support deleting, military service is a positive attribute for a politician to have. Something to consider. Crockspot 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename - I think if it needs to be renamed then that is fine. I think merging them would reduce the amount of usefully deliniated data that people come to wikipedia for. If you look you'll see that this categorization has gotten a lot of people fired up and active about contributig to wikipedia. THis is why it's here.--Dr who1975 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Categories aren't intended to get "a lot of people fired up and active about contributing to wikipedia". They're meant to categorize information. Any controversy arising from a category is at best meaningless and, at worst, supports the case for deletion. Kafziel Talk 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all very much, if not deleted, then merge. Essentially, underhanded campaigning. Otherwise too arbitrary. Either way, no good. - crz crztalk 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Bound to include almost everyone from Category:American politicians. Kafziel Talk 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Factual correction - The belief stated more than once above that the overwhelming majority of politicians are veterans is simply untrue. According to the Navy League, which tracks the members of Congress who are vets, of the 435 House members, only 110 are veterans, and of the 100 Senators, only 31 are vets. So only 31% of Senators, and only approx 25% of House members are veterans. These facts completely discount the argument that these categories are redundant. - Crockspot 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Still a pretty staggering number, when you take into account the fact that it will be applied to every state senator, assemblyman, governor, mayor, county executive, comptroller... It's not completely redundant, but it's so large as to be useless for any practical purpose other than stumping. Kafziel Talk 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • 25-30% of politicians being vets is staggering? I find it staggering that the numbers are not higher. If the sheer number of people who will be in a category is a reason to delete a category, then why do we have "American politicians", or for that matter, "Living people"? These categories could be very useful in helping to verify/debunk a lot of information (and disinformation) that is floating around. For example, there is a very popular antiwar copy/paste job that has been floating around the internet for a couple of years, which lists veterans by political party. Of course, the Dem list is HUGE, listing every Dem who has ever been a vet, whether they are a politician, and actor, or whatever. The Rep list is tiny, being cherry-picked for only the most well-known Republicans. Every few months, I have to debunk this tripe, by downloading and analyzing the Navy League's list of House and Senate veterans. Having these categories would actually bring verifiable clarity to the kaos of disinformation that is out in the world. Being a veteran is a very positive attribute, and something we should be recognizing our representatives in govt. for. If we are going to have categories that list politicians by their stance on abortion, their sex, their race, or their sexual orientation, then why would we NOT have a category recognizing them by their military service? Crockspot 19:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, it is staggering. It may be 25-30% today, but these categories are applied to every politician who ever lived in the entire course of American history. That's an absolutely insane amount of people. If you look at my userpage you'll see I have nothing against veterans, but categories have nothing to do with positive attributes or recognition. They are categories, pure and simple. If they serve no organizational purpose, they should be deleted. Kafziel Talk 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • They don't at all, and in any case that is now. What about in say 1970? Osomec 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As a general rule all categories that link separate occupations held by the same person should be deleted as category clutter. Osomec 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Chicheley. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Request to closing admin - If the decision is made to delete these categories, would it be possible to have the articles that are already included in these categories added to the existing "Category:United States military veterans"? It would seem like an easy thing for the bots to do, and I would be inclined to no longer object to the deletion of these cats. - Crockspot 14:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to category without party names. Or delete, or at least choose some other wording even if the party names are included. Anything but "Category:American veteran democrat politicians" please - that name pattern is even worse! For example, Democrat(ic) and Republican should be capitalized, since they're proper names. The new category names are still ambiguous to me; until I read the description, I thought the category was about people who were veterans of politics, not military veterans. How about American politicians with military service without party names, or American Democratic politicians with military service and American Republican politicians with military service if party names are included? I still think this is going to be an enormous category: as someone mentioned above, a huge number of politicians in U.S. history were vets; I'm pretty sure that, for example, one would have been mostly unelectable in the 1950s unless one was either a WWII vet or an already incumbent politician. I'm not sure making categories of people who had a specific combination of 2 jobs is a wise precedent. What about vets who became scientists? Vets who became journalists? Politicans who became journalists? To say military service is a positive attribute is definately POV; ask your friendly local Vietnam vets how well that theory held up during their first few years back in the US. Then adding the party name in there makes it 3 attributes at the same time. (And I'm not even counting "American", which would mean 4 attributes, since categorizing by country is normal on Wikipedia.) And if you categorize them by party, what about independents and third party folks? --Closeapple 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Did anyone else notice that Dr who1975 (not the original CfR proposer ProveIt) changed the CfR headers to insert "democrat" and "republican" in lower case 2 days after the CfR started? I just noticed that. Is that appropriate? Is this CfR still valid if someone silently changes the original proposal headers 2 days into the discussion? (See also Dr_who1975's comment above: "you'll see that this categorization has gotten a lot of people fired up and active about contributig to wikipedia. THis is why it's here.") Other people may want to go back and check whether they were responding to one proposed name or a different one. --Closeapple 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see that it changes the main issues at all. Hawkestone 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all Cross-categorisation of occupations is unnecessary and creates clutter. Hawkestone 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Overcategorization. Also make the point that if kept, American Veteran Politicians (Democrat) is poorly named in the first place and should be Democratic, not Democrat. Dragomiloff 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK University alumni

Category:University of Essex alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Essex
Category:University of Exeter alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Exeter
Category:University of Hull alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Hull
Category:Loughborough University alumni to Category:Alumni of Loughborough University
Category:Manchester Metropolitan University alumni to Category:Alumni of Manchester Metropolitan University
Category:University of Stirling alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Stirling
Category:University of Sussex alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Sussex
Category:University of Wales, Aberystwyth Alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Category:University of Wales, Bangor Alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Wales, Bangor
Category:University of Wales, Lampeter Alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Wales, Lampeter
Category:University of Wales Alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Wales
Category:University of Warwick alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Warwick
Category:University of York alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of York

[edit] Category:Folklore of Australia

Category:Folklore of Australia to Category:Australian folklore
  • Rename, Consistency with other national-folklore categories in Category:Folklore, which are all in the adjectival format Shimeru 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Muslim women

Category:Muslim women (edit|talk|links|history|logs)

Delete - About half of all Muslims are women and per related Cfd. - Bakaman 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Wimstead 04:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. and precedents. Doczilla 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Category clutter of minimal relevance of usefulness. Osomec 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per "about half". — coelacan talk — 22:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or you will lose the affiliation to the important Muslim category. It was created to break the Muslim category in half to make it more useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).
No, when the category is deleted all the people in it can be put in Category:Muslims if they aren't already. There is nothing useful about categorizing people of a religion by gender; we lse nothing by merging back into the parent cat. — coelacan talk — 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pending completions

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Further information: Mainspace categories in progress
Further information: User categories in progress

[edit] Completed discussions

Further information: Mainspace categories in progress
Further information: User categories in progress

Recent discussions:

Archive and Indices

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/t/Wikipedia%7ECategories_for_discussion_7d72.html"