< November 20	November 22 >

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 (I was about to listify on the Dark Lord article, but found it was recently deleted). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The term "Dark Lords" is not being used to decribe people from a particular work of fiction but is instead being used to describe any evil character from any science fiction or fantasy series. The term "Dark Lords" is not clearly defined, and it suffers from POV problems, as determining who qualifies as a "dark lord" is very subjective. I recommend deleting the category. George J. Bendo 22:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the discussion on Category:Female dark lords further down this page. George J. Bendo 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsalvageably subjective and of no evident value.--cjllw | TALK 01:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify if wanted. (Merge Star Wars Sith characters to Star Wars Sith characters.) - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with all of the above. --Shyland 11:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, Dark Lord is a clearly defined archetype in fiction BUT as a category it is problematic as editors will frequently mistakenly place any character who in the narrative is portrayed as evil (e.g. inclusion of the First Evil).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Lord page gives an unclear set of criteria for defining a "Dark Lord". Some of the criteria ("powerful villian") are subjective and suffer from POV problems. Moreover, the article does not cite its references. Maybe the page should be deleted. George J. Bendo 13:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, as a category it just gets filled with "evil" characters (much like the personifications of evil cat that got deleted a while back), but could be a useful list. TheJoust 02:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should be more specific about how one qualifies as a Dark Lord. In my experience a Dark Lord is an evil dictator with sinister henchman and supernatural powers which he or she uses for the accumulation of power at the expense of others. As a category it is just as useful as the Evil Geniuses character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.39 (talk • contribs)

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 per above "Dark Lords" discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female dark lords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
You are not allowed to distinguish by gender. Upmerge. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to distinguish by gender, if the distinction is a legitimate one. The gender-based classifiaction is a guideline. It is not a policy. Nominating categories with a reason like "you are not allowed to distinguish by gender" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the sex classification guideline. That being said, this is not IMHO a legitimate sex-based classification, so Upmerge. Otto4711 22:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge - Gender is not a useful defining characteristic for dark lords unless they sing or model clothing. George J. Bendo 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Delete - The term "Dark Lord" is being applied subjectively to any evil science fiction/fantasy character in a position of authority. This category and its parent should be deleted. (I have nominated the parent category for deletion as well.) George J. Bendo 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What, unambiguously, is a 'dark lord', female or otherwise? Subjective and can see no value in this cat.--cjllw | TALK 01:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UpMerge to Category:Dark Lords, or Listify if it is listified, or Delete if it's also deleted. (In that order of preference.) - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oxymoron. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both categories, see above. --Shyland 11:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our article on the Dark Lord type has been nominated for deletion. If it goes the categories should go also. User:Dimadick

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sun hardware to Category:Sun Microsystems hardware
Category:Sun software to Category:Sun Microsystems software

all rename Sun Microsystems products.--Wii WIi wuu 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SUN is an acronym, like DEC and IBM... 132.205.44.134 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not any more. But then, these days, BP and AT&T aren't either. Rename per nom for clarity.-choster 15:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and Sun Microsystems. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; precision is good. -/- Warren 08:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:SUN Microsystems hardware, Category:SUN Microsystems software 132.205.45.206 01:34, 25 November 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 (I'll leave a ((category redirect)) for the Cable News Network category). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cable News Network to Category:CNN
Category:Cable News Network people to Category:CNN people
Category:Cable News Network shows to Category:CNN shows

all rename info page name is CNN.--Wii WIi wuu 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom, and CNN. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Osomec 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename; precision is good. -/- Warren 08:17, 24 November 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. the wub "?!" 10:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SS to Category:Schutzstaffel

rename info page name is Schutzstaffel.--Wii WIi wuu 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, with possible category redirect. Grutness...wha?
Curious; I'd've said "SS" was (far) more commonly understood than its expansion, so certainly redirect if renamed. David Kernow (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "SS" even redirects to Schutzstaffel. As long as the categories include "Schutzstaffel" in their introduction, it should be fine. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, two letters for a cat name is short and unclear. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose The existing name is entirely clear, but the alternative name will be meaningless to hundreds of millions of native English speakers. Osomec 13:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're an encyclopedia, and we should use actual names as opposed to common names that may be incorrect. For instance, Napoleon is a redirect to the man's actual name. The category can have a header that explains the term and links to an article, like many cats do. (Radiant) 13:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... We're supposed to use the most common, but precise name, according to naming conventions. : ) - jc37 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is the same amount to be said for this idea as there is to be said for moving Nazi Party to Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Hanbrook 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Precision is good. Also, the association of the term "SS" is becoming less common and less strongly associated with the mid-20th century German paramilitaries as time carries on. Also, since we're apparently okay with using German names for most of the articles in the category, e.g. SS-Totenkopfverbände, Kameradenwerk, Gestapo, the category in which they are contained can also be a German name. -/- Warren 08:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nom and others above and since categories cannot have re-directs, such renaming would be unhelpful to the casual WP user Hmains 20:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to increase clarity. "SS" is not really good enough, it's not like "Nazi" as there are many meanings. 132.205.45.206 01:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - SS is the common term in English Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It can be marked with ((Category redirect)). See here for a long list of other meanings. Stainless steel? Social science? Screen saver? Self-service? Sample size? The current use may be one of the more common meanings but it's by no means the only common one. --HKMarks(T/C) 17:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Whilst I'd normally agree with renaming a category in line with the main article, I think there is a serious problem with the main article name. Schutzstaffel is not a word I can recall ever hearing despite having studied Nazi Germany several times. Indeed looking in the indexes of the few books on Nazi Germany on my shelves they either have the entry under "SS" or don't list it at all. There's a case that only the acronym rather than the word itself has been incorporated into English. (And we also have other articles at the acronyms rather than the full name when the form is overwhelming better known - e.g. NASA.) As for the comments about disambiguation I like the idea that other uses of "SS" should force the naming to "Schutzstaffel" - there are disambiguation tags and something like "SS (Nazi)" would be far more recognisable. Timrollpickering 14:01, 5 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 all. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queen to Category:Queen (band)
Category:Queen albums to Category:Queen (band) albums
Category:Queen categories to Category:Queen (band) categories
Category:Queen DVDs to Category:Queen (band) DVDs
Category:Queen images to Category:Queen (band) images
Category:Queen album covers to Category:Queen (band) album covers
Category:Queen audio samples to Category:Queen (band) audio samples
Category:Queen songs to Category:Queen (band) songs
Category:Queen song stubs to Category:Queen (band) song stubs
Category:Queen tours to Category:Queen (band) tours
Category:Queen templates to Category:Queen (band) templates

All rename' as info page name is a "Queen (band)".--Lyjyuwin 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all - This is clearly a case where disambiguation is needed. George J. Bendo 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per George J. Bendo. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Recury 14:31, 22 November 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. Mairi 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems a bit narrow to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overzealous, silly categorization. What about Category:Fictional scientists who can spontaneously turn green and gain muscle mass when they are angry? GeorgeJBendo 16:08, 21 November 2006
Delete per nom ~~and upmerge contents to Category:Black African-American DC animated Superheroes with the power to manipulate electricity~~. -choster 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, looks like a definite joke to me.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the next bolt of lightning you see will be... Black Vulcan!!!! Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism/joke. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 04:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, category will simply remain static and has no room for growth. --tjstrf talk 09:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Astarf 06:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Surely this excessively narrow category was a joke. Doczilla 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Excessively narrow categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:09, 26 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Clumsy fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Trivial, non-defining characteristic. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also somewhat ambiguous Dugwiki 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Clumsy" is subjective and suffers POV problems. George J. Bendo 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - POV and subjective. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GJB. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and pointless category. Doczilla 01:59, 25 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing name change to match this category's peers at Category:Native American tribes by state. - TexasAndroid 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename It makes sense to have these all match. Katr67 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with the others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The suggested name is clearer. George J. Bendo 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the possessive construction should be avoided.--cjllw | TALK 01:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom and all previous comments Hmains 02:00, 23 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing name change to match this category's peers at Category:Native American tribes by state. - TexasAndroid 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per above proposal. Katr67 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with the others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The suggested name is clearer. George J. Bendo 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the possessive construction should be avoided.--cjllw | TALK 01:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hanbrook 14:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom and all previous comments Hmains 02:02, 23 November 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. the wub "?!" 10:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, these amount to subcategorizing Category:Shoot 'em ups based on whether or not the game has a scrolling screen. I don't consider that a particularly useful categorization. We don't subcat platformers or puzzle games by scrolling either. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Scrolling shooters, ~~Delete Category:Fixed shooters~~ -- "Scrolling shooter" (also "side-scroller") is a historical, meaningful, very commonly used classification reflecting an influential video game design/interface paradigm pioneered by games like Defender. Google: "scrolling shooter" (273,000 ghits), or the more broad "side scroller" (352,000 ghits). "Fixed shooter", on the other hand, is much less frequently used (4,040 ghits), doesn't reflect a specific paradigm of game design, and may suggest the false analogy which makes "Scrolling shooters" seem like an arbitrary classification. -- Shunpiker 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(update) I'm not familiar with the term "fixed shooter" but it seems to be used here to name the model of play typified by Space Invaders. Many games (e.g. Galaga) built on that design. Keep Category:Fixed shooters but clarify its definition, and consider renaming it if a more common term can be found. -- Shunpiker

Comment top-down scrollers and side-scrollers are also frequently divided thusly. 132.205.44.134 00:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I know the difference between a "static" shooter, a side-scroller and a vertical scroller. The difference is obvious. My point is that this is not a meaningful categorization. Some games use both systems (e.g. Tyrian). The common themes in all these games are obvious (usually a spaceship with a bunch of upgrades and aliens or geometric shapes that swarm down and you have to shoot them etc). Which way the screen moves is, in comparison, trivial. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To resolve this conflict, I assume that Radiant) would be somewhat agreed, the categories must be somehow combined. It seems like the "fixed shooters" would also fit under scrolling shooters in the idea that the enemies are scrolling; although fixed shooters seem much different than scrolling shooters; since scrolling shooters tend to vary in landscape whereas fixed shooters are of course more statically based. Sidescrolling and vertical shooters should of course be categorized under one, since like as said before some games have both; I just wanted to throw out another game that does this, Legendary Wings.--Notmyhandle 09:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, Legendary Wings, etc. could just be a member of two categories, instead of having a joint category for scrollers. Many games only feature one type of action, and some feature scrolling in both vertical and horizontal directions (which would by a scrolling shooter, the parent cat for side and top-down scrollers) 132.205.45.206 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and possibly rename) per comments by Shunpiker. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:45, 5 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. the wub "?!" 10:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Computer and video card games. The term "card battle" is poorly defined; for instance, is "Magic the Gathering" a card game or a card battle game? (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is meant for games where certain game mechanics are detemined with a card system. It seems a reasonable categorisation if a better name could be found. Tim! 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but what then is the difference between the two cats I've mentioned? (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 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. the wub "?!" 10:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why we should categorize card games by the country they're played in or come from. Note that most of these cats are quite small, and that most content of these categories are "classic" games played with a regular deck of cards, as opposed to "recent" games by a publisher in said country. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Why would they be deleted? Since no reason is given, and the categories are obviously extremely helpful (one glance at the games in each category shows a relationship that there would no way to see otherwise), the categories should stay. What would make sense is to make a "card games by national origin" type parent to include them all. 2005 02:31, 11 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 merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since most card games can be played by varying amounts of players (e.g. Hearts can be done by three to eight, or Blackjack can be played by two or by as many as ten), I don't see the use of this categorization. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Card games- This seems like a strange way to organize card games, and it does not work for card games that can be played by a variable number of players. George J. Bendo 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GJB - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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 reverse merge. the wub "?!" 10:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Catan as small and redundant. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (would have no objection to a reverse merge either) (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ though I would prefer merging the other way, given that Catan isn't notable in-and-of itself. Percy Snoodle 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge. Vote changed to match others. Percy Snoodle 10:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - and Radiant's original makes more sense, since it is slightly wider scoped. If it was merged the other way round, what would we do with articles like Seafarers of Catan? Grutness...wha? 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either support or (preferably) reverse merge. The line is clearly the Settlers of Catan line to game players. No one calls it the Catan line.--Mike Selinker 08:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge - Seafarers of Catan is an expansion of Settlers of Catan. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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. the wub "?!" 10:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this refers to some computer games that have multiple parts. Given the prevalence of series and sequels, I fail to see the point. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, "episodic games" are actually a genre of computer gaming that is distinct from "sequels" or "franchises". An episodic game is a game that is specifically produced as a series of smaller, fairly regular subgames (aka episodes). The episodic subgames are typically cheaper and have less content than full games on the same platform, but have a more frequent release schedule than a full game. This is not the same as, for example, Madden Football which releases a new sequel version of the full game every year, nor is it the same as an MMORPG like World of Warcraft or Everquest which releases an expansion CD to the full game every year or so. (I have no particular comment, though, on whether or not the category is useful. I'm just explaining what the category is presumably referring to.) Dugwiki 18:00, 21 November 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 to Category:Computer and video game expansion packs. the wub "?!" 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Computer and video game expansion packs", which is what this cat deals with. There's also expansion packs for e.g. board games and collectible train sets. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Jc37 has a good point; I wouldn't object to deletion either. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as suggested above - Expansion packs should be categorized, but the category name should be clearer. George J. Bendo 21:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The expansion packs should be categorised with the games that they expand. Why categorise for just being an expansion? - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion packs are functionally different from stand-alone computer games. Expansion packs cannot function without another game, whereas stand-alone games can function by themselves. Based on the phenomenological differences, they should have their own category. George J. Bendo 13:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's because expansion packs are not stand-alone games that they should be categorised with the game they expand, not with a bunch of other expanders. - jc37 23:57, 22 November 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 to Category:Interactive movie computer and video games. the wub "?!" 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, capit is wrong. Second, all of these are arguably adventure games of some kind. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This needs a rename at the very least, but I think this should be listified. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative main article is FMV game (and I've proposed a merge between that and Interactive movie; so a possible rename is Category:Full motion video games. Marasmusine 10:31, 1 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. the wub "?!" 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this, considering the wide variety of computer games that include mazes - e.g. many text adventures, platformers, 3-d shooters, etc. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I created this category as a parallel to existing categories such as Category:Platform games (e.g. Donkey Kong) and Category:Scrolling shooters (e.g. Defender, and also nominated for deletion by same nominator) when I noticed that Pac Man was not similarly classified by interface/paradigm. This seemed an oversight to me, as Pac Man, its imitators, and precedents are widely described as "maze games" and comprise a well-known and influential genre. Categories such as "maze game" and "scrolling shooter" are well-established and useful in understanding the history of video games and the nature of video game design. I agree that this category could be improved: I didn't do a lot of work in stocking it, and it ought to have an accompanying article. It could even be narrowed to include only 2-dimensional maze games since it wouldn't make sense to include text adventures with abstract mazes such as Zork, and 3-dimensional maze games probably belong to their own category. But deleting this category would only obscure a gap in Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of video games. This category, on the other hand, is a first step in filling that gap. -- Shunpiker 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Seems as useful as "scrolling" games. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that both Google and our lack of an article Maze game seems to indicate this is hardly the common phrase for what might be renamed to Category:Pac-man clones. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doing my best to sidestep WP:OR, here... But I can tell you that Berserk (for example) is in no way a pac-man clone. Same for Haunted House, Xybots, or any number of other maze games. As for your google search, perhaps it's because it's a term that had wide-spread usage that may predate the internet? (Maze games being designed for old-style game systems like the Atari 2600). - jc37 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Berserk is a very different game from Pac-man. Indeed the only thing they have in common is that they play in a maze of sorts. I'd say then that the category "maze games" contains items that really don't have that much in common, and is not a meaningful categorization. (Radiant) 13:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to dig out some old computer gaming magazines/books and get you a reference. "Maze game" was a standard usage for such games back then (It also has to do with how they are programmed.. Remember also that BASIC code was often listed in such magazines/books. - jc37 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, good point. But since the way it's programmed seems less important than the way it plays - maybe we should split this category by archetype? Pac-man and Berserk are two obvious archetypes. So are Surround and Qix although arguably those aren't mazes. (Radiant) 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur that 'maze game' is a genre type that was used by magazines throughout the 80s, and that the only requirement seemed to be that the playing field was entirely a maze; either top-down or first-person. The actual gameplay style was a secondary consideration (for example, The Amazing Maze Game is a straight maze-game; Pac-Man is an action game) although excluding text adventure games. Since this genre is weakly defined, and not really used in gaming journalism any more, I propose listifying it (as it has historical interest). Marasmusine 10:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something like this? And here is an existing list of pac-man clones, described as maze chase games. Marasmusine 11:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3D Monster Maze, the 1st 3D game for a home computer, is definitely a maze game and has whatsoever no relationship to Pac-man. I have no problem in pac-man clones having their own category, and don't quite care if that category becomes a subcat of the maze games category. This would seem to me an obvious solution to the problem stated in the above note. The nomination, on the other hand, sounds even less founded to me -- I fail to perceive a problem the nominator is trying to solve by the deletion. --BACbKA 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a typical early reference to the genre in CRASH issue 3. (In fact should something like this be referenced in the category and/or main genre article?) Marasmusine 00:30, 13 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. the wub "?!" 10:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Includes a bunch of subcategories. All of these should be "...computer and video games". (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 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 withdrawn (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Real-time tactical computer games[edit]

I believe the prevalent term is "Real-time strategy games", or RTS. Merge to Category:Real-time strategy computer games. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Real-time tactics (RTT) is a separate genre from real-time strategy (RTS) and has existed as well as used as a category, albeit not a one of the same recognition as "RTS, since at least 1999. RTT games are fundamentally distinct from RTS ones, and the two genres are common terminology used by strategy game gamers. The genre denomination is further used in major publications (see entry for real-time tactics for examples). There has previously (as in some years ago) been a debate whether RTT is a unique genre or a subset of RTS, but since the RTT denomination is in common use as a contrast to other strategy genres, among them RTS, it is now recognised and considered a genre of its own. It can not be replaced by or subsumed under the "real-time strategy computer games" category. In fact, this nomination for merger is very strange - has the submitter read the articles and familiarised himself with the genres before posting?. The distinctness of the genres are evident in both the real-time strategy and real-time tactics articles. Mikademus 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I was not aware of the difference; I saw some games in the RTT cat that appeared to be RTS instead. Very well, withdrawn. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a listing of economic, infrastructure, sim or RTS games that have "tycoon" in the title. Seems pretty redundant. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See Tycoon computer game. Though I think that even the article is vague. Are these all Microsoft Tycoon games? - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, and also including some that are not by Microsoft. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then this should prbably be a list, since I even had to ask such a question : ) - jc37 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify if wanted, per discussion above. - jc37 10:27, 22 November 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. the wub "?!" 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Run and gun games". Yes, they are computer games, but everything else in the parent cat (including the parent cat itself) is named "games". (Radiant) 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to include any FPS, as well as any other shooter game in which the game shoots back. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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 merge/delete. Mairi 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems to me that magnicicent is POV. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

Merge into Category:Hindu temples - The word "magnificent" is too subjective, but categorizing Hindu temples is worthwhile. (Note to admin: If no consensus is reached, this may also be treated as a Delete vote.) George J. Bendo 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's only one member, it's already a member of Category:Hindu temples in Karnataka. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, delete is fine with me. It will have the same effect. George J. Bendo 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, pov. (Radiant) 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge POV. Tim! 18:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GJB - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Choalbaton 13:46, 23 November 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 unnecessary (and empty) category. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sittiparus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, this supposed genus of tits might be valid at the subgeneric level as a clade of basal Asian chickadees, or be entirely invalid. Subgenera categories are not used at present and if anything they might be justified in extremely species-rich genera (such as unsplit Parus, in which case Sittiparus would be included in Poecile however). See Varied Tit article for references and some additional discussion. Dysmorodrepanis 14:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The technical terms in this nomination are almost overwhelming. Nonetheless, I was able to determine that the nominator has made a valid point. To put it into plain English: It is unclear whether the varied tit and another tit belong in their own genus (Sittiparus) or if they are part of another genus (Cyanistes, Parus, or Poecile). If the tits in question are part of a larger genus, it may still be appropriate to classify them under Sittiparus as a subgenus. If this is the case, however, it is unclear that Category:Sittiparus is still needed in Wikipedia, as it is overcategorization. I am voting to delete because the use of the category as a genus category may be inaccurate and the use of the category as a subgenus category is overcategorization. George J. Bendo 16:25, 21 November 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 merge and redirect. Though candidacy alone may not be sufficient notability for an article, this does not affect the categorisation of articles that might exist anyway. the wub "?!" 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:United States House of Representatives candidates; it includes former candidates. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and keep as a redirect. Olborne 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and use a redirect - George J. Bendo 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify if wanted. Imagine if everyone who's ever run for congress is grouped in this category. Also imagine former candidates for Parliament (or any other country's legislative body). - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37. Precedent is not to regard candidacy as a notable attribute unless elected. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:08, 26 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether a fictional character is a "tomboy" is too subjective, which can cause problems when adding articles to the catgory. I suggest deleting it rather than dealing with POV problems. George J. Bendo 10:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Well put. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 14:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary. (Radiant) 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective category. Doczilla 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our article on Tomboy contains a list of dictional characters depicted as such. Some of them seem to have conceived to play this particural role. User:Dimadick

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Over-categorizations. Thousands, if not millions of anime titles have been dubbed and released domestically in the USA over the past 40 years. This is even more apparent now with the prevailence of DVD, where almost every single anime released domestically comes with both an english subtitled and englished dubbed version and where distrubution companies relases hundreds of titles a year. It is also a little arbitrary to simply cateogrize English dubs and no others. Why not "Anime dubbed into French" or "Anime dubbed into Spanish" or how about a real kicker "American animation dubbed into Japanese"! This category will become to over populated an unmanagble if left up. Animedude 08:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - George J. Bendo 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed - Completely ridiculous, if I might suggest changing this to English Licensed Anime because it would make it easier to keep track of the existing Anime. It is quite helpful because it tells people which titles are available with an english dub track. What I really hate more then anything is frivolous nitpickers like your self who have nothing better to do then go after things because of a tiny technicality. There is a use for this but it's impossible to explain it to you.--Jack Cox 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the large amount of anime already translated into English as well as the number of licenses probably held by companies working on or planning to translate additional series, I cannot imagine this category being any more useful that Category:Anime. Moreover, if you cannot explain the category's purpose, then maybe it is not needed. George J. Bendo 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Eventually this will be a duplicate of Category:Anime (which is better categorised). - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hanbrook 14:18, 22 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment impartial, these would be the category from the 1979 season Denver Pyle,Sorrell Booke,Ben Jones,Catherine Bach,Sonny Shroyer,Waylon Jennings, from the movie 2005 movie Jessica Simpson, Johnny Knoxville, Burt Reynolds, Willie Nelson, Lynda Carter and others.--Dakota 07:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / listify per precedent. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which precedent would that be then? Tim! 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over categorization --Mark S (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These "actor by series" categories are truly unwieldly when fully populated. George J. Bendo 10:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 14:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important subcategory of Category:Dukes of Hazzard. Tim! 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the deletes above. -- Samuel Wantman 02:03, 27 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / listify per precedent. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over categorization --Mark S (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These "actor by series" categories are truly unwieldly when fully populated. George J. Bendo 10:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In general, cast lists are best kept to the main article or to a sub-article of the main article for the show. Otherwise you'll end up with prolific actors having 50 or 100 categories, one per show they appeared in. Dugwiki 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name an actor who has appeared in 50 or 100 series. Tim! 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Davis Jr.. He's also appeared in a scene of Diamonds are Forever that was cut from the final movie, which is why he is in Category:James Bond actors. George J. Bendo 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50 films maybe, but not 50 series. These aren't actor by film categories. Tim! 23:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mr. Davis wasn't on 50 series (according to IMBD.com), though if we include the "specials" he was on, he would qualify. However, George Kennedy does qualify. : ) - jc37 00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Kennedy is a pretty short article for someone who appears in so many series... i.e. he does not make notable appearances in 50 series, or is not a regular cast member in 50 series. We can probably agree that single appearances can removed from categories. Tim! 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important subcategory of Category:Charlie's Angels Tim! 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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 merge Category:New Zealand Māori and Category:Māori people to Category:New Zealand Māori people. the wub "?!" 11:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A well-meaning but misguided attempt to rename Category:Māori people. I can understand renaming to Category:New Zealand Māori people, so as to exclude people of Māori descent not born in New Zealand (and especially given to potential confusion with people of Cook Island Māori descent), but this category does not make it clear that it is for individual people, which the previous name did (it would also have been nice if there had been some discussion about such a wide-ranging change at the New Zealand WikiProject pages, but that is beside the point). In any case, I suggest merging the two current categories into a new Category:New Zealand Māori people, which should remove the original ambiguity and the one which has replaced it. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge back into Category:Māori people. If it can be shown that there's a need to further categorise then prepend with 'New Zealand' per Grutness' suggestion (and set up the other(s) eg Category:Cook Island Māori people. If not, leave as-is.--cjllw | TALK 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently the reason this was changed was because of the creation of Category:Cook Island Māori. There's also the slight snag of people of Māori descent who are citizens of other countries - IIRC nearly 10% of all Māori now live in Australia, for instance. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and given the rather fluid citizenship/residency arrangements between A/NZ it could easily be problematic to further categorise by nationality. How about rename Category:Cook Island Māori to Category:Cook Island Māori people (if it is really needed), make that a subcat of Category:Māori people, and then leave as-is (ie also delete/merge Category:New Zealand Māori into Category:New Zealand Māori? --cjllw | TALK 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem with that is that Cook Island Māori aren't Māori per se - they are a separate people who just happen to use the same name to describe themselves, so it isn't an acceptable subcategory. Perhaps I've not been expaining this properly - let's try again (it is confusing): Māori, i.e., native New Zealanders, may be citizens of New Zealand or of other countries. The category Category:Māori deals with their culture as a whole. Category:Māori people, the original category, suffers from the problem that it could include people who are citizens of Australia or other countries, but the new Category:New Zealand Māori has the opposite problem in that it doesn't specify that it is for biographies. To add to the confusion, there is a separate people, Cook Island Māori (so named), this name simply meaning they are of CI Māori descent, but not necessarily implying they are born or living in the Cook Islands - many Cook Island Māori live in New Zealand, for instance. The whole thing could become a horrible mess, really, but - unless there is a proliferation of Cook Island Māori categories, it at least makes sense for categories dealing with the Māori people to adequately delineate between the culture, specific New Zealanders, and specific people not in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then scratch the idea of making CI Māori people a subcat of Māori people. Is it such a problem that Category:Māori people, which would seem to be fine and unambiguous as a cat name, could be open to include Māori individuals with citizenship/residence other than NZ? It would be reasonable naturally for Category:Māori on the overall culture to have a subcat for notable individuals from that culture, and Category:Māori people would be the simplest name for that. I suppose one could also have Category:New Zealand Māori people as a more specific subcat if needed or desired. I note there is also a Category:Cook Islands people as well as Category:Cook Island Māori. In any event, the categories intended for individuals should probably be named cat:X people to avoid ambiguity, and it's also reasonably standard, so agreed that Category:New Zealand Māori and Category:Cook Island Māori need renaming by tacking on "people" to the end, if indeed they are to be maintained.--cjllw | TALK 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would be too much of a problem - that has been the category name for quite a while, and it was only the recent attempted change that prompted me to bring this here (apparently that itself was prompted by the creation of the CI category). As long as it is made clear in the category that it is for people of (NZ) Māori descent rather than (CI) Māori descent (who are rarely if ever known simply as "Māori"), there shouldn't be much of a problem. There would still be the problem that it's a subcat of Category:New Zealand people, but I don't think it would be too difficult to turn a slightly blind eye to that one since those Māori not actually New Zealand citizens will be of fairly recent NZ descent. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 23 November 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 deleted by TexasAndroid. Whisp e ring 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia articles vulnerable to vandalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Delete -- To avoid encouraging vandalism to vulnerable pages, only administrators can view Special:Unwatchedpages, a page which performs essentially the same function as Category:Wikipedia articles vulnerable to vandalism. There's no reason to advertise the vulnerability of an article to vandalism, thereby encouraging readers to vandalize it. The rationale for the deletion of this category is discussed in general terms in WP:BEANS. John254 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm certainly inclined to support deletion as serving no useful function, but I do wonder whether this is in fact duplicative to Special:Unwatchedpages; I imagine that it might be intended to serve to comprise, for example, those articles enumerated at Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. The fact of such intended usage would not, to be sure, ameliorate WP:BEANS and other concerns but might serve to illustrate what purpose the category might actually serve. I've asked the creator to weigh in apropos of how he intended that this category might serve... Joe 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant with Special:Allpages. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7 along with Template:Vulnerable as creator. I didn't know that sysop functions similar to this were available. I hadn't transcluded the template anywhere yet. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Radiant. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not especially notable, plus this band only seems to have one DVD so there is no need for a category just for their dvds 17:46, 20 November 2006 user:Raining girl

Delete. Overcategorization. It could be reinstated later if the band releases more DVDs. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 14:16, 21 November 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 (after problems with category text were removed). --RobertG ♬ talk 12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is in the wrong place (i.e. "category" name space), is clearly an advertisement ("our competencies are ...") and is not notable 15:25, 19 November 2006 user:Sony-youth

note: I deleted inappropriate category text from this category. 132.205.93.88 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no content, was created as an article in category space, and that article was an advert. 132.205.93.88 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't create blank categories. --Mark S (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We don't delete categories because they are empty. We populate them. — Reinyday, 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep: I had originally proposed deletion (since the "category" was an advertisement), but see now it is being populated with entries. However, Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. sony-youth 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not empty and there is nothing wrong with the concept. Hanbrook 14:20, 22 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pro-choice actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pro-life actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pro-choice musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pro-life musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, or create Category:Entertainers by opinion and Category:Actors by opinion, respectively. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 132.205.93.88 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a person is a well known activist for some point of view, it's probably better to just list then as both an activiest and by their profession. There's an infinite number of crosses we could make, but I don't think its worthwhile. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no strong feelings either way though --T-rex 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also May 1st discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, do not categorize people by opinion. Also, POV magnet. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already stated that sorting celebrities by their political views is inappropriate and subject to original research and POV problems. (I do like the bipartisan nomination.) George J. Bendo 10:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per May CFD. FYI, I speedied the two pro-choice cats, figured the pro-life counterparts might exist but I didn't actively search for them, mea culpa there. There was no side-taking intended. --Dhartung | Talk 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incorrect use of categories. Also POV, often difficult to verify. I spot checked about five musicians in the pro-life musicians category when I noticed the category appear on my watchlist on the Fireflight article. I found no articles actually mentioned the musicians pro-life stance. At first glance they appeared to be added because they were a Contemporary Christian music artist, but I later found out that they were on a list on a website. I think that categorizing by political stance (not party) is an inappropriate use of categories. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The often superficial opinions of celebrities should generally be ignored by a serious encyclopedia. Olborne 14:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not really any connection between being pro-life and being an actor or a musician. Tim! 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Categories were created after editors begun sorting miscellaneous celebrities into Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists. The original intent of those categories was to have places to sort WikiProject Abortion articles about people whose main claim to notability was their involvement in pro-choice/pro-life activism. I consider myself a deletionist, but, the fact is that I'd rather dedicate my limited time on Wikipedia to other aspects of WikiProject Abortion than checking every day to see whether someone has sorted Ani DiFranco into "Pro-choice activists" again. The fact is that Wikipedia is already replete with unencyclopaedic categories which categorize people by religion, ideology, sexual orientation, or other personal information, like Category:Bisexual musicians, Category:Feminist artists, Category:American anti Iraq War activists, Category:Roman Catholic entertainers, and Category:Jewish actors. There is no reason why these categories should not be nominated for deletion also. If the musician/actor split is excessive, perhaps both categories could be merged into "artists" or "entertainers," after the above. I had also planned on sourcing entries others had added to the categories in some form. -Severa (!!!) 19:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all above, especially Severa. Pavel Vozenilek 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Supporters/critics of "x" categories. (Categorisation by issue.) - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreations of Category:Pro-choice celebrities and Category:Pro-life celebrities, per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 1#Category:Pro-choice celebrities and Category:Pro-life celebrities. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. The posturings of celebrities are not encyclopedic. Hanbrook 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, jc37. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. If an entertainer is knows for their activism, there are already appropriate categories. There's no significance to the combination of the two. Otherwise, we'd be creating pro-choice butcher, pro-choice baker, and pro-choice candlestick maker ad nauseum. eaolson 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eaolson. Irk_(talk) 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all per Aecis; otherwise Delete all as POV-magnet (categories are too crude to include the subleties of the debate); in any case no need to classify by opinion unless the activism is a significant proportion of that person's notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:13, 26 November 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.

Merge: broadly speaking, all war museums deal with the military to some degree, and all military museums deal with war to some degree; certainly, in practice, there don't appear to be any museums that cover one but entirely omit the other. Thus, there seems no reason to maintain an artificial distinction between these two categories. The issue has been discussed by the Military history WikiProject, and no objections to the merge have been raised. Kirill Lokshin 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This simply makes sense. George J. Bendo 10:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with merge It is a logical way of subdividing the parent category. I like the scope of both categories since the number of entries in each is appropriate IMHO. The current setup gives a nice amount of room for future expansion. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 14:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's the criterion being used to subdivide here? We can't figure out any real distinction between the two, and the division of articles seems fairly random (indeed, most of the articles seem to be in both categories anyways). If the only issue is size, it would be better to simply apply the same categorization by country that's used for other museum categories here, rather than keeping two root categories without a clear definition of what goes into each. Kirill Lokshin 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great response! I was thinking that the war and conflict category would contain articles about war and conflict museums, and that the military category would contain military non-war museums. If in both categories, then an article would be in the war category by default. Since you state that system would places nearly all the articles in the war category, then I would be in favor of merging and subdividing by country instead per Kirill's last comment. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If the category grows too big separate it geographically. Pavel Vozenilek 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The only distinction I can think of here, would be to isolate those members or facets of the military which did not/do not see combat. However, I think the merger name covers this well enough. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination and discussion at WP:MILHIST. Carom 15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination and discussion at WP:MILHIST.--Dryzen 19:01, 24 November 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. the wub "?!" 19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2000s Video Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, superseded by Category:2000_computer_and_video_games Htmlism 02:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: If there is a Category:2000s Television Shows then why can't there be a 2000s Video Games. I was in the process of adding every video game released in the 2000s decade into that article, not just the year 2000, the whole decade. (Tigerghost 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- The above editor is the originator of the category in question. There is already a category Category:21st_century_computer_and_video_games and a sub-category for each year. There's no need to make the depth of the categorization deeper if the breadth is comprehensive and still small and manageable.--Htmlism 02:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:2000s computer and video games, the decade category should just contain 10 year cats ... looking at how many articles there are just for 2000, we probably don't want a populated decade. It should end up looking like Category:2000s films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Computer games haven't been around for enough years to make decade cats really appropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, kind of pointless since there are so many video game articles that it would provide no meaningful organization. Axem Titanium 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fail to see the point. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we've already got Category:2000 computer and video games etc. Don't see the point in what is mainly a duplicate of an existing category. --Mark S (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This extra category is clearly redundant. George J. Bendo 10:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant category. Andre (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but I don't think people (in general) are getting the point. I think that some don't understand Wikipedia's naming convention. For the century the name starts with 21st century, for decade the name starts with 2000s, and year it starts with 2000. I respectfully disagree with ProveIt that video games aren't around long enough to have decade categories, since video games started in the 1970s. That's 5 decades. The kept category should be the parent category of the year categories (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006), and thus should have no articles in it. The category should be the child of Category:21st century computer and video games. It should be structured the same as Category:2000s establishments. ProveIt had it right originally IMO before striking the comment. We need to plan for the future. Royalbroil^{Talk Contrib} 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:2000s computer and video games. I disagree with the nom, and believe ProveIt's original comment and Royalbroil's comment above hit the mark; plenty of other topics listed in, say, Category:21st century works use "by decade" to list categories "by year" categories. Sure, the relatively short history of this form of entertainment definitely means that there isn't much to categorize (only five decades/five cats, max), but it doesn't hurt to be consistent and planned ahead in this regard. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Keep Nominator apparently didn't realize this category is for the ten year span of 2000-2009. The century/decade/year breakdown is pretty standard for Wikipedia, and used for many other by year categories (eg Category:2000s films is for films from the year 2000 to 2009). Dugwiki 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete decades are an unnecessary level of categorisation between centuries and years. If kept, rename to remove non-standard capitalisation. Tim! 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, decades are a useful subdivision between centuries and years. Without a decade subdivision, you would have 100 subcategories per century, which might not fit on a single screen. Also, some articles have information that doesn't include a specific year, but does indicate a decade. For example, an article might not say something occured in "1987", but does say that something occured "in the late 1980s". Without a decade subcategorization, you would be forced to lump all such articles under the century subdivision, which doesn't capture the same information. Finally, I'll note again that the century/decade/year subdivisions are the standard system used on Wiki for books, films, musicals, architecure and other by-year categorization schemes, so keeping video games consistent with those schemes is generally a good idea. Dugwiki 16:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the "categories by decade" issue, the decade isn't over, so let's wait until then to have this discussion : ) - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rather pointless and redundant also. Combination 13:58, 24 November 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. Mairi 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, IMHO guest star categories are clutter. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all "guest star" cats. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Raidant we should get rid of all these guest star categories. If the information should go anywhere it should be in a list (and it should be a single list with both the main actors and guest actors). --Mark S (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a guest star on this show is usually not a defining characteristic for an individual. George J. Bendo 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although Category:The O.C. actors should be created rather than hosting the regular cast in the parent category. Tim! 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adds nothing to the notability of people thus flagged.--Londoneye 12:26, 27 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1990s High Honor Video Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, It just seems fishy, I can't put my finger on it. I wanted to start a discussion on it. One of the guidelines for making categories said to avoid "important x's" and this seems to be a case of that. Htmlism 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research / POV. Arbitrary cutoffs. Andre (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I messed up on this one, I agree. I wanted to make what 2000s Video Games is now. (Tigerghost 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, arbitrary. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear category. Tim! 18:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrevan. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This walks a very fine line between WP:V and WP:OR. As such, if allowed to exist, it should be a list, not a category. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my above comment. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olborne 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most cast lists should be kept in the main article for the show or a subarticle, not in a seperate category. Dugwiki 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this information is better served by being a category. Tim! 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Let's say someone wants to compare actors who have appeared on Robot Chicken. They already can theoretically do so by visiting the Robot Chicken article and looking at the cast list (assuming the article is up to date), or by going to a subarticle with that cast list. Likewise, if you have a specific actor in mind, and are wondering if he appeared on Robot Chicken, all you have to do is go to that actor's article and view the list of shows on which he's appeared. So there is very little gained, if anything, to having a category that presents exactly this same information. And, in fact, providing unique categories for every show creates the problem of potentially having too many categories per actor article for actors who have appeared in 50 or 100 shows. Dugwiki 16:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep trotting out that "50 or 100 series" straw man knowing full well that it is not a problem. Tim! 23:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a voice actor for Robot Chicken does not define individuals or their careers. George J. Bendo 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a lot of precedent for not doing this. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that Robot Chicken is satire that features characters from other animation series, we do not want a Category:Robot Chicken characters. That would be like having a category for people satirized in Mad magazine. George J. Bendo 09:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I'd have to agree. - jc37 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete An article should cover this. Hanbrook 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedents. This is a ridiculously broad and pointless category. I get tired of saying that it's impractical to add a category for every role an actor every plays, but it remains true. A list is sufficient. Doczilla 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not much of a notable thing to have done.--Londoneye 12:23, 27 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olborne 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most cast lists should be kept in the main article for the show or a subarticle, not in a seperate category. Dugwiki 18:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this information is better served by being a category. Tim! 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think it is. See my reply under Robot Chicken above. Dugwiki 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a voice actor for ~~Robot Chicken~~ Kim Possible does not define individuals or their careers. George J. Bendo 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does being a voice actor for Robot Chicken have to do with categorizing Kim Possible voice actors? Otto4711 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cut and pasted my comments from the above discussion. I have corrected the comment. George J. Bendo 23:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lot of precedent for not doing this. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedents. When both the actor's article and the show's article mention the connection, a category is pointless anyway. Doczilla 02:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not much of a notable thing to have done.--Londoneye 12:23, 27 November 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.

November 21

Category:Dark Lords

Category:Female dark lords

Sun Microsystems category

CNN category

Category:SS

Queen category

Category:Fictional Black African-American DC animated Superheroes with the power to manipulate electricity

Category:Clumsy fictional characters

Category:California tribes to Category:Native American tribes in California

Category:Virginia tribes to Category:Native American tribes in Virginia

Category:Fixed shooters and Category:Scrolling shooters

Category:Card battle computer and video games

Category:German playing card games, Category:Italian card games, Category:Spanish card games, Category:Chinese card games and Category:Anglo-American playing card games

Category:Three-player card games and Category:Two-player card games

Category:Settlers of Catan

Category:Episodic games

Category:Expansion packs

Category:Interactive Movie Games

Category:Maze games

Category:Romance games, Category:Survival games, Category:Party video games and Category:Music video games

Category:Real-time tactical computer games[edit]

Category:Tycoon computer games

Category:Run and gun computer and video games

Category:Hindu temples with magnificent architecture

Category:Sittiparus

Category:Former United States House of Representatives candidates

Category:Fictional tomboys

Category:Anime dubbed into English

Category:Dukes of Hazzard actors

Category:Charlie's Angels actors

Category:New Zealand Māori

Category:Wikipedia articles vulnerable to vandalism

Category:Screaming Jets DVDs

Category:Internet companies of Ireland

Pro-life and pro-choice by profession

Military and war museums

Category:2000s Video Games

Category:The O.C. guest stars

Category:1990s High Honor Video Games

Category:Robot Chicken voice actors

Category:Kim Possible voice actors