< December 26	December 28 >

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 rename to ...words and phrases. Timrollpickering 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Korean terms to Category:Korean words or Category:Korean words and phrases
• Category:Japanese terms to Category:Japanese words or Category:Japanese words and phrases

Rename - These are the only two such categories (except for Category:Spanish etymology which serves a different purpose) that are named "terms" instead of "words." My feeling is that all such categories would be better served by being renamed to "Fooian words and phrases" rather than having "Fooian words" with a "Fooian phrases" sub-cat but rather than nominate all of the cats I thought these two could serve as points for discussing that notion as well. If consensus is to rename to "words and phrases" then I'm planning on nominating all the other "words" categories too and nominating any "phrases" sub-cats for merging. Otto4711 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gah...fixed the names of the cats up for discussion. It's Korean and Japanese. Sorry. Otto4711 14:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fooian words and phrases due to the high chance that words on its own will not cover the full range of terms. Nathanian 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. My intention for Category:Korean terms was for loanwords, as a child of Category:English words of foreign origin; it seems however that Korean words and phrases not common in English have been included, changing the scope to the proposed.-choster 23:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know anything about Korean; would it be worthwhile to have Category:Korean loanwords in addition to the words and phrases cat? There are a number of other loanword categories. Otto4711 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to second option per nom. --Wizardman 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cult television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This is a subjective categoryname see the Subjective inclusion criterion and there are little sources that could qualify a series as "cult". I have similar problems with Category:Cult films, although there is considerably more literature there that can be referenced. The problem is that nobody checks wether such references are made in the Film-articles. We'll leave Cult films as a future exercise. :D TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Cult" is a word to avoid. Overuse means it has less meaning every year. Sumahoy 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not objectively defined. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete and hopeful Listify - I do think there's value in the concept of a cult TV shows list and I hope with a list there will be enough vigilance amongst editors so that anything included will have sourcing. Otto4711 13:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are several books written about cult films, and even more lists of them made by notable sources, but this doesn't seem to be the case with TV series. Prolog 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an odd, needless category to have. Exeunt 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as subjective. - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete - nice idea but, on balance, too subjective. Metamagician3000 13:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete per Otto and Metamagician. --Wizardman 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women Buddhists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete; presumably roughly half of Buddhists are women, and based on the discussions to delete Category:Muslim women and Category:Hindu women. Mairi 22:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reason for gendered category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mairi. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mairi TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no point to this.Bakaman 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — coelacan talk — 00:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment if this cateogry is to be deleted, first bring up the articles to the next higher catgory, 'Buddhists' Hmains 03:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. This subcategory is not helpful. We don't need to sort Buddhists by gender. And this has absolutely nothing to do with any possible utility of the parent category. Category:Buddhists might be useful for reasons that are completely different from the reasons why Category:Women Buddhists is useless. — coelacan talk — 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, I totally misunderstood you. I thought you meant "first nominate Category:Buddhists in general for deletion. Okay, don't worry about the articles in this category being upmerged. The closing admin will make sure that happens properly. =) — coelacan talk — 03:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• UpMerge per discussion - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. They can just be in the main buddhist category. --Wizardman 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as repost. Circeus 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional widows or widowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May qualify as a speedy deletion under G4, recreated material. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 22#Category:Fictional widows and widowers for previous CfD discussion. CovenantD 22:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per previous deletion discussion. Doczilla 22:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as ((db-repost)) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Angel (comics) to Category:Angel (TV series) comics
• Category:Angel (series) characters to Category:Angel (TV series) characters
• Category:Angel (series) villains to Category:Angel (TV series) villains
• Category:Angel (series) episodes to Category:Angel (TV series) episodes
• Category:Angel (novels) to Category:Angel (TV series) novels

rename as Angel (TV series). Twin Load 21:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I understand your logic, but the proposed new versions are clunky and inconsistent with other category names. Frankly, are these categories even necessary? Just delete and listify them all per past deletions of characters by series, etc., categories. Doczilla 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent. There are no "past deletions of characters by series". Tim! 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose there is something to say for this, but I'm not sure if I like it. What if we start renaming all Batman related categories to "Batman (comics) *". I'm sure few people would like that. Besides, what do the novels have to do with the TV series other then being based on the same fictional universe ? Only dab where necessary is the rule i believe. Nothing is determined about consistency after you dab. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "series" to "TV series". What are the other two categories in danger of being mistaken for? -Freekee 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comics or novels about angels... Also see: Angel (disambiguation)#Literature or Angel (disambiguation)#Comics. - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with Freekee. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and naming conventions. - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 01:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:School massacres in Australia
• Category:School massacres in Canada
• Category:School massacres in Germany
• Category:School massacres in Israel
• Category:School massacres in Japan
• Category:School massacres in Russia
• Category:School massacres in the United Kingdom
  • Category:School massacres in Scotland
• Category:School killings in the United States
  • Category:School shootings in the US perpetrated by students
• Category:School massacres in Yemen

Upmerge all Not enough articles, not enough countries to warrant such a division. At best, a non-country divide between "by students" and "by non-students" may be appropriate. Circeus 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all As with any set of categories allocation by country is significant both in itself and to the usefulness of the category system for navigation purposes. Sumahoy 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Circeus. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC) NOTE that all articles are already in the parent cat! >Radiant< 14:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge - with the proviso that there are enough US ones to warrant a separate category. If they are all dumped back into Category:School massacres, I'd be happy to go through them and find similar articles, and try and find a category structure more relevant and coherent than "by country". Carcharoth 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for adding the two I forgot.Circeus 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To optimise navigation. Nathanian 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it segregates the articles into a more manageable search. It seems that Fresheneesz has already stared moving them to the main category without this vote being completed ! Headphonos 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually less manageable this way. Before, you had to open up 9 or 10 categories to get a list of all the school massacre articles. It makes no sense to create categories where only one or two articles exist. Better to wait until coverage of such events is complete, and then decide on a category structure. Carcharoth 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record the articles are: Monash University shooting; Centennial Secondary School massacre; Concordia University massacre; Dawson College shooting; École Polytechnique massacre; St. Pius X High School massacre; W. R. Myers High School shooting; Cologne school massacre; Erfurt massacre; Avivim school bus massacre; Ma'alot massacre; Osaka school massacre; Beslan school hostage crisis; Dunblane massacre; Sanaa massacre; Amish school shooting; Bath School disaster; California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre; Laurie Dann; Enoch Brown school massacre; Wayne Lo; Platte Canyon High School shooting; Poe Elementary School attack; Rocori High School shooting; Brenda Ann Spencer; Stockton massacre; Charles Whitman; Kent State shootings; Columbine High School massacre; Appalachian School of Law shooting; Heath High School shooting; Jonesboro massacre; Kip Kinkel; Barry Loukaitis; Pine Middle School shooting; Evan Ramsey; Red Lake High School massacre; Red Lion Area Junior High School Murder/Suicide; Kayla Rolland; Weston High School shooting; Charles Andrew Williams; Luke Woodham. Having read through these articles (not recommended), the "by country" division is only one of several that could be applied. The most obvious is the date. Plus the weapon used. Plus number of wounded, killed. Fate of killers. Number of killers. And so on. I'm tempted to do a table summarising all this, just so that people avoid the silly categorising and leave these articles in a single category. However, a summary and comparison like this has already been done at School_massacre. I'll add a note to the category to tell people to only add articles to the main category, and to handle further detailed sorting at the main article. Carcharoth 01:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've left a note here to get more input on this. I've also updated the main article using the stub-articles from the category (though some of the stub-articles should really just be merged (back) into the main article). Some of the articles mentioned in the main article could also be integrated into the category structure, though I haven't done that yet. Carcharoth 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Why do some people not see the merits of categorisation by country? It improves accessibility without increasing category clutter. Osomec 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually look in the categories or research the topic area before using that generalisation? In some cases, by country categories are helpful, in same cases they are not. This is clearly a case where by country categories are not helpful, unless you want to spilt the non-North America cases from the other ones. Of the 11 categories, 5 have only one article, 1 has no articles in it (the UK one - created only to hold the Scotland one), and 2 have two articles. Only the Canada one (6 articles) and the US one (about 33 articles) are remotely populated. The assumption you are making is that there are other school massacres which we don't have articles about. This "incomplete coverage" argument is incorrect, as most of the major school massacres do now have articles on Wikipedia. The school massacre article shows that there are other incidents, but not enough to warrant even separate articles, let alone a byzantine category system. Carcharoth 19:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What annoys me most about CfD is that the categories thrown up for discussion are often ones that I could easily tidy up and organise, but that is impossible in the middle of an ongoing CfD. If deletion occurs, it is often difficult to find the articles again unless you keep a list. Carcharoth 19:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as Headphonos noted, I started adding those articles into the main category so they could be found in the more general category as well. I think its an obvious thing to do, but I'm not sure what people's thoughts on that are in general. If peoples' thoughts are that supercategories should not contain items in subcategories, then i think delete all is my vote - but if my idea is a good idea - then I say keep all. Conditional vote : ) Fresheneesz 01:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If these articles are not in these categories they would need to be in at least three parent categories each to provide a comparable level of navigability, but they probably wouldn't be as people don't think laterally when categorising, so all to often articles are on in one or two of the essential topic or geographical menus. Hawkestone 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Can you give examples please? Carcharoth 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per everyone else's discussion. --Wizardman 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Christian actors
• Category:Mormon actors
• Category:Presbyterian actors
• Category:Hindu actors
• Category:Jewish actors
• Category:Muslim actors
• Category:Sikh actors

Delete, why is religion relevent to this profession? Like Category:Sportspeople by religion, I would propose a ban on all actors by religion categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The parent category Category:People by religion and occupation specifies that it allows for pairs provided that the person involved integrates religion into his occupation. It is likely that certain actors are notable for working on projects with strong religious connections. Mel Gibson is an example that comes to mind, for example. Dugwiki 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that sometimes religion IS relevent, particularly for politicians, judges, writers, artists, and religious workers. There may be others I'm forgetting, but in general it isn't, or at least shouldn't be relevent, especially in a secular society. I see your point about Mel Gibson, but would argue that religion is relevent to him as a director, not as an actor. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doczilla 22:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nearly always irrelevant. Sumahoy 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know of no existing religious sports, except maybe Sumo for Shintoism, but there are religious forms of theater and acting. See Chakyar koothu, LDS cinema, etc. Kirk Cameron, in a much clearer way than Gibson, is a "Christian actor" as in that's his medium. Still I think it should be renamed to "Actors in 'blank' entertainment." Hence Category:Actors in Christian entertainment, Category:Actors in Hindu entertainment, etc.--T. Anthony 02:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. I'd also like to comment that just because there is a parent navigation category contains categories that are the intersections from the two sets of categories, that does not mean that we have to create and populate all such intersections. That would lead to a huge amount of overcategorization. Each category needs to stand on its own. In cases like this one, it would help if the parent navigation categories such as Category:People by religion and occupation explicitly make this point. -- Samuel Wantman 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Over categorization. And as stated above, this is not an intersection that is generally a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 08:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that religion is an important part of who a person is, and each religeon has so many notable people that they need to be split up in a way that makes sense. Eli Falk 10:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. That is why you include them in a category for their religion. The issue here is about their religion affecting their acting? What is the tie in? How does their religion affect their acting ability. It may affect the roles they take, but does it affect how they act? Vegaswikian 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The affect on roles can be meaningful. We have Category:American B-movie actors and Category:American character actors, both of which are largely about their roles. We also have Category:Canadian expatriate actors in the United States, Category:Scots-Irish American actors, and Category:Gay actors from the United States which is just about their nature. In fact I'm not sure locality even affects how anyone acts that much. Is acting in Kansas much different than acting in Nebraska? Or to put nationality in the mix is acting in Wisconsin that much different than acting in Ontario?--T. Anthony 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, they don't have separate Oscars per religion either. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but they do have the [Christian Film & Television awards, the Vatican's Bresson Prize, and others.--T. Anthony 12:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - many actors in India wear their religion on their sleeve, and its useful to remove backlogs.Bakaman 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this overcategorization per nom. — coelacan talk — 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Unnecessary link between two unrelated things. Prolog 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they are sometimes related.--Brownlee 12:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many Jewish actors, such as Meier Tzelniker, worked in Yiddish theatre and their religion is highly relevant. Others, such as Warren Mitchell and Henry Woolf, have said that their religion is relevant to their work.--Brownlee 13:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the vast majority of cases it is irrelevant. It would be better to place the Jewish actors who worked in Yiddish theatre (a shrinking minority) in a category specific to that. Hawkestone 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if there are increasingly few living Yiddish actors, the articles of former actors will remain. And what about the many actors whose religion affects their work?--R613vlu 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Severa (!!!) 20:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actors' religion is often important.--R613vlu 21:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Brownlee and T. Anthony Mad Jack 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Actors' religion is not often important. Twittenham 01:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No doubt for the the majority of actors, as for the majority of people in general, religion is not that important. However, there is no compulsion to insert this category into every bio of an actor. It is hard to deny that there are some actors for whom it should be used.--Newport 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete But if these categories exist they will be overused, there is no doubt about that. Pinoakcourt 11:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An unconvincing argument; many categories can be and are overused, but that's a matter for the editors of each individual article to debate.--Osidge 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and nom's follow up comments. ReeseM 14:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per T. Anthony and others.--Osidge 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-defining or trivial characteristic, we had decided against performers by performance cats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overcategorization. We can't categorize every person, place, thing, by every single quality and experience they have. Doczilla 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Doczilla Nathanian 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These artists participate in a special concert promoting feminism and therefore are in this special group. --PenaltyKillah 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is a special event that plays a unique role in our culture. That is why I'm not able to decide what to do here. So far that leaves me at undecided, I just can not get to even a weak keep. Vegaswikian 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even Woodstock isn't categorized like this.--Mike Selinker 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear overcategorization. Prolog 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Performers by performance. - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; roughly analogous to "Madison Square Garden performers". Lilith Fair is no more notable than any other concerts/venues. Ral315 (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Newport 12:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 13:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parents of twins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This category is unencyclopedic clutter as Wikipedia should cover individual's public achievements, not random aspects of their private lives. Honbicot 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete absurd cat, per nom. — coelacan talk — 16:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (generally bad idea to start categorizing people based on who their relatives are). Dugwiki 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom LaszloWalrus 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete- Why do we care? Bakaman 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possibly listify, if wanted. - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 13:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional frogs and toads, see discussion of November 4th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. — coelacan talk — 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge.--Mike Selinker 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. (I am repeatedly impressed with your ability to find a single nomination in the midst of many : ) - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile on merge. Metamagician3000 13:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet another Merge per nom. --Wizardman 01:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge both to Category:Cities and towns in Algeria. Timrollpickering 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Cities in Algeria (or vice versa) because the Algerian government doesn't make a real difference between cities and towns, they don't even have a word for "town" in Arabic or French, they only have "Cities" and "Villages", and these categories aren't well organized, while In Amenas (a small town) with 5000 inhabitants is in the "cities category", Arzew (a smaller city) with 70,000 people is in the "towns category", you see what I mean? Or it would be a good idea to rename it to Municipalities of Algeria, as this is the official govermental term for them. --Escondites talk 14:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [Merge both to] Category:Cities and towns in Algeria see also Category:Cities and towns in Italy. [] -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename [ Cities in Algeria to Cities and towns in Algeria ], per nom. Qqqqqq 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• [Merge both to] Category:Cities and towns in Algeria per Italy and many other countries. Nathanian 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both to Category:Cities and towns in Algeria per above. David Kernow (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be interesting to know why famous people committed suicide, it's not particularly relevant whether they did so by jumping, hanging or self-poisoning. >Radiant< 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Such lists provide valuable help for, for example, a historician who wants to make a research on popular methods of suicide by an epoch, or a psychiatrist may be able to do a significiant research by finding correlations between suicide methods and other factors (epoch, diagnosis, profession of person, nationality, location, etc). It's useful navigational and categorizational mechanism. Also, note that a subcategories includes various ritual suicides, such as Seppuku - I suppose there's no doubt that it's useful to be able to get a list of Japanese people who committed seppuku? --GreyCat 13:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seppuku would be a reasonable exception since it's a cultural phenomenon. Jumping off a skyscraper, however, is not. >Radiant< 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why other methods are different. There's at least Sallekhana that is also a ritual suicide - is that a cultural phenomenon? Other examples include political prisoners in USSR usually suicided by hanging, because of lack of other options. Self-immolations also usually include important social aspect: it's one of the most painful methods and thus usually used by radical activists who protest something so strong that they'll going to sacrifice their own life for their beliefs, using public self-immolation to grab public attention to their ideas. Self-poisoning was a popular choice for medieval suicides - that's also a historical fact and I think it may be equally interesting for a researcher to have a list of people who committed sepukku and a list of people who used poisons to commit suicide. --GreyCat 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• undecided GreyCat's argument is good but it just seems like an overcategorization still. It might conceivably be interesting to some historians to categorize people not by hometown but by what neighborhood/district/ward they were from in that town. But just because it's useful to a few readers doesn't mean it's the best choice altogether. Still not entirely convinced we should get rid of these categories though... they clearly communicate that it was a suicide, they just give extra information. --W.marsh 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The subcategories need to be tagged before deletion. According to Radiant's nomination, they are are up for debate, but discussion has already noted that one of them could easily be kept. Let's keep this clean. -Freekee 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reply to the above comment, the subcategories are obvious choices for this parent category. So if this parent is kept, then the subcategories likewise should be kept. But if the whole notion of dividing suicides by method is a bad idea overall, then all those subcategories should be deleted since they only make sense in the context of subdividing this parent category.

So this is a case where I don't think you can reasonably delete only some of the subcategories and leave others intact. The fate of all these categories hinges on whether or not this parent category makes sense. Dugwiki 18:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, my main point was that the subcats need to be tagged so that people are aware they are up for deletion. I've had articles deleted out from under me with no notice, just because they were children of others. It's not a nice way to lose what you worked hard on. Second, the Seppuku cat has other articles besides people who committed seppuku. So its existence doesn't seem as closely tied to it's parent. It could easily be recategorized. -Freekee 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I'm going to side with GreyCat here that there is probably useful information gained by sorting suicides by method. People who study suicides could possibly be interested in also studying the methods different people choose to commit suicide. I also don't see a downside to these subdivisions. The number of categories per article won't increase (you'll replace "Suicide" with "Suicide by..." in the article), and the number of articles of people who have committed suicide might be large enough to warrant subdivision of some sort. Given that, I'd lean toward giving this category the benefit of the doubt. Dugwiki 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete, A list is a much more efficient way (and allow more latitude in doing so) of organizing that info. Circeus 18:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a very long and not very maintainable list. AFAIR, Wikipedia includes at least about a thousand of people listed under suicides category. Shall we make a policy of "notable suicide" and "non-notable suicide"? --GreyCat 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per GreyCat. Otto4711 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. I lecture on suicide and believe, it's not as easy to classify as you might think. "Suicide" should suffice. Doczilla 22:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into a list and then delete. I was on the fence as this seems borderline, but Doczilla convinced me. If it is not easy to classify, than the entries need annotation and explanation. A list is better. -- Samuel Wantman 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, how is method of suicide not easy to classify? If the person shot herself, Category:Suicides by firearm. If they jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge, Category:Suicides by jumping from a height. And so on. I suppose there are cases when the person, say, takes poison and self-immolates, but are such cases where the method of suicide is impossible to determine really so prevalent that suicide method can reasonably be called "not easy to classify"? Otto4711 04:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For those whose cause of death is difficult to determine, just leave them in Category:Suidides. -Sean Curtin 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Category:Sallekhana doesn't fit the naming of the other subcats; perhaps this should be renamed? Ral315 (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a defining characteristic, no clear internal structure, attempt to turn WP into online database, rather low value, maintenance headache., Also, suicide (in modern times) is not something what get publicized all over and is thus easily verifiable. Pavel Vozenilek 03:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have seen articles with four or five death related categories, which shows that this sort of thing rapidly becomes disproportionate to its importance. Pinoakcourt 11:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hate the categorizers, not the catrgories. If an article is inappropriately catted edit it and remove the cats, don't delete the category structure. Otto4711 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local Filament galaxies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The term "Local Filament" is not used in astronomy as it is being used in Wikipedia (to describe a large-scale structure comprised of multiple galaxies). Instead, the term is used to describe a non-specific cloud of gas associated with the Milky Way (as seen by a search using the ADS Abstract Service. In the failed first nomination, it was suggested that the name "Virgo Filament" could be used instead. However, a search with the ADS Abstract Service shows that the term "Virgo filament" is hardly ever used (and one of the results shows that the term is used as a synonym for the Virgo Cluster). Since the terms "Local Filament" and "Virgo Filament" are not used in astronomy, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as desribed above. It should be noted that there is no Local Filament article. The closest I can find seems to be Galaxy filament, which asserts the use of "filament" employed in this category, but is an ((unreferenced)) stub of perhaps dubious quality. Serpent's Choice 16:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Filament" is a term used in astronomy (see the references in Sculptor Group, for example). However, the galaxy filament article needs to be rewritten and referenced. Dr. Submillimeter 12:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Vietnam War propaganda films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Two reasons: 1) Use of the term "propaganda films" is highly POV. 2) Redundant - there is already a category for "Vietnam War films".

Cgingold 11:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Vietnam War films per nom. Honbicot 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as is. This is a useful subcat of Category:American propaganda films. "Propaganda" is a widely used scholarly term that the US government itself has also embraced. The word has a well-delineated definition. If a certain article in the category should be removed, then remove it, but the category itself should remain as is. — coelacan talk — 16:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading Coelacan's comments, I made a comprehensive review of the Category:Propaganda films, with particular attention to the subcategory Category:American propaganda films and all of its daughter subcats. Within the last hour I was happy to discover that another user had already nominated the subcat Category:Left-wing American propaganda films for deletion, whereupon I quickly added the subcat Category:Right-wing American propaganda films to the list as well.

All three subcats share the same defect: they are poorly-defined, highly-subjective POV magnets. "Propaganda" may indeed be "a widely used scholarly term", but these subcats do not have "well-delineated definitions" -- and the vast majority of WP editors are not scholars of either propaganda or film history. Basically, any film with a clear right- or left-wing POV is likely to be labelled "propaganda". That term then loses its meaning -- and films that are so-categorized are tarred with a pejorative label.

This subcat should be either deleted, or merged into Category:Vietnam War films as user Honbicot suggests. Cgingold 14:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The inclusion of commercial Green Berets exposes the ambiguity of the term. Nathanian 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it is deleted would one just have to put vietnam war films as a subcat of American propaganda films? or just keep them in the general cat "American propaganda films"? _{(Comment posted by User:Dudeman5685 19:09, December 31, 2006 - please remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes)}

• If they were correctly categorized as "propaganda films" there would be no need for this discussion in the first place. Unlike the films in the World War II subcats, which are rightly categorized as "propaganda films", these are merely POV films - which is not in itself a significant distinction, since the vast majority of films DO have a POV. If the category is deleted, these films will all go into Category:Vietnam War films, where they clearly belong. Cgingold 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vague and uncertain. Metamagician3000 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 04:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TradeWars 2002 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:TradeWars 2002 ship types (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Categories were emptied (save for the parent) as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merchant Cruiser. Serpent's Choice 08:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete and listify. Timrollpickering 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FieldTurf installations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Do we want to classify stadiums by the type of artifical tuft they use? How about by the type of grass seed next? Vegaswikian 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify to Stadiums by turf type and Delete. I'm changing my vote based on the comments below. There is value to the information and a list is more appropiate.Vegaswikian

• weak keep this is relevent, some teams are "fast" and are said to play better on artificial turf, stadiums still using AstroTurf are becoming a bit of a novelty... while non-sports people might not really care I think it's an interesting and useful classification to people interested in sports. --W.marsh 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Stadiums by brand of artifical turf? Overcategorization. Listify it right in the product article. Note that there are no corresponding categories for stadiums by turf type. -Freekee 18:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is getting rediculous. We moved the high profile installs into a seperate list because some wanted to keep the article more compact. Then we had a debate about the list so the comprimise was that we categorize instead. Now we have people with no idea on the background of this topic trying to delete the catagory. If you decide to deleted it i'll be putting back the list so how about everyone get on the same page? --Coz 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your vote should be to listify and then delete since that supports the initial decision. Based on that I can support Listify and Delete. Based on the above disucssions, it would appear that one article Stadiums by turf type should be the target allowing for expansion to include other information which you can have in an article or list but not in a category.Vegaswikian 20:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coz, that's unfortunate. But I still don't feel it deserves either a category or it's own list article. I think it should either be added back to the article (someone thought it took up too much space?) or create a new list of Stadiums by turf type. -Freekee 05:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your personal opinion, I even respect the opinions based on ignorance (like the one below). What I am saying is that it is easy for mis or un informed people to pass judgement on one solution or the other, but they are doing so without offering a solution or being part of the solution. Should it be in the article? Fine. Should it be a seperate list? Fine. Should it be a catagory? Fine. Just pick one and stick with it. This circular "government style" decision making is insane. --Coz 02:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Useful for the investors in the company behind the product, but probably not to the rest of us. Sumahoy 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathanian 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As stated in the nomination, this classification is too technical. Dr. Submillimeter 14:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - type of grass seed categories sounds like a good idea. Kingjeff 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Arrested Development albums to Category:Arrested Development (hip hop group) albums
• Category:Arrested Development to Category:Arrested Development (TV series)
• Category:Arrested Development actors to Category:Arrested Development (TV series) actors
• Category:Arrested Development episodes to Category:Arrested Development (TV series) episodes

rename as Arrested Development (TV series) and Arrested Development (hip hop group).Tunag 06:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for disam purposes. Dugwiki 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Arrested Development to Category:Arrested Development (TV series). The others are fairly obvious in what they refer to. -Freekee 18:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either way is fine with me. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wisconsin Related Ships
• Category:West Virginia Related Ships
• Category:Virginia Related Ships
• Category:Texas Related Ships
• Category:South Dakota Related Ships
• Category:South Carolina Related Ships
• Category:Pennsylvania Related Ships
• Category:Oregon Related Ships
• Category:Oklahoma Related Ships
• Category:Ohio Related Ships
• Category:North Dakota Related Ships
• Category:North Carolina Related Ships
• Category:New York Related Ships
• Category:New Jersey Related Ships
• Category:Nevada Related Ships
• Category:Mississippi Related Ships
• Category:Minnesota Related Ships
• Category:Michigan Related Ships
• Category:Maryland Related Ships
• Category:Kentucky Related Ships
• Category:Kansas Related Ships
• Category:Iowa Related Ships
• Category:Indiana Related Ships
• Category:Illinois Related Ships
• Category:Hawaii Related Ships
• Category:Georgia Related Ships
• Category:Florida Related Ships
• Category:Connecticut Related Ships
• Category:Colorado Related Ships
• Category:California Related Ships

Delete, category for ships named for states, or places in a state, or persons from a state. These ships have nothing in common, except being named for a person, place, or thing within the same US state. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia. Also, miscapitalized, and it's not the ships that are related to the state. >Radiant< 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Listify, if wanted. - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have over 14 hours in doing work that you people will not do. I have already had a school class use this resource finding ships named for people in their state. All of these ships are relevant to each state, weither they honor a hero from that state, a town, or the state itself. Problem with Wiki, instead of embracing things, you op to delete everything you do not agree with. Try working with people instead of against them. I'm about to quit Wiki, I'm sick of doing work for nothing. --71Demon 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator actually makes an unwitting case for keeping this Category. The NAME of a ship is one of the most important attributes of the vessel, as any seafaring soul would tell you. Therefore, if there is some common link from the namesake of the ship to a particular US State, that is highly relevant and sentimental to all those who served on the ship, as well as significant historically to anyone interested in the history of that particular state. Of course, typical Wikipedians are generally 16-24 years old and have never even been to sea, so their landlubber instinct is to delete work like this. That allows more space on the servers for Pokemon articles. --JossBuckle Swami 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure it's relevant here what the average Wikipedia editor's age is or how much sea time they have. Besides, for all we know, one of the participants here is COMSUBPAC's Fleet Master Chief Petty Officer and another is First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy. As for landlubber instincts, perhaps it would be good to ask some additional salts ito look at this CfD; I've left (very neutral) notes on the talk pages for Wikipedia U.S. military history and maritime warfare task forces. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't particularly like the titles of the categories. It is the name of the ships that are related to the state, not the ships themselves. But I think the sentiment is excellent. And the information derived from the category willbe very useful to school children and historians. WVhybrid 06:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's not really even the names of the ship that are related to the state, it's the things that the ships are named after that are related to the state. Listifying, particularly for ships named for places in a state, would make sense. Mairi 07:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; the state itself has little or nothing to do with the ship. Ral315 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep these categories. There is no need to delete them, because they give a great amount of information dealing with certain ships in their respective U.S. States. The Punk 10:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mairi. "I did a lot of work on this" isn't a good reason to keep anything. Recury 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but "I did a lot of work on this" is generally a good reason for others to slow down and think about the wisdom of deleting said work. --JossBuckle Swami 17:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Categorizing things because their names have a similar origin is ineffective. Aside from the names, do these ships really have anything in common? Dr. Submillimeter 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The names have a similar origin, because they are realated to the history of the people and places in a specific state. These people and events had enough significance to get a ship named for them. It also allows people to explore parts of history. They don't teach the history of the USS Barr (DE-576) in West Virginia history. Very few people in my hometown, Keyser, even know that a ship was named for someone in their home town. I had a person at Rotary the other day talk about seeing it on Wiki, that is how they learned. The got to the link from the USS West Virginia and the category of WV Related ships. Isn't that how Wiki is supposed to work? --71Demon 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm a template designer for alot of the ships in the United States Navy and I recognize the state origins for most ships that are built by the United States. The Carl Vinson for example is attributed to Georgia due to Carl Vinson being from that state. ViriiK 15:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and listify. 71Demon, time invested has no relevance as to whether any given thing should be kept or deleted, as you made a personal decision to invest that time in the first place. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept on its merits. Time invested has no relavence to you, because it is not your time. Editors should respect each other. If your unsure about a project, then you should sit back and see what happens, not immediately put things up for deletion. You have now stopped forward progress on the project because the categories are locked, so people can not expand the project. You make a self fulfilling profecy by bashing what is new. I have see good editors leave because of people jumping the gun. The fact of the matter is these ships are named for people and places for a reason. They are to honor them. You are trying to say that the USS Harpers Ferry is no relavence to West Virginia, so I can't buy that. Your logic is flawed in my opinion. --71Demon 13:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time invested is not a reason to keep an article or category but it is a compelling reason to be especially thoughtful before pulling the trigger on deletion and to be tactful and appreciative to the author. Demon71 has done some fantastic work - yesterday he added more to the Appalachia article in 24 hours[1] than had probably been added in a year (some was as an anon) -- and it was very high quality stuff. I'm a bit on the fence about this category, but all that other work has me wanting to find a reason to say "keep". I'll be interested to see if we get any response from the two task forces I posted a note to. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WeakKeep see my comment immediately above. I'm giving 71Demon the benefit of the doubt. Also it's not as if the category is spam or anything bogus. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:United States Coast Guard Academy alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, per nom. Qqqqqq 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Seth MacFarlane, to match Seth MacFarlane. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bad idea to create eponymous categories for individual people. All these links can easily be found in his main article by interested readers. Dugwiki 18:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent re: many previously deleted categories by person. Doczilla 22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Qqqqqq 23:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. There are plenty of eponymous categories for individual people. Still, it should have the correct spelling.--Newport 12:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Family Guy-cruft. Not notable enough for his own category. Recury 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename Categorization isn't about notability, its about utility for someone doing research. Notability determines if they get an article. If there are at least 5 things to categorize and a category addition can be objective, it deserves a category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to Category:International Boxing Hall of Fame members, already a list at International Boxing Hall of Fame. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly rename to avoid abbrev, no opinion either way on deletion. >Radiant< 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too broad a category. Every great boxer the world has ever known seems to be on the list of members. It's got about 300 inductees. Being in the Hall is not a notable achievement or defining characteristic. -Freekee 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I created this category, and agree with the re-name. I don't think that it should be deleted though. Being in the IBHOF is just as defining as being in the HOF for any other sport, they induct abotu 3-4 members per yer. Jackboogie
• Looking at Category:Sports halls of fame, I note that A) the majority of the subcategories do not say "members" (but do contain inductees), and B) there is already a Category:International Boxing Hall of Fame which should serve the purpose. So, my !vote is merge to that last. Xtifr _tälk 07:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was bold and moved the three articles that were in this category into the existing Category:International Boxing Hall of Fame, which should moot this debate. Xtifr _tälk 23:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Category is inherently POV. Strong tendency to be populated with people who really ought to just be in Category:Critics of Islam, and this is exactly the problem that recurs regularly (some of these issues have been chronicled near the bottom of Category talk:Anti-Islam sentiment#This category). In addition, please see already finished deletion discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 11#Category:Anti-Islam writers, which suffered from the same problems and was deleted.

To every article currently in this category, I have added either Category:Critics of Islam or Category:Islam-related controversies, whichever was topical. So no further merge will be necessary; this category can now be deleted and the articles will remain in other more appropriate categories. — coelacan talk — 01:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This category is as equally valid as Category:Antisemitism. (→Netscott) 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Perhaps in theory, but it's never used that way. If every single article could be recategorized in either Category:Critics of Islam or Category:Islam-related controversies (they all could and I had no trouble doing so), then it's just being used for superfluous POV-pushing. I think it's better to let the non-POV categories hold these articles instead. This category is especially problematic when people who are just "critics of Islam" are added to it, because as was pointed out in the other category's CfD, "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." (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 11#Category:Anti-Islam writers). — coelacan talk — 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. (→Netscott) 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV magnet. >Radiant< 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 16:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per Coelacan's answer to Netscott. Circeus 18:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Antisemitism precedent. Boy, do I understand deleting this category. However, deleting this while keep the Antisemitism category makes no sense and would be more biased than keeping either. Doczilla 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep, solely because of precedent of Antisemitism and Anti-Catholicism; based on precedent, I think the ship has sailed on the use of these hate categories. These categories need to be applied very sparingly, and only where the article includes clear and overwhelming documentation of their sentiment; I would suggest that the individual articles put in this category need review, as I do not think a couple of articles have the support in the article for their inclusion in this category. Still, this particular category today seems to be used more carefully than some of the other categories; most of the articles in this category are not about individuals. Sam 23:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and block. The precedent argument is a misunderstanding as there have been more of these deleted than kept and there are always a lot of delete votes even on anti-semitism. Sumahoy 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there are other precedents where a hate category like this has been deleted (I believe a category for "racists" was so deleted). However, at the end of the day, I think the standards have to be applied consistently, with Wikipedians taking full responsibility for policing their application. Make no mistake, I think having this category will lead to controversy and discord, and that it's application is horrendously difficult. But, if the standards are applied inconsistently, the whole project just becomes one POV mess. Sam 02:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is a council of despair. Following your approach, as soon as there is one bad category in a field, perhaps kept as a result of a campaign by an organised group or just by chance as to who happened to be around that day (and we might be talking about two or three people out of seven or eight) that means unlimited bad categories can be created in that field and all of them must be kept forever. I think that is so self-defeating. Sumahoy 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a relevant part of history. However I'd like to say that Category:Antisemitism is not fully analogous as Jews are also an ethnic group. This is more analogous to Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Anti-Mormonism, or Category:Anti-Protestantism.--T. Anthony 02:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the precedent set by cats like Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Protestantism, Category:Anti-Catholicism and others. furthermore, anti-Islam sentiment is far more prevelant and distinguishable today than for a number of the other cats. i see no basis for it being lumped with "criticism of Islam" (since when was hate-speech a legitimate critique?) or the ambiguous (and possibly euphemistic) reservoir that is "Islam-related controversy". ITAQALLAH 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree with your comment more. --70.51.229.211 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - per the fairness issue. No point singling Islam out.Bakaman 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This and all similar categories. Nathanian 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is POV to say that ever thing that appears to be anti-Islam is merely a controversy. --70.51.229.211 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC) — 70.51.229.211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep per precedents. // Liftarn 16:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep otherwise delete all the other similar categories. Furthermore there are many categries like "Islamism", "Islam-related controversies" this category tell other side of story hence should not be deleted. --- ALM 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its attribution to someone of course requires a reliable source per WP:RS but for some people that's not hard to find. --Aminz 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely subjective. Unless people specifically say that they themselves are "anti-Islam" then there's no safe way to categorize them as such. — coelacan talk — 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Itaqallah. TruthSpreader^reply 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: many of the editors from the Islam WikiProject appear to be ignoring the problem of people who are simply "critics of Islam" being added here. Are these editors willing to patrol the category regularly and remove inappropriate additions? Are these editors suggesting that no one's life is at risk from being included in this category? How many "keep" votes does it take to override the fact that no one has addressed this problem? — coelacan talk — 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is difficult to see past this 'hit-list' claim as anything other than simply an emotional appeal. i believe such fears are unfounded, as anyone in any anti-X category (take your pic from the ones above) may be brought to the attention of some sort of religious/political extremist. yet, even without the cat, if such people were truly dedicated, they wouldn't mind spending an extra ten minutes scanning through the other two categories (which, as i argued above, are not appropriate here). yes, scholarly criticism is not regarded as anti-islam sentiment. hostility or incitement, of which there is verifiably plenty, shouldn't be confused with criticism however. furthermore, we are discussing whether the cat is appropriate, "keep"s shouldn't be mistaken for pledges to maintain the cat, although i would certainly hope to. ITAQALLAH 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep hate and criticism are not the same thing.--Striver - talk 11:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:Itaqallah. Raphael1 14:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per coelacan talk and fact that it opens a can of worms. I will support deletion of any similar categories that relate to anti-(some belief system) sentiment. Metamagician3000 13:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the analogy with racism, antisemitism, etc... is correct. If the name of this category is a POV magnet, then it should be renamed something better. Category:Critics of Islam or Category:Islam-related controversies does not cover prejudice and hatred of Islam, which is the reason for this category. If some articles do not belong they should be removed. If this were "Haters of Islam", I'd be one of the first to say delete. But if we are ever going to sort out the mess of categories like this I think we have to draw the line between the subject (which we should keep), and people with the ideology (which we should delete). This distinction has worked for Racism/Racists and such. -- Samuel Wantman 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unthinking editors use this category to mark living persons who have, even casually, been critical of islam. Lou Sander 18:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 01:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cosmetics magnates to Category:Cosmetics businesspeople [Proposed by] Gkklein 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to more neutral and inclusive term. Honbicot 16:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I am suggesting Category:Cosmetics businesspeople--Gkklein 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No harm in having a Category:Cosmetics businesspeople, but that covers a lot of people. This category should be reserved for a small handful of magnates, like Max Factor and Estée Lauder.--Newport 12:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MySpace Stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure if this should be renamed or just deleted... "stars" is a bit subjective so I'd suggest Category:Notable MySpace users if kept. The people in this category, at a glance, do seem to actually belong as they have news coverage. W.marsh 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing notable about signing up for a website. If the person has an article then their Myspace page can be linked to it if desired but there is no need for a category for this triviality. Otto4711 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Category:MySpace people -Freekee 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem to be about people who are notable for their MySpaces. Not just people who happen to have them. -Freekee 05:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Over categorization. What do we gain adding another category to the already excessive lists on many articles? This is a catgory that may wind up including most notable people especially those under some age (25?). Vegaswikian 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. What's the point of this POV-laden category? Doczilla 22:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Category:MySpace people as "stars" is a POV term. Nathanian 20:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a wiki domain that would not only welcome such a project, but contributors get to keep the Google AdSense revenue their Directory pages might generate. Read all about it right here. --JossBuckle Swami 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JossBuckle Swami is spamming. Check recent contributions. — coelacan talk — 10:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Though merge list to an appropriate article. - jc37 13:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just acts as an advert for Myspace.--Newport 12:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Task of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Pavel Vozenilek 03:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all the above. Metamagician3000 13:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.