< November 22	November 24 >

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. Andrew c 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Australian television actors by series to Category:Actors by Australian television series[reply]

• Rename, inaccurate as per the similar British category below; the actors are organized by Australian television series, rather than the television series somehow being organized by Australian actor (Category:Australian actors appearing in CSI: Miami??). Postdlf 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Tim! 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If kept, Rename - jc37 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Please provide a rationale for delete, this is not a vote. Tim! 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  See below : ) - jc37 13:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I thought that we just deleted a bunch of these so why should these be an exception? Vegaswikian 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 01:57, 28 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 "?!" 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British television actors by series to Category:Actors by British television series

• Rename, it's the television series that are British, not necessarily the actors. As the subcategories of this are organized by series, there is no way for it to capture the nationality of the actors themselves. Postdlf 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Tim! 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Regan123 22:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per above. Daniel5127 <Talk> 08:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If kept, Rename - jc37 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Please provide a rationale for delete, this is not a vote. Tim! 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether a "vote" or note, I'm allowed to comment as I choose - But since you asked so nicely : ) - look lower on this page, at Actors by television anthology series, for example, and you will likely see why : ) - jc37 13:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if you don't provide rationales, closers are free to ignore you. That's up to you of course. Tim! 15:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I thought that we just deleted a bunch of these so why should these be an exception? Vegaswikian 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 01:57, 28 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. David Kernow (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is an overly broad category that should contain an average of at least one character for every movie ever made. The resulting list of articles will have little to do with each other. Moreover, determining who should be characterized as a "villian" may be difficult for movies with complex storylines and characterization. The category should therefore be deleted. George J. Bendo 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Err, nah, this is a pretty important category. A film villain would be a character who is portrayed as villainous in the movie. Pretty unambiguous. Minor grey area characters probably don't even have articles. I'm all for deletion of the subjective ones but this deletion drive should know its limits. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overly broad. (Radiant) 13:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - jc37 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zythe. Tim! 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete excessively broad category that includes so many members to render it virtually useless for reference. Doczilla 01:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fairly important to certain kinds of films. (Mostly action and animated) Also serves as a parent to several sub-cats. Anyway see AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains, if the AFI sees "film villain" as an actual concept I don't think Wikipedia is enough to overrule them.--T. Anthony 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly broad. Could be a fine list. -- Samuel Wantman 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Categories that take a grey area with it were understandably deleted, but the basic concept of a villain is fairly easy to understand and is really no more ripe for deletion than its sister villain categories. Of course, the category could be thinned out a bit by offing some articles for one-shot characters, but that's for another discussion... --Bacteria 09:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bendo, and I'd say several of them are quite "ripe". Just because they could serve a purpose doesn't mean they're not overly broad. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:30, 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 delete both. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Outer Limits actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Twilight Zone actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete categories for anthology series; each episode for both series was a self-contained story, so most (if not all?) of the actors only appeared in one episode, and if there were any repeats, it would not have even been as the same character. Postdlf 20:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For most actors, appearing in one of these series' episodes is not a career-defining activity. The categories will only contribute to category clutter. George J. Bendo 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Daniel5127 <Talk> 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Categorise by recurring characters, not actor by role. - jc37 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this catgeoyr and the few similar categories above and all categories which try to turn WP into online database tool. Categories are intended for the most important chacarteristics, not to store every bit of trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 14:54, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - Back in the 1980's, when I was a teenager who collected Marvel comics, it seemed like every superhero made a trip to an alternate dimension every once in a while, at least to get away from all the chaos on Earth. Since I expect that comics have not changed since then, I suspect that every comic book character will have travelled interdimensionally at some point in their careers. This category therefore fails to be a defining characteristic for a comic book (or other sci-fi/fantasy) character, and it should be deleted. George J. Bendo 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Seems like an appropriate category. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, traveler implies frequency or profession. For example, all Charmed characters have crossed dimensions, but only a few characters regularly make the jump (e.g. Sliders characters or Illyria (Buffyverse)) - harmless. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Appropriate Category. Daniel5127 <Talk> 21:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- as per Zythe. It seems to me that the nominator things that intedimensional travel involves a series of tubes.Animedude 10:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the above - e.g. "fictional characters capable of interdimensional travel" or somesuch. Too many characters have "travelled" at some point, if that does not make them "travellers" then the name must change. (Radiant) 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If kept, Rename. The problem is that "interdimensional" is rather vague, especially if one considers "time" a dimension (since the category name doesn't specify "spatial" dimensions). And will this category include everyone ever teleported by Nightcrawler, or other such people? Problematic on all sides. - jc37 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one would think to be that pedantic. Space is a dimension and since I've walked before, should I qualify? The title clearly indicates that it refers to alternate universe/multiverses.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete excessively broad and inadequately defined category. According to some fiction and according to some nonfictional theories in physics (and certainly metaphysics), we're all interdimensional travelers. We clearly move through four dimensions (3-D space plus time). To judge the frequency or regularity by which one has crossed dimensions as criteria for inclusion invokes POV and heads into OR. Doczilla 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the category could cover characters in a particular genre in fiction focusing on dimension travelers and could make for good research. User:Dimadick
• Keep It's an important quality used in multiple genres. Siyavash 16:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it's kept it's going to need to have a slightly better definition. As noted if we include every fictional character who's visited a parallel universe, it's going to be huge. Habitual travellers only? Characters for whom this sort of travel is commonplace or frequent? Sockatume 05:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a subgenre of sci-fi in it's own right but I agree it needs a better definition. Palendrom 20:07, 29 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. the wub "?!" 16:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ivor Novello Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This minor music-related award is probably worth noting in its Wikipedia entry, but it is not notable enough to warrant creating a category for the recipients. Winning this award is not a career-defining activity, as it may be one of many minor music awards that the recipients (people such as Paul McCartney and Celine Dion) earn during their careers. (This is in contrast to something like the Grammy awards, which is career-defining.) The category should be listified and deleted. George J. Bendo 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The Ivor Novellos are not pulp media awards. Selected and awarded within the music industry they are entirely merit-worthy. They may not be "career-defining" whatever that means, but they are recognition of merit, and the recipients themselves usually being notable makes the general class of winners notable. Cain Mosni 19:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean by "career-defining" is that people commonly associate the person with winning the award or that the award represents a pinnacle in an individual's career. People will use the phrase "Grammy-award winner Celine Dion", but they will not use the phrase "Ivor Novello Award winner Celine Dion". (And why do you use the word "speedy"? That implies that the action is uncontroversial or is only a minor technical issue. That is not the case here.) George J. Bendo 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I use "speedy" precisely for that reason. And as for the "uncommon" use of the phrase "Novello award winner" try it in Google... The Novellos have been going for over 50 years. Lots of very notable people have won them. I believe, honestly, that you underestimate their importance. And it is, sort of, a technical issue. You suggest a list instead, which only invites cruft. At least as a category, only the people worthy of note by WP standards get listed. Hence all round, personally, I think it is clear-cut and a candidate for speedy. If it were controversial, then it wouldn't be speedy, by definition. Please don't think I'm taking a pop at you personally, but I really do think that the nomination is wrong here, and hopefully that others will quickly agree. I'm only stating my opinion. Cain Mosni 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your viewpoint, but I would still like to see if the majority of editors here agree with you. I still disagree with you, I still think the category is not needed, and I would like to see this nomination discussed further. (I am also not taking this personally.) I also did a search on "Novello Award winner" on Google enclosed in quotes and turned up 954 hits (but Google only displays the first 119 by default). For comparison, a search on "Grammy award winner" on Google enclosed in quotes turns up 313,000 hits (with Google only displaying the first 758 by default). George J. Bendo 20:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Interesting and encyclopedic content. Otto4711 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Agree that these are not career-defining or close to it. Recury 20:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For what it's worth, the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization warns against exactly this sort of category. You will never hear "Ivor Novello Award winner Christina Aguilera". Recury 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename as per nom. (Side note given the recent "Superhero Actor" cat actions: At least two of those may need to be revisited.) — J Greb 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the nom does not suggest a rename; perhaps you responded to the wrong nomination? Otto4711 00:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes... got hit with "Nomination Creep"... sorry about that. — J Greb 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the awards are important and are highly respected within the music industry. Rimmers 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Why on earth has this ludicrous decision come about? It wouldn't happen to be by an American user unfamiliar with these awards would it? They are highly prestigious here in the UK. -- The Equaliser 18:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • If they are so highly prestigious, then why is the article on them 3 lines long? Surely if they were so notable and career-defining, we'd have tons of information there already. It's not as if Wikipedia is lacking contributors on pop culture subjects. Recury 14:32, 6 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. Shyam ^(T/C) 00:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all series-specific categories from "[Series name] actors" to "[Series name] recurring actors" and prune accordingly to eliminate all one-time guest stars. There are too many subcategories to list here, but all will be tagged and pointed to this discussion. This change will provide some needed relevance and focus to these categories. While many would like to see them pruned further or eliminated entirely, please do not vote in opposition as it is not clear that there is consensus to go beyond this proposal, so we should take it one step at a time. Otherwise, we'll continue to be stuck with these categories in the worst possible form. The only people opposing should be those who actually want one-time guest stars included in these categories. Postdlf 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: rename the subcategories to "[Series name] cast members," which a number of people seem to support. I'm fine with this as well. Postdlf 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would prefer to see a "Thingy main cast" category (or something similar) and a "Thingy recurring actor" category (or something similar) to separate people in the main cast from people who infrequently appear on a TV series. For example, Adam West would appear in "Batman (TV series) main cast", whereas Burgess Meredith would appear in "Batman (TV series) recurring actor". Otherwise, I think that this may be a good solution to the TV actor categorization problem. I suspect that this compromise would also satisfy Tim! George J. Bendo 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment George is not wrong ;) Tim! 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not be dictated by nor inconsistent with this suggested renaming. My main question is whether there a consistent and clear definition of who is part of the "main cast" of a show, as in only those who appear during the opening credits? Postdlf 19:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps people who appear in all (or at least 90%) of episodes for one season of a TV series could be counted as "main cast". People who appear in three or more episodes but do not meet the "main cast" criteria can be counted as "recurring actors". George J. Bendo 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest that any character who appears in two or more stories is "recurring", by the usual meaning of that word. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone explain to me why all of these categories shouldn't be deleted and the main cast, recurring actors, and guest actor appearances turned into lists? -- Samuel Wantman 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Sean Connery belongs somewhere in the James Bond category tree, because there is no consensus to delete them, because lists suck? Tim! 19:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Film series categories are not part of this; only television series categories. Postdlf 20:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, William Shatner in Star Trek? Tim! 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Spoken-word performer categories are not part of this. Postdlf 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What? Tim! 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, that was a joke.  ; ) See The Transformed Man. Postdlf 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still prefer listifying, but this may be a worthwhile compromise that makes most people happy. However, I have fears that it could still cause category clutter for a few actors. If a majority of people still prefer deletion and listifying, I would support that option. George J. Bendo 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could always vote in the alternative, so state that you prefer deletion, but if there is no consensus for that, renaming is the next best alternative. Otherwise, the split is going to confuse the closing admin, and the categories will be kept as is which few (if any) people really want. Postdlf 20:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep/close - last CFD was in September.. the suggested rename looks exceedingly silly as not every actor is recurring, they may be a main star. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that the discussion that reached no consensus? Because it reached no consensus, we are still discussing this issue. We should continue the discussion for now, or else it will be a problem later. George J. Bendo 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a keep majority, so that should command at least some respect. Tim! 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the previous CFD was decidedly "No Consensus", not "Keep". There was definitely not a consensus to keep. The only reason the categories are still in place is because you can't delete them on a "no consensus" result. Dugwiki 18:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please actually read what I said, I said majority, not consensus. Also then read the deletion policy. Only consensus to delete ends in deletion. No consensus results in keeping. Tim! 19:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know the policy regarding consensus, and I'm not disputing it. I'm disputing your referral to the debate as having a "keep majority" as misleading. Dugwiki 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're either confused, or you didn't read the above text very carefully. The prior CFD, which sought to delete all actors by series categories, is irrelevant to this renaming proposition, which only seeks to narrow the categories to exclude one-time guest-stars. "Recurring" just means anyone who appears more than once, which would obviously include "main stars." Postdlf 20:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "recurring" is to ambiguous - I have spoken. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all (first preference) or Rename all using (Series) main cast (second choice). George J. Bendo 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you at least state additionally "rename per nom as preferred to keeping as is"? Please understand we're just going to get bogged down as "no consensus" with nothing accomplished if we try to push too far all at once. Postdlf 20:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename per nom is preferred to keeping as is - George J. Bendo 22:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, now I can sleep easier tonight.  ; ) Postdlf 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hope someone notes this coaching of opinions by the nominator.--BlueSquadronRaven 23:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename is that's what it takes to stop the baby being thrown out with the dish water. Tim! 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Be it list or category, somewhere an inclusive list of all persons that have appeared in a television series, even once, is both interesting and useful, in my opinion. Doc ♬ talk 22:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're always welcome to make a list; nothing ever decided on CFD would prevent that. Postdlf 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A single category encompassing all actors in a series cuts down on navigating a category tree. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. (Side note given the recent "Superhero Actor" cat actions: At least two of those may need to be revisited.) — J Greb 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (Fixed... I hope... — J Greb 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
• Comment I'm not too keen on the rename suggested here; the name "[Series] cast" already implies that the cast is regular, or at least recurring to some degree. I do, however, agree that one-shot actors do not really constitute as an actor in the series; recurring and semi-recurring (actor returns now and again) yes, but one-shots, no. In the case of these, I would suggest simply keeping with a small titbit in the actor's biography's Trivia section. --JB Adder | Talk 00:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly the cats have not been used that way. "Cast" has been take in the most broad sense, the actors that participated in the show as determined by each episodes credits list. Putting "recurring character" into the cat title removes the argument that "Actor was in the cast for Show because he/she was listed in the credits for Episode." In this case it helps to be bluntly clear in the naming, even if it takes up more space at the foot of the page. On the same note "(TV series)" or "(television series)" should be added to some of the cats. IIUC one of the major concerns with the Batman and Spider-Man cats was that everything, TV, movies, games, all of it, got shoved into one place. — J Greb 00:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the categories under consideration here are not in the form of "[Series] cast", but rather "[Series] actors" (sorry about the confusion, but there are close to 200 of these, so listing them out here was not an option). Hence the addition of "recurring" to limit them to "recurring actors." "Recurring cast" would be redundant. Postdlf 02:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Categorization by bit-part obscures the more useful information. Sumahoy 01:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom †he Bread 01:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I find George's proposal of "(Series) main cast" and "(Series) recurring actor" more useful, but the nominator's proposal is OK too. Really, if you want to find out if anyone appeared in both Doctor Who and Magnum P.I., IMdB is a better resource than Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nomination. Q0 08:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this should not apply to all of those categories - seems a very ill-thought nomination. The CfD in September resulted in a keep vote, just leave the categories alone! There's nothing logically wrong with the name, all the actors are actors of that particualar show, but not all of them are recurrent! Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 09:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, the prior CFD did not result in a keep vote. It was no consensus; the categories were kept in place by default due to lack of agreement on the issue. Dugwiki 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prior CFD is irrelevant to this as I am not seeking deletion. I raised this renaming issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television before posting it here, and everyone commenting there supported the narrowing of these categories. What is "ill-thought out" is categorizing actors by every television show in which they have ever made a guest-appearance; unless the role is ongoing, they are not actors of that show in any meaningful sense. It is mere trivia and results in significant category clutter. Limiting these to recurring actors is completely sensible. Postdlf 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Because in theory you could end up with actors having way too many categories the way things are.--T. Anthony 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The current system is riduculous as bit-part TV actors almost no one has heard of are often in more categories than major film stars. It isn't useful to be directed to a bunch of stub articles about journeyman actors (and that is not an argument for expanding them; actors who haven't played leads don't merit articles at all imo). Hoylake 14:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Do not leave "as is". My preferences (in order):

• Delete all
• Rename to "<TV show name> cast members" (using "main" has caused edit warring in the past on Lists, so I don't think it would be a good idea in a category name) "Cast" is discernable from "crew", and still discernable from "guest-star", "cameo appearance", or even "minor role".

Reiterating: Do not leave as is. - jc37 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and oppose -- The proposal would involve a lot of subcategories to navigate, which in my opinion would be silly and pointless. I don't think it's broken, and I don't think it needs fixing. Siyavash 17:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes no sense, as this would not create any more subcategories; it would just rename the ones that already exist. Postdlf 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the plan is to rename all the categories for recurring members, and there are no multiple categories (also a bad idea), then I believe it needlessly excludes. It sounds to me that the actual issue the nominator has is with "unknown actor" stubs, so this action seems a bit much. Siyavash 01:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, no. And I'm still not understanding your comments or the rationale of your objection. The issue I have is with actors of any stripe being categorized on the basis of single-episode guest-appearances, because: 1) it's inappropriate to classify someone an "ER actor" or a "M*A*S*H actor," for example, if they had no ongoing relationship with that series; 2) categories that document trivial relationships clutter articles needlessly and obscure the categories that are actually meaningful to that topic (based on the categories, Jamie-Lynn Sigler is apparently a "Will & Grace actor" just as much as a "Sopranos actor"); 3) the overbreadth of categories to include trivial intersections prevents meaningful navigation, such that Alan Alda does not stand out any more as a "M*A*S*H actor" than Leslie Nielson. Postdlf 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Still recommend reviewing/deleting most (not all) of these categories My main recommendation remains that most actor-by-TV-show categories should be deleted. They aren't necessary, since the cast lists for a show normally appears in the show's article, and since the actor's TV credits appear in their article. Thus readers interested in viewing articles about actors from a show can easily do so from the show's article or a list-subarticle. And having categories for individual shows and films creates issues of potentially having 50 or 100 categories per actor article for prolific actors. Of course, this discussion took place a couple months ago, and the result was a definite "no consensus", with some people (like myself) wanting most of them deleted and listified and others wanting to keep the categories in place. As far as renaming, I'm undecided. There is some benefit to knowing who has guest starred on a show, especially if the guest star appearance is memorable or notable. On the other hand, including guest stars in a category listing makes it hard to distinguish regular cast from guests, and also exacerbates the problem of adding too many categories to an actor's article if he is a prolific TV guest star. Dugwiki 18:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noone will appear in 50 categories with this compromise, so please stop touting that false assertion. Tim! 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a look at, for example, Tara Strong. She's already in 24 categories, and that includes only a handful of the shows, movies and video games she's taken part in. She has over 200 credits on IMDB. If even half of those had their own unique category for actors, she'd have 100 categories in her article. And I'm just picking her name out of the air as one prolific actor. Dugwiki 17:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well done for finding an example - there may be a case for considering voice actors seperately, as it seems there are voice ators who will have dozens of roles. Tim! 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. :) And I think you might have a good idea about animated shows with voice actors seperately from live action television actors. Voice actors are (I think) more prolific than other actors, so any problems with overcategorization would probably effect them more significantly. This also might be something to consider in the discussion for the proposed guidelines for Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Dugwiki 22:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Why is it such a big damn deal if someone has a lot of categories on their article? The idea that someone could end up in a lot of diferent categories is bandied about as a reason for deleting categories quite frequently so I'd like an explanation as to why that's so terrible. I've read any number of articles about people that I otherwise might not have read or even found if they hadn't been categorized by a series they've been in a single episode of. On the one hand articles get tagged if they aren't in enough categories but on the other their presence in a lot of different categories is used an justification for deleting categories. Seems very much the double-edged sword, except that one edge of the sword seems rather dulled by the fact that "too many categories on one article" doesn't as near as I can tell constitute a problem. As far as a vote is concerned, I say Keep because I don't see having the categories as any sort of problem whatsoever. I do not like the notion of splitting off the "main" cast into a separate category nor do I like the notion of limiting categories to "recurring" actors. First, for a franchise like Law & Order you have actors who appear multiple times in different roles on the same or multiple shows of the franchise. Are they "recurring"? Second, the notion of "recurring," if set to any number other than two as the threshold appearance number, is impermissibly POV. Otto4711 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answers... or at least Comments.
    • "Category Clutter" If I understand correctly, the problem is two fold. First, there is a point, and it varies from user to user, where the shear volume of tags at the foot of an article makes it hard to read/decipher. Second, the categories themselves have varying degrees of importance. The argument runs that, by including trivial categories to an article (ie cats for each TV and/or film series an actor appeared, even for the most fleeting of moments), a casual reader might miss a link they would find interesting or were actually looking for.
    • "Main cast" I believe it was pointed out in a related discussion that the use of this term in a category title has been grounds for the deletion of the category. IIUC the reason was that the term invited POV arguments: does it refer to the actors in the opening credits?, closing credits?, majority of the episodes?, by season? It's doubtful that the categories would have this split off since the results would be short lived.
    • "Recurring" IIUC, this is being used as the best way to retain categories that have a valid use, but are being abused or trivialized by the inclusion of one time appearances. I agree with you, recurring implies that an actor has appeared 2 or more times in a particular series. I'd also argue that, for purposes of the categories under discussion here it almost has to be read as "recurring character or actor in a recurring role." There are cases, especially in animated shows, where an actor has appeared in a role just once, either to be replaced or to cover for another actor.
    • "Franchises" While I can see the reasoning here, I think that is a non-issue. Most of the franchises are already subdivided by show. From you example: Category:Law & Order cast has 0 articles tagged, but has 5 sub categories: Category:Conviction actors, Category:Law & Order actors, Category:Law & Order: Criminal Intent actors, Category:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit actors, and Category:Law & Order: Trial by Jury actors. — J Greb 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding category clutter, I find that, frankly, a ridiculous reason for deleting categories. The idea that an otherwise useful category might get added to an article with a lot of other categories already on it means that the otherwise useful category should be eliminated is anti-encyclopedic. The question to ask regarding categories is or ought to be "is the category useful," not "what might go wrong if this category exists." As for the rest, well, since it makes no sense to me to delete or rename the actors by series, arguing over recurring or main or whatever doesn't mean anything to me. Otto4711 08:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I don't think the main and recurring cast should be split into two different categories. That just creates more confusion. I'm fine with the current names, but guest stars really need to be removed from these cats. Notes should be added to the cats stating they are ONLY for the main and recurring cast. --musicpvm 08:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Trampikey. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename to recurring actors. Support rename to cast members. "Recurring character" has a specific meaning which excludes the series regulars. I've heard many comments about a series regular being "downgraded" to recurring status. I think that name would bring too much confusion and is unnecessarily specific and incorrect. I dislike the double category option for the confusion aspect of who goes where. --Siradia 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all actor by TV series categories. There has not been consensus on this, which means we should discuss it until there is consensus. Categorizaing actors by the roles they have acted in is a bad idea. Certainly it is possible, but every fact about every article does not have to be put in a category. Categories are a way to organize information. This is an editorial process, not a simple tagging process where everyone can add whatever tags they want. There has to be a balance between adding categories to articles and making distinctions about which categories are important. That is why we have guidelines for categorization. As the categorization system gets bigger and bigger it gets harder and harder to maintain. As superfluous categories proliferate, articles get more and more categories. Categorizing actors by the roles they performed is a prime example of overcategorization. We have successfully kept these categories from proliferating into films and plays. It is time to remove them from TV shows. Information like this is perfectly suited for being in a list. A list can make all the distinctions about who was cast, who was crew, who had guest appearances, how long they were on the show, etc... Categories cannot do this. Making lists is a win-win solution to this problem. It presents more information in a better format, and also helps reduce category clutter. What is the downside? -- 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and Keep as is. The categories have served to assist in finding out who has appeared in a series in an easy manner. I wonder what you propose happens to such shows as The Twilight Zone, in which each episode has a different cast. This leaves too much open to interpretation, and limiting or chopping categories in two would be chaotic. I'm sure you know that some actors may become famous due to one role in one television show, even if the person makes one appearance. It may be very relevant, so to rule inclusion of such actors out would hardly be right. Michael 03:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We haven't seen the worst of this yet, as only the last few years of TV is covered by this system in great detail. I would also be fine with deleting the lot. Choalbaton 14:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all of these categories. I agree with the comments of Otto4711 above. Mr. Stabs 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep all the categories, Strongly Oppose renaming of Categories: I am sick to death of the funsuckers hear on wikipedia who do not acknowledge people put a hell of a lot of work into making these categories, I went through season episode lists for one of them and did all of it. For you to throw it away like trash is wrong.

--Jack Cox 19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Someone worked on it" is an argument against renaming or deleting any category, not a relevant argument for keeping these without change. Postdlf 19:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to make an encyclopedia, not to have fun. Anything that is bad for the encyclopedia must go, regardless of how long it took. Piccadilly 02:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support renaming to counter category clutter. Piccadilly 01:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there will always be disagreements as to who is more important to a series. In status quo, each user can make up their own minds.Bjones 13:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and listify instead. MakeRocketGoNow 15:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Renaming the cats to more specific descriptions will increase them number of categores. Probably triple them, because most series will have Series recurring actors, Series cast and Series guest actors. cats as well. -Freekee 15:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, a single [Series] recurring actors covers both "main cast", however you want to define it, and individual actors that have appeared in the show multiple times. [Series] cast would be redundant and subject to a valid "merge" nomination. [Series] guest stars, unless you are looking at recurring guests, would contain the bulk of what kicked off this nomination: Actors getting tagged for showing up in a single show/scene/frame of a series. Such a cat would bet fair game for a "delete and listify" nom.
    This renaming is a method to allow removal of the trivial while retaining germane information. — J Greb 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. If the goal was to subdivide in that way, I'd just subdivide and have the "[Series] actors" categories be parents. A rename would then make absolutely no sense. The point is to limit. Postdlf 09:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I don't care to what, but I think guest appearances should be excluded from these categories. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:19, 4 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M&M Boys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is a nickname that has been applied to two different pairs of notable baseball players. The players and the nickname are already discussed in M&M Boys. The category is overkill and only contributes to category clutter on the baseball players' pages. It should be deleted. George J. Bendo 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't need a category to list four players two different ways. Also, Morneau and Mauer don't like the name, anyway.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 01:43, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oz actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per precedents on "Batman actors" and "Spider-Man actors" categories, and per other pending listing on similar actors by adaptations categories; this is merely a big dumping ground for every actor who ever participated in any adaptation in any form of media of any of the L. Frank Baum Land of Oz books. This includes everything from the classic Judy Garland Wizard of Oz to The Wiz musical to the The Muppets' Wizard of Oz television movie, and includes lead actors, bit part actors, and voice actors, none of whom obviously had to actually work on the same adaptation to appear together in this category (compare, for example, Oliver Hardy with Quentin Tarantino—the only time in life you are likely to be asked to do so). Trivia. Listify if you're really bored. Postdlf 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The precedent set by the superhero categories and the previous debate on those categories is sufficient justification. George J. Bendo 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - jc37 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedents. It is impractical to categorize every actor for every single film, TV show, play, commercial, etc. he or she has ever been in. Lists will suffice. If participation in the program is noteworthy, then the actor's article will already mention it anyway. Doczilla 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: a new guideline should be added to speedy delete this kind of "categories" on the spot. Pavel Vozenilek 15:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD is policy not a guideline and requires consensus. There is no consensus to delete these so no speedy. Tim! 15:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're getting this one confused with a "[Series] actors" category, because there is actually a consensus to delete these actor categories that lump together all otherwise unrelated adaptations of a particular character/fictional world. Every category of this kind that is not limited to a particular television or film series that has been listed here has been deleted. Postdlf 18:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well draw up a proposal for a new speedy criterion if you are so confident of consensus. Tim! 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This sort of thing is a waste of effort. The more of it is done, the less use it will be to anyone. Choalbaton 14:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify instead. MakeRocketGoNow 16:04, 29 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 "?!" 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Film protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete but Keep Category:Disney protagonists - This category is overly broad. It should potentially contain at least one character from every film ever made. The connections between characters in this category is meaningless. It should be deleted. The subcategory, Category:Disney protagonists seems more limited, and being a Disney protagonist seems to have more of a special cultural meaning. Moreover, Disney protagonists probably have more in common with each other than the protagonists from randomly-selected non-Disney categories, so the Disney subcategory could be kept. George J. Bendo 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All including the Disney subcategory - This is category cruft. If you think the Disney category has value turn it into a list and add some text that explains the cultural meaning. As a category it seems to add nothing and just adds clutter. -- Samuel Wantman 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overly broad to the point of meaninglessness. (Radiant) 13:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both I am at a loss as to how "protagonists" in all films made by one company can have a unique social meaning. Hoylake 14:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - jc37 14:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as excessively broad. A category that has at least one member for every single film in history becomes so broad that it's useless. Doczilla 01:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because this category is overly board. Daniel5127 <Talk> 06:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was very happy to find this category ... Expand and split it. de:Benutzer:Jokannes 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Keep Disney per nominator. Disney protagonists is a logical subdivision of Disney characters, and not unmanageably huge/indiscriminant. --tjstrf talk 11:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I'd like to direct attention to some similar "protagonists" categories. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 2#Category:More protagonists

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hawaiian bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category is vaguely defined, as it could encompass both bishops who have either lived or worked in Hawaii. The consensus in previous category debates has been to organize bishops by diocese rather than by the state in which they originate from or the state in which they are working. Since a category has already been created for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu and since no other religious organizations have bishops in Hawaii, this category is not needed and can be deleted. (Also note that Category:Bishops of Honolulu is nominated for deletion at the time of this writing.) George J. Bendo 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postdlf 21:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need to divide bishops by US state (whether origin or work). Mairi 22:59, 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 merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Theatres in New Jersey, or Rename to Category:Theatres in Red Bank, New Jersey. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the state's theatres category. Red Bank does not need its own. TTV <super>(T)</super> _C M) 18:59, 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 withdrawn. (Radiant) 13:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole category tree of "bridges completed in <year>". However, it seems to me that bridges are a kind of architecture, and no other kind of building has categories like this. Instead, we have a lot of "<year> architecture" cats. I'd say the appropriate thing to do is merging all bridge cats into subcats of Category:Years in architecture. That'd be a lot of work but we have bots for a reason. (Radiant) 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Are users going to look at something like Tower Bridge, see that it was built in 1894, and wonder what other bridges were built in 1894? If they wanted this information, would they rather navigate a category tree or view a "Timeline of Bridge Building"? George J. Bendo 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if they want to see what other buildings are built in 1894? Why does no other class of buildings have such a structure as bridges do? (Radiant) 16:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Sorry Radiant, I don't understand the problem you are trying to solve. As someone who works on bridge articles I find these categories very useful. Merging them into architecture makes them much less useful. I suspect you will hear from other members of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Bridges that feel similarly. Bridges may technically be architecture but they are different enough in their design, construction, and engineering to be in a different category. There are lots of bridge categories that have corresponding architecture categories. I hope you don't want those all merged as well. If you think that bridges should be in the architecure categories, I would consider having them duplicated there instead of merging them.-- Samuel Wantman 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - agree 100% with Samuel's points. There may be a case for a better timeline approach, but I certainly wouldn't go along with the current proposal of merging with architecture. --Kvetner 12:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Shouldn't all the subcategories be tagged? Otherwise, it is unlikely that many of the people who use these categories will see the tag on the top of the hierarchy. -- Samuel Wantman 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if there had not been many objections to the first one I would have nominated the rest. Given that there are, I'll just withdraw this now. (Radiant) 13:44, 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 rename to Category:Jhonen Vasquez. the wub "?!" 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of characters in a alternative comic strip. There's already an article for the strip, where characters can be discussed/listed. Suggesting deletion as non-notable category. Is every one of maybe a couple thousand comic strips going to get their own category? -- Tenebrae 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless the articles are deleted or merged. Tim! 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. This should be Category:Jhonen Vasquez. He is a notable figure in the world if independant comics and at least one of his works, Invader Zim, has had a cartoon series based on it. The other thing I noticed is that there are already articles being categorized in this category that have nothing to do with Johnny the Homicidal Maniac other than also being creations of Mr. Vasquez. Stephen Day 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per this dude above me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename It makes no sense to create a category for what is basically a single article. The article should already list these. Rename it to the author to encompass all his works. Otherwise, like stated above it would mean any TV show or anything else with multiple characters would each get thier own category. --Kuuzo 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:

  Is every one of maybe a couple thousand comic strips going to get their own category?

  No, just the notible ones. --Wack'd About Wiki 00:53, 29 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. the wub "?!" 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this refers to. People who pretend to be an impostor? People who impose on the regular pretenders? At the very least this should be renamed, and unless someone can explain the purpose I'd say delete it. (Radiant) 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is the intersection of imposters (people impersonating someone else) and pretenders (people making claims to regal positions such as the queen or king of a country). An explanation is needed in the category, but it should be kept. George J. Bendo 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's a good explanation, but can we maybe change the name to something clearer? (Radiant) 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per George J. Bendo's arguments. And the name is clear enough to me; I don't think it needs renaming. An explanation on the category page is sufficient. —Psychonaut 22:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something like Impostors and pretenders or Impostors/pretenders because "imposter pretenders" is nonsense. Doczilla 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Pretender" is derived from a word for "claimant" and traditionally its use didn't imply any judgement of the claim. So an "imposter pretender" is someone falsely claiming to the throne. The two versions you suggest just don't describe the same concept. Timrollpickering 12:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A clear name with "impostor" characterising this set of Pretenders. We just need to make sure that their personal articles do indicate why these Pretenders are considered improsters and not the genuine article. User:Dimadick
• Keep per comments above. Timrollpickering 12:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —Ashley Y 03:36, 28 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 "?!" 21:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Musicians who have withheld biographical information, usually to create a mystery as to their identity or origin" - that sounds pretty vague to me and I kind of fail to see the point. (Radiant) 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The criteria are simply too strange. George J. Bendo 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems pretty straightforward to me. A category for musicians who have obscured their identities to create an air of mystery. Interesting and encyclopedic. "Too strange" is not a legitimate reason for deleting. Otto4711 17:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, where's Morrissey? Sob. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vague, requires explanation. Postdlf 21:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Incredulous response - Are you joking? You think a category should be deleted solely because it requires a one-sentence explanation? That's ridiculous. Otto4711 22:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. If a category is meaningless without its description, it's not a very good category. Because categories appear as mere title tags within articles, they should be limited to obvious classifications. It is not obvious what this category means, nor why any particular individual would belong to it. Think of a more literally descriptive title for what you're going for and I might reconsider. However, categories also shouldn't invent designatons—are there any secondary sources studying or describing "musicians who obscure their identities to create an air of mystery" as a discrete topic, and relating them to one another? If not, we shouldn't be the first ones to do it. What would the parent be, Category:Musicians by marketing tactic? What's next, Category:Ethnic poseur musicians? Postdlf 02:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely disagreeing - well, not completely, perhaps, but largely. First, the category is not "meaningless" even without its description. Second, that a category may not bear the best possible name is an argument for renaming, not deletion. If there were a category that, being otherwise appropriate, was named Category:Guys who do things with jackhammers, would you nominate it for deletion or for renaming to Category:Construction workers? Third, as far as original research is concerned, if there are multiple independent sources that establish that, say, the lead singer of ? and the Mysterians changed his name from whatever it was originally to "?" then where's the OR in that? Fourth, as for a parent category, why does every category have to be includable as a subcategory of another category? In this instance, however, Category:Mysterious musicians is a child in Category:Mysterious people so I'm not understanding the concern. Musicians (or for that matter, other public figures) who deliberately mislead the public as to their identities are interesting and encyclopedic. Categorizing interesting, encyclopedic things is a good thing. Otto4711 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Who would you suggest decides what constitutes mysterious? I would want to include Brandon Flowers because of how he half-avoids certain questions, but it wouldn't be accepted by others. Someone else might like to add Elvis Presley because they think he's still alive. Someone else might add Kurt Cobain because they could never quite tell what he's thinking. This category is inherently POV and flawed. Furthermore, mysterious people is completely unrelated! It refers to people for whom information does not exist or is withheld. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• People for whom information is withheld? You mean, like in the category description for Mysterious musicians where it talks about how the category is for musicians who've withheld information? Otto4711 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Musicians such as The Residents are notable largely because they have obscured their identities, so this category is indeed appropriate. —Psychonaut 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category whose very name invokes POV. Doczilla 01:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Marketing trick, not a meaningful classification. Pavel Vozenilek 14:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Something like Musicians who have withheld their identities. This is a perfectly clear category that applies to a very specific subset of musicians. –Unint 07:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, one of those "what's next" categories. What's next? Category:Musicians who aren't good at playing their instruments? Category:Musicians who use sex appeal? Recury 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no inherent POV or interpretation in the criteria for this particular category. –Unint 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, there really is. Would Christian Kane count as mysterious? If I really wanted to argue my point, he could be. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why I argue for a rename to something that would not leave room for argument. Has, in fact, Kane ever concealed his identity on any occasions? –Unint 05:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Unint. -ryand 09:19, 2 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. David Kernow (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not a defining characteristic. I don't think it makes sense to categorize films by distributor. For example, Criterion doesn't have a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This company does not produce original content, and we shouldn't categorize by DVD or theatrical distributors. Postdlf 02:50, 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 withdrawn by nom. (Radiant) 15:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship - Duplicates Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. - jc37 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Isn't that what you meant?--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge a category to a project page? Unless I'm misunderstanding you? - jc37 09:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Moved from User-CFD since these categorize Wikipedia pages, not user pages. Dragons flight 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This cat is attached to the standard closing template for an unsuccessful RFA, so it is automatically maintained, unlike the list pages that have to be manually updated. Since it is automatically maintained and useful to some people, I don't see any reason to get rid of this. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. Dragons flight 14:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - I just ask that they be removed from being subcats of (subcats of) Category:Wikipedians. - jc37 14:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine by me, I've removed the improper cat. Dragons flight 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, then feel free to close : ) - jc37 14:27, 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 withdrawn by nom. (Radiant) 15:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Successful requests for adminship - As there are only 125 members, and over 1000 admins, and because this duplicates the List of administrators... - jc37 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly a duplicate.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Moved from User-CFD since these categorize Wikipedia pages, not user pages. Dragons flight 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not a duplicate of List of administrators since it links to RFA pages and the administrators page does not. It is more nearly a duplicate of Wikipedia:Recently created admins, but that list is chronological not alphabetical, which makes it harder to scan through for a particular admin. This cat is attached to the standard closing template for a successful RFA, so it is automatically maintained. That also explains why it only covers 125, no one has gone through and added it to RFAs closed before the category was created (which incidentally is explained on the top of the category page). Since it is automatically maintained and useful to some people, I don't see any reason to get rid of this. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. Dragons flight 14:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - I just ask that they be removed from being subcats of (subcats of) Category:Wikipedians. - jc37 14:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine by me, I've removed the improper cat. Dragons flight 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, then feel free to close : ) - jc37 14:27, 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. the wub "?!" 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly redundant with Category:Computer and video game genres; the cat contains genres and a bunch of weird categorizations that don't seem all that useful. Merge. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is a strong distinction between gaming themes and genres. Genres are a style of play; themes are the subject matter. Marasmusine 13:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that, but it's not really a meaningful categorization. Most cats in "themes" are in fact genres, and the others aren't particularly useful. (Radiant) 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; too vague to be useful. —Psychonaut 22:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
• Delete vague category. Doczilla 01:44, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The parent category contains several genres in computer games, e.g. humor, horror and fantasy, and then it has this, which basically is "computer games that have a dinosaur in it". Seems hardly a genre to me, nor a meaningful categorization. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Non of the categories in Category:Computer and video game themes are genres. They are an extension of Category:Gaming themes and themed category trees such as Category:Dinosaurs in fiction. Actual genres of computer game (puzzle, action, etc) are in Category:Computer and video game genres. Marasmusine 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - How about a category of "spaceships in video games", "cars in video games", "birds in video games", "aliens in video games", "monkeys in video games" etc etc etc. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a continuation of Category:Dinosaurs in fiction. Marasmusine 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have Category:Robot films, and probably lots of others that are similar. I'm not saying whether we should, just noting that we do. At a minimum, the category is poorly named, suggesting that it houses articles on the dinosaurs that appear in computer games, rather than being about computer games that feature dinosaurs. Postdlf 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per jc37's argument. —Psychonaut 22:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator.
• Delete per above. Doczilla 01:45, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "computer games containing ninja" is all that meaningful a categorization. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per my comment under dinosaurs above. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Category is inadequately defined cruft. Doczilla 01:46, 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 delete. the wub "?!" 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be "futuristic computer and video games", as it's not about e.g. board games. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say delete this category all together. Futuristic games are going to be either science-fiction, post-apocalyptic or fantasy anyway; all of which have their own categories. Marasmusine 13:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The term "futuristic" is vague, and the category probably duplicates other categories. George J. Bendo 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete as appropriate. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete; this category is too vague to be useful. —Psychonaut 22:43, 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 (but agree that name seems too vague). David Kernow (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, should be "serious computer and video games", and I'm not so sure this is meaningful. Any non-humoristic game is serious, no? (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the name change; but if you read the main article you'll see why this has its own category. Perhaps merge with Category:Educational computer and video games; although even then there's nothing to stop a educational game from being non-serious. Marasmusine 13:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Rename as something - This is a valid genre of computer games actually used for educational or training purposes rather than entertainment. However, the name of the category and its parent article are silly vague; they fail to communicate what the category is about. A name change is needed, but I do not know what to suggest. George J. Bendo 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category whose name inherently invokes POV. Doczilla 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, absolute misunderstanding what categories are for. Pavel Vozenilek 14:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "serious games" is something of a neologism and it's not yet clear what, if any, difference there is between "serious" games and "educational games". Sockatume 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep or rename per Radiant. Please actually read the article Serious game. This is really a very well defined category of programs.--Pharos 20:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Radiant! and per Pharos, presuming that the article is accurate in claiming that this is an industry-standard term. Postdlf 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Don't rename The cetegory of games is well-defined, but fairly new, so unfamiliar to many. Do a search for "Serious game" on Google News and you'll get about 18,000 hits. There's even a bi-annual Serious Games Summit held every year (at the Game Developer's Conference and in Washington DC), for crying out loud, so this is not a neologism. Most industry insiders would recognize this term. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some dispute on Talk:Serious game regarding whether it only applies to computer games. Clarifying that in the category name in some fashion would therefore be helpful, and at worst redundant. Postdlf 16:25, 30 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 with Comedy computer and video games per Radiant. David Kernow (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; redundant with Category:Comedy computer and video games. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; Non of these games are particularly satirical anyway. Marasmusine 13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - The difference between satire and comedy is probably too gray to warrant keeping separate categories. George J. Bendo 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible rename Couldn't this be renamed to something that would indicate a game that is a satire based on another game? Sort of like how (the movie) Space Balls was a satire of Star Wars? (Can't come up with a game off the top of my head that actually fits) That would set it apart from "Comedy games". Just a thought. --Kuuzo 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lego Star Wars is clearly a satirical take on the Star Wars franchise. I also personally believe that Big Rigs is a satirical take on a real video game. Hbdragon88 01:30, 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 oppose/keep Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; redundant with Category:Naval computer and video games. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; Many pirate-themed games are not naval games; The Monkey Island series, for example. Also as subcategory of the various themed category trees; Pirates in fiction, Dinosaurs in fiction, etc. Marasmusine 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments under Dinosaur above. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Two very different genres. Hoylake 14:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Keep seems to be enough here for a categort of its own. Tim! 19:10, 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 keep Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; redundant with Category:Educational computer and video games. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. School-themed computer games are not educational games. Educational games attempt to teach something; whereas the nominated category is a theme. Marasmusine 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments under Dinosaur above. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is riduculous. These two groups of software have about as much in common as say strip-poker games and word-processing packages. Hoylake 14:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Keep these seems to be games set in schools, not educational games. Tim! 19:10, 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 but renaming to Mythology-based computer and video games for time being. David Kernow (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "mythology computer and video games" to match sibling cats. Also, it's probably redundant to Category:Fantasy computer and video games. I know fantasy is not the same as mythology, but in computer gaming the two are conflated. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fantasy computer and video games isn't a particularly useful category for navigating computer games; if anything that category should be subcategorized even further. Marasmusine 13:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think the proposed rename is what I had originally called it anyway; the current name was decided on through a previous CfD. Marasmusine 13:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The parent category needs subdivision. Hoylake 14:49, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a common character trait used across many genres. The category ultimately brings together many articles with little in common with each other. Moreover, the perception of what is "abuse" and how it should be used (to indicate serious abuse or comedic abuse) suffers from POV problems. (Does Daffy Duck belong in this category?) George J. Bendo 13:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Popeye and Bluto come to mind... - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; overly broad. —Psychonaut 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; but clarify in articles or category.--T smitts 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Combination 16:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete excessively inclusive category. Doczilla 01:47, 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 delete overeaters, no clear consensus to delete vegans. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A character's eating habits are trivia. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - Both categories will eventually bring together characters from many genres that have little to do with each other. The fictional overeaters category also suffers from POV problems, as it appears to indiscriminately include anyone with an appetite. George J. Bendo 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overeaters, Weak keep for vegans. It's been my experience that vegans tend to have more in common than just dietary choice so I don't think that the fear of gathering far-flung genres together is too terribly compelling. Otto4711 14:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. If either is really a major theme in fiction, a Veganism in fiction article would be best for that. Postdlf 02:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above. Doczilla 01:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category on vegans duplicates "Category:Fictional vegetarians" . The category on overeaters is simply too subjective. User:Dimadick
• Delete overeaters; Keep vegans. There's a difference between vegetarians and vegans. --(trogga) 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep for vegans (see consensus at fictional vegetarians discussion), delete for overeaters.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:59, 30 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 11:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters that "don't usually show emotion". Not objectively defined, and not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This suffers from POV problems, and "not showing emotion" may be liberally interpreted. George J. Bendo 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. "Unemotional" is also meaningless without a context, and most fictional characters will appear unemotional compared to those within soap operas, or it will group otherwise completely dissimilar characters who are viewed as detached or unemotional within their respective fictional works (think Bartleby and Spock). It will also be a dumping ground for most robots, non-humanoid aliens, etc. Postdlf 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate category that lacks good definition and shouldn't be a defining characteristic even if it had one. Doczilla 01:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this could range from stoicism to psychopathy. --HKMarks(T/C) 06:00, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Not a defining characteristic, and hard to define objectively. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some people are known mainly for their pacifism. Choalbaton 13:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Whether or not the label "pacifism" can be applied to someone suffers from POV problems. George J. Bendo 20:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per GJB and nom. - jc37 13:45, 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 delete rebels, keep traitors. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not objectively defined. Fiction is rife with people who change sides, break their words or go against their nation. Does that make them all rebels or traitors in a meaningful way? (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rebels as it is indeed rather vague but Keep traitors as it is more specific and a notable characteristic for some characters.--T smitts 05:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rebels (depends on perspective). On the fence about traitors. I'll wait for more discussion. - jc37 13:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep traitors but possibly delete rebels, as the term rebel is a bit more vague. Someone who doesn't wear the expected clothing may be considered a rebel and might better be classified under nonconformist, while traitor has a more specific defintion of one who knowingly changed sides or helped the enemy. I think "traitor" fits with characters like Sosuke Aizen as it defines a very important part of their character and the storyline. Katsuhagi 17:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep traitors, delete rebels. In fiction (that isn't continuity reboot comics) treachery is generally a significant defining factor of that character's identity. --tjstrf talk 02:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep traitors because acts of betrayal are often significan plot points and important to the character. Delete the rebels because they'll never ever be any good, er, I mean per tjstrf. Andrew Levine 08:22, 28 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 11:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This suffers from POV problems. George J. Bendo 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - jc37 13:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, has been and always will have POV problems.__Seadog ^♪ 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just plain dumb. —Ashley Y 02:55, 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 11:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The label "paranoid" suffers from POV problems. Besides, no one is paranoid if that monster in the closet really exists and is GOING TO EAT YOU!!! George J. Bendo 13:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category that inherently invokes POV and is not sufficiently defined. Doczilla 01:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - every character in a suspense/thriller could possible be included, per above. : ) - jc37 13:45, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A stereotype itself isn't fictional. Many fictional characters conform to one stereotype or other, grouping them together like this is meaningless. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; this is a nonsense category. Marasmusine 13:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This looks like a way to circumvent recreating all of the other "Fictional thingy" categories that have been nominated for deletion, such as "Fictional nerds", "Fictional goths", etc. Those categories were not useful, and this one is worse. George J. Bendo 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category whose membership indicates a lack of understanding what a stereotype is. Doczilla 01:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too vague to be useful. User:Dimadick
• Delete per nom. - jc37 13:45, 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 Ok, ok, I'll renominate. I thought this was obvious but apparently it's not. (Radiant) 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, right. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? :> Marasmusine 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Silly, trivial cross-genre overcategorization. George J. Bendo 13:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as no reason given for nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason given for nomination. 2005 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. User:Radiant!, please provide a rationale for this nomination.

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. Andrew c 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Futurama actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category contains both regular Futurama voice actors and anyone who has ever appeared as a guest voice actor on the show. (This means that virtually anyone who has played one of the floating heads in Futurama will be listed in this category.) Being a guest voice actor on Futurama is not a career-defining activity (as most individuals already need to have well-defined careers to be on the show), so the category should be deleted. Both regular and guest voice actors should be listed in Futurama articles if desired. George J. Bendo 08:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment this is the 2nd nomination see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 26#Actors by series and its sub-categories
  • This also was nominated for deletion in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 29 with no consensus being reached. George J. Bendo 16:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous CFD. part of the Category:Futurama tree. You can edit out non-regulars. Tim! 08:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categorize by character, not actor. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tim! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please consider this proposal to rename this and all similar actors by television series categories to include only recurring actors, thus eliminating mere one-time guest appearances. Postdlf 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Futurama recurring actors.--T. Anthony 12:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tim! Valley2city 17:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedents (e.g., Batman actors, Spider-Man actors). Adding a category for every single role an actor plays is impractical, rendering such categories useless as reference. Doczilla 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per T. Anthony Edgecution 04:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to delete. Mr. Stabs 15:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doc. Recury 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove non-regulars from category. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there in lies the problem, Josi. How do you regulate such a broadly named category? Anyway, looks like the "keeps" will win it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aww, what the hell. Delete. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:45, 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 withdrawn by nom. Whispering 18:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Category:Fictional secret agents and spies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
*Delete - The label "secret agent" or "spy" seems to be arbitrarily applied across genres to any character once involved in clandestine activities. As a consequence, the category is filled with articles on characters with little to do with each other. It is unclear as to whether a precise definition for "fictional spy" or "fictional secret agent" can be developed. Therefore, the category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn - Looking at the category much further, I determined that at least 2/3 of the articles describe their characters as "fictional spies" or "fictional secret agents". This category could probably use clean-up, but it is apparently not as dysfunctional as I first thought. George J. Bendo 08:07, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - Since "supersoldier" is not precisely defined across all genres, inclusion in this category is subjective. Hence, the category is being used as a vague catch-all for any fictional soldier with superhuman powers, and fictitious superhero with military training, and any fictional soldier with normal but extraordinary skills. The category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (And because it could technically hold all gov't supported superheroes/villains, as well as any in the military, or any created by the military, or, or, or...) - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the term "supersoldier" means something specific intratextual in works such as Captain America, but has no clear intertextual meaning. Postdlf 21:07, 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 no consensus. Andrew c 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - This is a common storyline element that has been used since ancient times (see Oedipus and Moses, for example). As a consequence, it contains many articles from many genres that have little to do with each other. The category should therefore be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moses and Oedipus are actually foundlings, not orphans. As noted in the child abandonment article, that's also significant in literature. --HKMarks(T/C) 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Technically, eventually, if you outlive your parents, you become an orphan... - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete excessively broad category and salt as recreation. We've gone through this one before. Doczilla 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? I don't see anything in the deletion log. the wub "?!" 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is one of those motifs that is so common in fiction across so many genres that it's actually kind of important, especially for heroes. Making a character an orphan is a common technique for making them instantly sympathetic and free of adult supervision or influence. Strongly disagree that it isn't a defining characteristic, as it's very important for Oliver Twist, Anne of Green Gables, Batman and many, many others. I almost want to say delete per jc37, but prefer keep and maybe rename "Fictional characters orphaned in childhood" or something. I don't think most cultures consider adults whose parents have died "orphans" really -- or if they do we can clarify that with inclusion criteria. Additionally, I don't think a large category is automatically a bad thing. --HKMarks(T/C) 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some characters are definitely make a significant issue of it. Doctor Doom was oprhaned at an early age due to the persecution of gypsies in Latveria and this suppossedly hardened him. Ayla (Earth's Children) was a lost child searching for a clan to belong to throughout most of her series. For others it really seems to have little importance. Sisters Kasumi Tendo, Nabiki Tendo and Akane Tendo for example lost their mother early on but the point is hardly addressed in stories depicting them. I think that distinction should be made at how important the "fact" is in the series depicting them. User:Dimadick
  • Comment of course, they still had their dad so weren't technically orphans :P --HKMarks(T/C) 08:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --(trogga) 18:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'll probably never use it myself, but I can imagine this category being useful to someone researching orphanhood as a literary theme. This sort of thing is a useful function of WP categories which isn't duplicated by a print encyclopedia.
• Keep per HKMarks.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per anonymous commenter two votes above mine. -ryand 09:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Keep per above. Michael 01:50, 3 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 SPEEDY DELETE, by request of creator.Postdlf 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-liturgical religious clothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Badly-considered name; I really wanted "Non-clerical religious clothing", which I created afterwards. -- pne (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - The article creator has requested that the category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - db-author. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - obsolete. - Rcnet 10:04, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - This is a common storyline element used across many genres. Consequently, the category unites many articles that have little to do with each other (unless you believe that Cloud Strife has something to do with the film Memento). The category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postdlf 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in serial fiction amnesia plots are almost always resolved. Meaning that a large number of these characters are "ex-amnesiacs."Bjones 14:54, 28 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 category already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: New York City College of Technology, City University of New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, The category was renamed and is now obsolete. TigerK 69 06:03, 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. Runcorn 20:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Anti-Semitic people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: In deciding this vote, please note that there have already been four CfD votes over this category in the past year and the consensus in each case has been to KEEP: (1) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 27#Category:Anti-Semitic people to Category:People accused of anti-Semitism; (2) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 13#Category:Anti-Semitic people to Category:Anti-Semitism .28people.29; (3) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17#Category:Anti-Semitic people; (4) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 29#Category:Anti-Semitic people. Thank you. User:IZAK

• Didn't you just bawl me out for placing something out of order at the top of a Talk, practising double standards? I would assume a closing admin would read all the discussion, and your comment would be seen in order anyway?Rcnet 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Rcnet: No comparison. Your suggestion on the talk page was totally uncalled for and is just not done, whereas comments here are often left for closing admins to consider since they may not even bother to look at talk pages when they come to simply tally up the votes, and they need to know that this sort of vote was already held four times in one year, which your notice overlooks entirely. IZAK 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The above statement by User:IZAK is patently false. There's been no consensus in all of the CfD discussions which has defaulted to keep. (→Netscott) 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're correct, but in fairness two of these were rename votes. I favor his opening note be stricken however as it is apparently misleading and prejudicial. (Besides which I think this is moving toward no concensus without any "special pleading to keep" being put at the beginning)--T. Anthony 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Netscott is not taking this correctly. It's the fact that there have been FOUR CfD's nominations within one year (quite an assualt) and that the category is still with us that equals a consensus by any measure. Thus surviving four Cfd's=consensus. T. Anthony's objection is harsh because this is a legitimate note to the closing admin who may not be aware of the four previous votes, so it does not get "stricken" no matter what, it can be placed somewhere else (like where? - here is just fine.) IZAK 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Don't take this so hard. I just don't like notes like that in general unless they're done by a neutral party. And don't make it sound like there is a unified "they." If I really thought any rename proposal I could think of would work here I'd have gone with that. My thinking was this would be deleted and then a more specific category on the concept could be started to replace it. Like Category:Antisemitic writers and activists or maybe Category:Members of Antisemitic organizations. Granted not all Anti-Semites would fit either concept, but I'd think the most important would.--T. Anthony 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only consensus there's been IZAK is that there hasn't been one... please do not misrepresent the results of the previous CfDs. If anything I would interpret the numerous CfDs as a sign from the community that this category should cease to exist. (→Netscott) 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't agree, a subject being a point of some debate doesn't mean it deserves to die or to live. I just generally don't like the opening note deal because usually these kinds of notes end up sounding like a way to bias the closing admin in one direction or other. When opening notes are done I'd prefer they be done by a non-voter to avoid that. Otherwise I'm glad I missed the brouhaha and I hope to be out for the holidays.--T. Anthony 06:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Four votes, the category survives, results in "cease to exist" -- what kind of logic is that? If they tried to either change it or shoot it down four times and each time it remained standing in it's present form, it stays, and the page should be protected! IZAK 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • In reality there's only been two calls for outright deletion of this category, the other two were for renaming. Being that is the case this is in fact only the 3rd CfD (Category for deletion) discussion in total. (→Netscott) 04:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Picky, picky, picky: Two of these and two of those adds up to four in all. IZAK 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This does not belong in an encyclopaedia as it is pure vigilantism and serious libel in some cases. By all means, bios should list anti-Semitism if accurate, but this category's contents and existence is ridiculous Rcnet 05:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV & This is an encyclopaedia. This article has no business in an encyclopaedia. By all means in articles about individuals where they are shown to be anti-Semitic, and this is verifiable it should be mentioned if relevant - however a directory of alleged anti-Semites is vigilantism and should be deleted from Wikipedia. WP:NPOV, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, if this were better policed it might be a fine category, however it is not. Regardless of content authenticity, I see no reason for "Anti" categories. Has someone started a "believers (or not) in the Armenian genocide" category yet to tag peoples Bios with? - I'm scared to check... Just doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Rcnet 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This category is being used a libel tool by IP anons all too often, I just found William Rehnquist tagged by a single edit IP, with an edit comment offering a woefully inadequate "source". Political activism does not belong in the US supreme court - nor does it belong on wikipedia. And for the record I can't stand the US republican party, which I equate to fascists in my own POV - defending republicans is not my thing. Rcnet 05:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't imagine this category serving any real purpose as it stands - it seems more accusatory than anything. I suppose someone like Adolph Hitler might fall into this category, but aside from a few historical figures that are documented as creating or following the policies of a group, nation-state, or organization, I can't see the value or reliability of placing people like Mel Gibson (for example) in this category. I agree with the above that if this were both policed and strict guidelines in place, it may serve some purpose from a socio-political or historical standpoint, but even then it would be questionable. I also agree that if it is pertinent to the article, then put it in, but I question a category dedicated to it. It has about as much value as a category called "Racists". That aside, is this a can of worms that editors and admins really want to get into? --Kuuzo 05:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Antisemitism has this comment: "This category's significance when added to an article about a specific person relates to notable and reliable references mentioning antisemitism in regards to that person. For individuals that are generally recognized as being antisemitic see Category:Anti-Semitic people." This seems unworkable. It is not the job of Wikipedia to determine who is and is not generally considered an Anti-semite. I have no problm with a category for people accused of anti-semitism, of self avowed anti-semites, of people involved in incidents that were called anti-semitic, etc... All of these could be NPOV. I would not have a problem putting all these people in the parent antisemitism category because the topic of antisemitism is relevant to people if it is discussed in the article no matter whether the claim is true or not. I do have a problem with Wikipedia being the arbiter of truth. --Samuel Wantman 08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV magnet. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category has a deep want for citations/references, which obviously cannot be done in a category in this case. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Jc37 ; comments on anti-semitism should be placed in articles, and be properly sourced.Octane ^{[improve me?]} ((subst:#time:d)).((subst:#time:m)).((subst:#time:y)) ((subst:#time:H))((subst:#time:i)) (UTC)
• Keep but only in cases of documented anti-Semites, of which there are far too many. How can there be Antisemitism without Antisemites? Would it be possible to say that there is Communism without Communists or Christianity without Christians? Surely not! Most famous antisemites can be known from their own writings, statements, proven factual historical records, and multiple news reports. Many of these people were/are indeed very proud of being antisemites and did not hide that fact, so we needn't give in to false alarms that try to mimic political correctness but are just excuses to cover-up real antisemites. To say that this is "only about Hitler" is silly, because sadly why go into a state of denial that such people do exist and always have, which is pretty much as NPOV as you can get. IZAK 10:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was about Hitler, and all documented anti-Semites, I would agree wholeheartedly, but it has proven to be unpolicable. People routinely tag Bios with the category, instead of supporting it in the Bio - and example would be the William Rehnquist case I unearthed today. This category has been hijacked by some for the pursuit of an agenda and is riddled with POV. This category is totally subjective, and just doesn't belong in Wikipedia - there are better places for things like this.
    • As per what Blast said, instead of a category, why not handle this with an article listing anti-Semites? Then at least the points would be referenced. The Bios of those concerned could be then linked back in a section of the Bio that deals with anti-Semitism. As it stands, many of the Bios are tagged (like graffitti) when the content offers no reference to the allegation. Rcnet 10:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Rcnet: Lists become categories and categories can become lists on Wikipedia, so it's a weak argument you are making, that's how it goes on Wikipedia. To the above anon who did not sign his name with the four tildes ~~~~ Wikipedia is not a "police state" where if things get too cumbersome or "uncomfortbale" for the likes of some folks, then they get removed because we are just too lazy or indifferent to moniter our "my watchlist" all the time. So that if you notice errors, then correct them, or bring it to the attention of the editors who wrote the articles or were most recently busy with it. But this suggestion is ridiculous, that because errors are happening that an entire significant category should be wiped out of existence. Quite honestly, from some of the anonymous lobbying I am noticing right now, it is very clear that the people who are pushing to get rid of this category are not doing it for the reasons you outline, but merely wish to do some historical revisionism the easy way, by clearing the authentic, true, verifiable, and notable "criminal historical records" of famous antisemites, of which there have been far too many documented and proven and even sentenced to jail in recent world history. IZAK 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Me before, but not campaigning. Moved to your talk. Rcnet 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I supported delete on the rename vote because we're moving away from "anti-blank" people categories. If we remove all of these, but keep the Anti-Semitic one this could be misconstrued. For example we have Category:Anti-Catholicism, but not Category:Anti-Catholic people, Category:Anti-Arabism but not Category:Anti-Arab people. Now in principle I'm not opposed to a Category:Anti-Semitic people, but in practice I think it's going to be too hard to maintain in an "everyone can edit" encyclopedia. (Personally the whole "anyone can edit no holes barred" concept strikes me as a bad one and by extension so does the concept of Wikipedia itself) Wikipedia also has concerns with bad press about people being libeled. Now a list I would support because lists can, and should, be annotated and sourced. Bottomline delete but let's start List of Antisemitic people. Also in very notable cases individuals can be placed in Category:Antisemitism.--T. Anthony 00:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • On consideration I see we do have Category:Anti-Islam writers. If this were renamed to Category:Antisemitic writers and activists it might be narrower and more workable. Hitler and most Nazis would still count as they were one or the other.--T. Anthony 03:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Anon campaigning (even though it seems biased to my POV) is not good - is it appropriate for me to use the ((Not a ballot)) tag here? Rcnet 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the many reasons given above. Thethinredline 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though reluctantly. Should be reserved for people who have made a political point of expressing an explicitly antisemitic outlook, and not for people who are suspected of such views. Unfortunately, there are people who fit the bill. --Leifern 11:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wikipedia can't be "reserved" for certain items as anyone can add items to it at any time. Choalbaton 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is easy to point to quite a few individuals who are generally considered to be antisemites, including self-descibed antisemites. At the risk of breaking Godwin's law, I'll mention just one category of such people. If some editors fear that some people are placed into this category unfairly, these issues must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Beit Or 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it. Unfortunately there is people in our world with such a deplorable conduct, so I guess such a conduct should be listed and documented since not all of them have acted the same way. --JewBask 12:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't under dispute, but why do you "guess" that a category is appropriate? Choalbaton 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nominator, Radiant, and Jc37. There is no category called "Racists". Anti-semitism is a form of racism and discrimination, a sub-category of that larger category, of which there is not one on Wikipedia, for good reason I think. These are judgement calls, we should not be making those judgements for the reader. Unless the person under discussion self-identifies as "anti-Semite" or "Racist", such categorization could lead to violations of WP:BLP. Tiamut 13:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP says "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims." I quite agree that this category should only be used if backed up by a reliable source. If there is such a source, WP:BLP is not violated. Many other categories could be defamatory if untrue; must they all be deleted?--Brownlee 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This term is highly aggressive and polemical and there are no references or other evidence attached to names when one sees them in a category. All significant members should be linked from the articles on the subject in any case. Choalbaton 13:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Potentially libelous and many cases could be based on POV of someone's politics who is not in fact an anti-Semite. -- Voldemort 13:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, has no place in a serious encyclopedia. There is no precise definition of this classification, and as Choalbaton notes there is no place to put a citation when categories are added. Mostly this is used as a way of expressing an opinion on the subject of the article, which is contrary to the principle that we quote reliable sources and don't state our own opinions. If it is (unfortunately) not deleted, inclusion of living people should be prohibited as almost always WP:BLP will be violated. --Zero^talk 13:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not only is this important and useful information, for some persons it is the only reason that they ever got known. Unfortunately there were many self-described antisemites throughout history and antisemites beyond doubt. I do not think it is wise that for political correctness concerns towards people who were racists we should water down history. gidonb 13:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. This is now the fifth time this category has been nominated for deletion. It is hardly earth-shattering for Wikipedia to acknowledge that such people exist.--Mantanmoreland 14:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per gidonb. The care with which it needs to be applied does not invalidate the category as a whole. Further, constant re-submission for deletion may imply a lack of good faith. -- Avi 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP The concerns raised by the nominator and other deleters are addressed by WP:BIO. It is already against the rules to post slanderous information, so the onus is on us to police the category and ensure that any claims made of anti-Semitism are backed up with facts. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 14:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anti-Semites exists, whether we like it or not. If someone is documented unambiguously as an anti-Semite (e.g., the current president of Iran, who has made it unequivocally clear that he wants to destroy Israel), it makes perfect sense to categorize him/her as such. I do agree this category should be applied with care; Wikipedia should be about facts, not slander. Hiergargo 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is precisely the problem with this category - a desire to destroy Israel may or may not be motivated by anti-semitism. --Kvetner 12:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think wanting to destroy an entire nation of Jewish people is probably anti-semitic even though I think criticism of Israel isn't anti-Semitic. If a group of American Indians said the white population of Oklahoma should be destroyed so the land can return to them as it was set aside for them, I think this group would be anti-white even if they don't want to kill all white people everywhere. Still that something exists doesn't always mean it's good as a category. Racists obviously exist, but we don't have a Category:Racists or Category:Racism people, hence my delete vote.--T. Anthony 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like any category, its applicability to any given article may be challenged, but if there is a good source that someone is anti-Semitic then he or she belongs in this category. Anything else violates WP:NPOV.-Brownlee 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This is the type of assertion that collapses into a POV attack when stated without explanation or citation, as categories always are by nature. It is also completely devoid of focus on whether the individual was definable in some way as an anti-Semite (i.e., a professional "Jew-baiter" such as the Nazi Julius Streicher), or merely happened to harbor or express anti-Semitic feelings (which will include most members of certain cultures at certain times). Judging merely from the comments on this page alone, there is also no clear concept of what it means to be an anti-Semite; apparently simply being anti-Israel is sufficient. Keep this category and there is also no reasonable way to keep similar categories from proliferating, Category:Anti-Christian people, Category:Anti-homosexual people, Category:Anti-Gypsy people... One would imagine that KKK members and Nazis would have hundreds of such categories for every group that they are against. Stating that the category should be "reserved" for those who have "prominently" expressed their anti-Semitism in some way is meaningless, as this category is named without qualification, and so is not structured to make that distinction. Address the category as it is, not as you would like it to be. That "anti-Semitic people" exist is also irrelevant as to whether it makes for a useful, meaningful, or manageable category—make a list of anti-Semitic people to document that phenomenon, where you can explan its relevance to the individual and provide citations. Postdlf 18:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep & comment: I say we keep it with the following caveat: This category can be a very dangerous tool for libel. Sure there are some clear-cut people like Hitler, Ahmadinajad, Haman, and Torquemada, but there will be edit wars over people like Mel Gibson. I don't want to name other names but this is one which would be controversial. It would be very bad publicity to be labeled an anti-Semite on Wikipedia. This is as bad as something like "Category: People who prefer blondes". If we are going to make a category, let's make it only for notorious anti-Semites and Nazis. Valley2city 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you're actually supporting the creation of a different category than the one that actually exists, not voting to keep this one. Postdlf 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep & comment: Funny, I also think there should be a weak keep here, with clear criteria for exclusion, but would not consider Torquemada as belonging, and I'm not at all sure about Ahmadinajad. Ahmadinajad is virulently anti-Zionist, but I don't think I've ever heard him say anything specifically anti-Semitic: in several speeches I've seen transcribed, he's actually been surprisingly circumspect about distinguishing Israel (or "the Zionist entity" or whatever) from the Jews. Torquemada's focus was heretics: he may well have been ethnically Jewish himself. As Inquisitor, he had no power over someone who did not claim to be Christian, and his main target was people who had converted insincerely in order to remain in Spain after the (civil, not canon-law) expulsion of te Jews. Hitler and Haman, certainly, but more importantly the theoreticians of anti-Semitism, such as Arthur de Gobineau or Alfred Rosenberg (amazingly the former isn't even in the category right now). If renaming the category or sub-dividing it would help make it more clear, I could almost certainly be convinced to do so. By the way, I'm not at all sure that being a Nazi—or even a Nazi propagandist—is sufficient to qualify one as being an anti-Semite: Leni Reifenstahl leaps to mind as at least a controversial case. - Jmabel | Talk 19:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this help in your classification? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per gidonb. Amoruso 20:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, and improve.
• keep for all the keep reasons listed above Hmains 21:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but agree that it should be reserved only for people that, in one way or another, described themselves as anti-Jew. Grika Ⓣ 21:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be Category:Self-described anti-Semitic people, not this category. Postdlf 21:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • C'mon! My point is that the person needs to have made it clear what his or her leanings were. Grika Ⓣ 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as usual. Anti-semitism is subjective. We've been here before. - crz crztalk 22:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper nom. --Mhking 22:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See this attempt at vote stacking. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • more - crz crztalk 22:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this is vote-stacking. Insofar as these people (myself included) have voted, many voted before being contacted by this anon, and our views are all over the map. - Jmabel | Talk 20:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since every person who responded on the list voted to keep (except for Zoe who might have if vote stacking wasn't used), and it was done with an anon account solely for that purpose, I think it fits the definition. The same MO occurred with at least one prior CfD for this category. Antonrojo 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Anti-Semitism is usually an ideology (not merely an opinion). In articles where doubts arise, just don't include. Dahn 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, one of most informative human categories--kelovy 22:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you serious? If so, imo you really need to look at the world with a broader perspective. Wilchett 03:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but use with extreme caution per JMabel. CJCurrie 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who would qualify for this category? Anyone who is labelled as anti-Semitic by a third party? That's just inviting trouble. The Anti-Defamation League often accuses people (including Jews, such as Norman Finkelstein) of being anti-Semitic, and many people dispute these accusations as ludicrous or politically motivated. Putting people in an unqualified "anti-Semitic people" category simply because someone has accused them as such makes it seem as if Wikipedia is endorsing that accusation. If such a categorization is necessary, then please qualify the category name appropriately—e.g., Category:People who self-identify as anti-Semitic or Category:People the ADL states are anti-Semitic. —Psychonaut 23:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who can even agree on what the definition of anti-semitism is, much less who qualifies as being anti-Semitic. Kaldari 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category has some issues for me. While I certainly approve of articles on anti-semitic people, I question whether Wikipedia is really a place to put such a category. I would not support a category of anti-Islamists, anti-Christians, or anti-Hindus. If someone wants to link to this relevant people on their own webspace, that's fine, but I'm not really comfortable for it to be placed here. Evolver of Borg 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is POV, after all. --GHcool 00:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Hiergargo and POV is not a legitimate reason for removal. Perhaps it needs renaming (let's work on that), but total removal is not justified. (as for "libel" and oither emotional epithets: see Antisemitism#Emotionality of the term). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete The existence of this category reflects systemic bias as generally people are classified by action or at least membership, not mere opinion. Wilchett 02:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the arguments for keep are, unsurprisingly, reductio ad Hitlerem. I have to agree with Pychonaut and Evolver of Borg above. Furthermore, can we really rely on a WP:RS to judge a person's heart? It's potentially detraction. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think there is a middle ground here. The concern mentioned by those saying "delete" (which includes myself) is that as a category, Anti-Semitic people is not NPOV. As an article, Anti-Semitic people might not have that problem. An article explain how and why people are labeled as being Anti-Semitic, and cite who says they are and who says they are not. This would be a much better way to handle the subject. A category cannot do this. This is the reason why similar categories have been removed. As an analogy, we have Films considered the greatest ever, but we don't have Category:Great films. Of course there are great films in the world, and many of them are generally considered by almost everyone to be great. but that doesn't mean they would constitute a good category in Wikipedia. As an article there are guidelines for what films get included and which do not, and every entry has to be cited. The POV of the editors does not decide what makes it into the article, it is the validity of the citations. I do not see what advantage is gained by having this information as a category instead of as an article and I see many disadvantages. Since this category is against one of the main categorization policy guidelines (see #8), I think it is the obligation of those that want it to stay to explain either why the policy is wrong, or why it doesn't apply to this category. I'm willing to listen to such an explanation and discuss it. The question I'd like to hear an answer to is "What would be wrong with deleting the category and turning it into an article?" -- Samuel Wantman 07:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The historical and cultural relevance of Antisemitism sufficiently warrants the category. Given the sourcing requirements already in place, it should be a non-issue to determine applicability (this makes all the difference with the now-deleted Alleged Antisemites). Fringe cases may safely be left out. BTW, I really think an admin ruling such as that made about the GNAA would be necessary, so as to drop all further attempts to delete in limine (some kind of double jeopardy, even if a bit more flexible). This is the fifth time, for Crissakes, and the same arguments just come back and forth. Taragüí @ 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone is suggesting deletion for Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Semitic canards, or Category:Antisemitic publications. I would be strongly against deleting any of those.--T. Anthony 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have seen this cat. used in a very dubvious manner; the definition of the cat. is simply too diffuse. A lot of time is just wasted removing this cat. from people who do not deserve it. Regards, Huldra 09:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A case in point is the article on Wendy Campbell, a living person. The Jerusalem Post has labeled her an anti-Semite, a claim she herself denies. Yet the article is in this category. This simply codifies the detraction printed by the Jerusalem Post, when she should clearly be the source as to who she does or does not like. What User:SamuelWantman is saying above makes a lot of sense. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but it should be cleaned up. The problem is usually with the unsourced articles. bogdan 11:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way this is ever going to be reliably and permanently in a "clean" state, so you are voting for an option that does not exist. Hoylake 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even in the case of Hitler this is biased and insensitive, as categorising him only by this one hatred is an insult to all the people he killed for other affliations. Hoylake 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually in his case I think it'd just mean we'd need additional anti-blank categories. Like Anti-Roma and Anti-Slavic.--T. Anthony 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would be a really bad idea because then we would be on the road to categorising people by everything they are against, and to balance that we would need to categorise people by everything they are for. Politicians would need to be in hundreds of categories. The category lists would become essays, and very bad ones at that. Hoylake 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per WP:V. The people in the category are all, beyond even a shadow of a doubt if you read their bios, Antisemitic. Whether or not they would claim it themselves is another matter, however. How many racist people say they're racist instead of saying something like "We don't hate black people, we just hate the way they cause all of the crime in America." It's the same thing. "We don't hate Jews, we just hate the way Jews control the media and the world's financial institutions." Nonsense. The category's contents are not original research per Antisemitism and they are verifiable and they are NPOV. I really don't see what the fuss is about. The fact that people continually post this CfD in bad faith attempts to overturn several past CfD decisions may be indicative of the noms forgetting that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia does not exist to delete relevant, historical, verifiable information about any subject, even if that subject happens to be the hatred of Jews or of the Jewish people. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really have things the wrong way round. It is not deletion of this category that would be an exception to general practice, but keeping it. You are asking for this subject to be given special treatment. Note that you comment is an example of how often supporters of this sort of category fail to resist the temptation to infer that those who disagree with them are anti-semitic. That habit is intimidatory and it isn't acceptable. As is your completely groundless allegation of bad faith. Hawkestone 16:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith in your dealings with other people. I at no point claimed that the people who have nominated this CfD at any point in the past or at the present are Antisemitic. You injected that inference into this discussion, not I. I took great offense to your post on my talk page on the matter, as I would never even begin to suggest something so absurd. I do, however, believe that the noms forget that Wikipedia is not a soapbox in that they want negative treatment of conversial views removed. I assume good faith, and I expect the same in return. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't categorise people by opinion, especially in controversial areas. Hawkestone 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because such category is unencyclopedic and is bound to be added and removed rather arbitrary. I saw it on and at the strange mix of articles such as Lev Gumilev, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Richard Nixon, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Adolf Hitler where it was either inappropriate or odd (calling Hitler, a person responsible for a Genocide, as just being anti-something is plain odd). The anti-Semitism is a real issue and needs covered in articles but this category slammed here and there on the whim will only provoke edit wars. Also, note the WP:CAT guideline, particularly item 8 of WP:CAT#Some_general_guidelines. --Irpen 20:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If someone is described as an anti-Semite, in a reliable source, there is no reason why they should not be so categorised. It is not any different from Category:Communists, Category:Fascists, Category:Creationists, Category:Islamists, and the myriad other categories which "categorise people by opinion". Like any other category, articles should only be included here where there is evidence to support doing so. If it is misapplied, remove it. WP:BLP says that you don't need any sanction to revert unsourced negative additions to biographies of living people. As for sourcing, the ADL is clearly not a reliable source on who to include here as they see Jew-haters under every stone and round every corner. Taking their say-so would be rather like using the John Birch Society as a source for identifying Communists, Cominform for Fascists, etc. In the real world, far fewer people can be shown to have identified as Jew-haters than are so classified by reliable sources, so self-identification as a condition for inclusion is clearly a non-starter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for properly sourced instances. Personally I think categories in general are a bad idea and that Wikipedia would be better off without about 90 percent of the current ones (including this one), but it can't be accomplished piecemeal. 6SJ7 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Consenus check by nom to avoid repetition of CfD ad infinitum A consensus seems to be emerging in the CfD discussion that the category should be kept, but only if it is properly maintained and used. My POV is that it should go, but regardless; I would request that a standard be set for inclusion in this category. Any article which is placed in this category should have relevant and sourced content in the article's main body which establishes that person as an anti-Semite, beyond a POV, and that lack of such substantiation in the article itself is grounds for removal of the category tag from the concerned article. I will give that there is a lot of good work in this category, as well as some seriously questionable inclusions, and it is this situation which devalues both this category, and Wikipedia. I am very certain many who wish the article kept would not wish to see it's meaning so devalued, which it has given the discussion on the CfD talk. This suggestion guideline should be placed at the top of the category page in addition to the definition of anti-Semitic people. I am mirroring this comment in the current CfD discussion and the Talk of the category, as unless this is dealt with, other editors who discover this category will inevitably tag it again and again with CfD, as the lessons of the earlier CfD's were never taken to heart. As the nominator of this CfD I now propose that in the event of such a Keep consensus being neutrally construed from this debate that we learn from the recent history of this category and Keep, if and only if. Rcnet 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again?! Check the category discussion page. This one survived four deletion nominations and assorted clean-up in 2005. I think this is getting too repetitive. Find another category to turn into a pet peeve. User:Dimadick
  • I think this time the difference is all other "Anti-blank people" categories have now existed and been deleted. This has more reason to exist than the others, but still the place has been moving away from categorizing people as "Anti-blank" people with no further explanation. (Granted there are categories for "Anti-blank writers" and I took the position that Category:Antisemitic writers would be sensible)--T. Anthony 16:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ! Danny-w 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Ybk33 18:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. It's quite bad faith and a waist of the community time to re-submit this category for deletion for the 5th time in the last months, hoping that in one of the votes it will be deleted. Noon 20:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted above): I see no reason to suspect bad faith. I completely agree that we need to set up criteria including verifiability in article, and would further suggest that we need to set up subcategories, so as to distinguish overt theoreticians of antisemitism like Streicher and Rosenberg from practitioners of antisemitic violence such as Hitler and Codreanu and, further, from mere bigots like Richard Nixon (he of the famous, taped remark "that Jew cocksucker") and Mel Gibson (whose indiscretions are recent enough that I imagine the don't need recounting). - Jmabel | Talk 20:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. what next, an attempt to delete this category on the grounds that we have not proved that anybody so categorized is actually "people", as distinct from, say, robotic automotons, or golems? Gzuckier 00:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Categories are impossible to put into watch list hence impossible to monitor vandalism. A living person may be called anti-Semite only is decided in the court of law or by equally strong declarations. Historical persons may be judged only by highly reputable sources, not just a random magazine article. In fact, I would actually ban this category and allow only its subcategories: category:Historical anti-Semites category:Anti-Semites as established in court category:People accused of anti-Semitism. `'mikkanarxi 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perhaps a better approach would be for the category to remain but link to an article titled something like List of Notable Anti-Semites. This list would enable us to source each person individually as well as sort people by historical period with some historical background provided for each period rather than simply present them in an alphabetical list with no explanation. I don't think this would eliminate the dispute but it would constrain it to a handful of cases. I've tried to propose compromises on this category in the past and I'm less than eager to get involved now because of all of the bitterness that's built up. GabrielF 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would suggest a rename as the term Anti-Semitic people is simply too vague. Hundreds and hundreds of known individuals from the 19th century can practically be listed as Anti-Semitic people. I can see a need for a category listing those people in history that devoted their time and effort towards antisemitic causes. People who are clearly, obviously and explicitly antisemitic. People who would quite comfortably say that they have a problem with the Jews of this world. A list for the Houston Chamberlains and the Arthur de Gobineaus of history. Those who are remembered solely or largely for their antisemitic activism. Not a list for people who are known for other things but who also happened to be antisemitic like countless number of others in their own time. One can possibly imagine that the majority of people in europe and north america might have been antisemitic at one point or another in history. A category with as simple a title as Anti-Semitic people is an open invitation to add thousands of names, most of whom would have little to do with antisemitism other than to share that prejudice. There might well be differences of opinion with regards to whether a particular individual harbors antisemitic prejudice but there is no doubting the physical, tangible, real and actual contributions that some individuals in history has made towards the antisemitic cause - the houston chamberlains and arthur de gobineaus again. A category for people who did more than merely express antisemitism is perfectly valid. A category for people who are simply antisemitic is just far too broad for wikipedia. --Anarchodin 06:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although deleting it would of course kill off the endless debates about who should be included, nevertheless it is a category that has a lot of encyclopedic value. Figuring out who should be in it is the hard part. Mad Jack 07:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Print encyclopedias really don't have categories at all, unless you count alphabetizing things as categorization. The online Britannica has Topic:Anti-Semitism (yes they use the dash, the fiends), but none of the sections in it specifies people.--T. Anthony 04:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deror 07:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete —Ashley Y 10:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TheYmode 12:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it has been shown that people gets added to the category with blantant disregard for WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. If maintaind the category could be usefull, but it has showned to be a POV magnet and it would be better to have it as a list. That would also make it less binary. // Liftarn 13:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, albeit reluctantly. Strong because I can't see any consensus way of defining this category without it becoming POV; reluctant because antisemitism has been a significant factor in human history and it would be nice to find some way of linking related articles. However, I think that a list would be better, because it allows for some nuances to overcome the POV problems inherent in labelling people by either including or excluding them from a category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Violates policies of WP:CAT that categories must be 'self evident and uncontroversial'. Antonrojo 15:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full sentence is "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." It says nothing about whether or not there can be categories on controversial issues, and historically, this has been allowed, such as Category:Racism, Category:Politics and Category:Religion. Precedent sides with the keeping of Antisemitism per the existence of other controversial views and philosophies, and consensus explicitly supports this in Wikipedia:Categorization of people where it says "Currently, the Wikipedia supports categorizing... People associated with religion or philosophy..." Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Without documentation, who are we to say who is Anti-Semitic? Are there some obvious cases? Yes. But there are many gray areas here and would just become POV. Also, an editor above mentioned that this category has been nominated for deletion four times. I interpreted that differently in that this category is obviously controversial and just seems to cause edit wars without giving any real documented evidence. I strongly support a deletion for this category and any other Anti- categories. MetsFan76 17:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as potential POV abuse is not a reason to delete. Any unflattering category has the same problems; it just means we must be vigilant about where it is added and remove it if proper sourcing is not provided. Similarly, the idea that this should be deleted because categories cannot be watchlisted is ridiculous. I expect that this category should be treated the same as all similar categories. I'm also unclear as to why this was brought to CfD again (for the 5th time). Tewfik^Talk 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was brought up again, I'd think, due to a recent rename vote on it. Also because of relatively recent deletions like Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 4#Category:Anti-French people and Category:Anti-Polonism.--T. Anthony 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm confused.....Why would the Anti-French people cat. be deleted but not Anti-Semitic? It seems that people want to keep this cat. for personal reasons. I apologize ahead of time, but it seems that the majority of the people voting keep are of the Jewish faith. Yes...anti-semitic people are deplorable but how do you actually define someone that is? What about a comedian that makes ethnic jokes about African-Americans or Jews or Hispanics? Are they rascist or anti-semitic? If thats the case, then the list for this cat. would be endless. If it is going to be kept, then very strict guidelines need to be followed, especially for living people. MetsFan76 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but some should be taken out unles sources are provided. Chavatshimshon 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's already been discussion about utilizing this category in regards to living people and the result of that discussion was that this category should not be utilized on living people per WP:BLP. The problem with this type of a category is that those who have axes to grind with lesser known individuals (both alive and deceased) can add this category to a given article and because there's no sort of category watchlist there's little oversight as to whether or not the category is warranted. This category is a liability for Wikipedia to have and use. (→Netscott) 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The closing admins should know that the banned user User:SirIsaacBrock who created this category as User:Battlefield has been heavily spamming both this CfD discussion and the last calling for a category renaming (through the usage of IP addresses). This fact should be taken into consideration when evaluating those calling for keep vs. those calling for delete. (→Netscott) 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin/s: The anonymous anon mentioned by User:Netscott has not been spamming anything about this vote (in fact it may not be be one and the same person), the messages were all for a previous vote objecting to the change of the name Anti-Semitism to Antisemitism (why he likes the blessed hyphen is unknown) so Netscott is mistaken and should cite the relevant URLs or User talk pages as proof if he is making such sweeping and irrelevant (to this vote) assertions. IZAK 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:IZAK hasn't a clue what he's talking about: see Special:Contributions/67.70.70.33 and Special:Contributions/64.229.209.85 both of these Bell.ca (User:SirIsaacBrock) IPs were blocked for canvassing/spamming surrounding this CfD discussion. (→Netscott) 04:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Netscott is clueless! He can't even read the links he provides himself! Take a look at both Special:Contributions/67.70.70.33 AND Special:Contributions/64.229.209.85 and you will see that the anonymous anon stopped his activity on 23 November and had nothing to do with this vote. "Sir Isaac" may or may not be an anonymous spammer, but he is not a prophet and could not have been requesting that people vote here as the vote was even created. Netscott is now being careless and flinging accusations, backing them up with pseodo-links and should stop his totally irrelevant posturing! Let the vote go on to its natural and healthy conclusion. IZAK 04:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • IZAK, seriously open up your eyes man, this CfD opened on the 23rd. How can you deny spamming when even you yourself were spammed about this CfD? (→Netscott) 05:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm, well I see you went about reverting some of them. So I will strike my last comment. How many of those people voted here in any case? IZAK 05:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't really have the time to go tracking that down but judging from the responses I got in my attempts to revert the spam it appears that people still go the message our spammer wanted to send (obviously the "new message" alert would still flash and people would still check their histories). There is no denying that the spamming should factor into a closing admin's decision process on this discussion. (→Netscott) 05:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Netscott: A number of users objected to your methods of editing their talk pages and told you that they wish to be informed about votes and will make their own decisions as to whether they should respond or not, see User talk:Netscott#Votestack spamming. Thanks, IZAK 12:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Netscott why the histrionics? Has it been proven by anyone exactly who User:Battlefield really is? Unlike what you are saying here, the template is careful to say "It is suspected that this user might be..." [1] But regardless of who once-upon-a-time created this category about a year ago, the fact of the matter is that many users and editors have seen fit to add to it, perfect it, and use it[2], after all, could you think of a better category to place all the Nazis into? And what connection is there between all the people here voting "Keep" vs those voting delete? You have absolutely no idea who is behind the anonymous IP addresses, hopefully you are not implying that all those voting "Keep" are the puppets of User:SirIsaacBrock (meaning "the bad guys") and all those saying "Delete" are somehow "good guys" because they would no doubt also be involved and support the banning of "Sir Isaac"? Kindly avoid your argument of guilt by association as no-one and nothing is "on trial" here, this is just a procedural vote, for the fifth time about the fate and direction of this important category. By the way, I have learned the hard way, that categories of people cannot be eradicated. For example Category:Jews has managed to survive a number of objections and votes and there is no reason why Category:Anti-Semitic people should be any different to its nemesis (and vice versa) Category:Jews to which many editors have also objected. But, hey, we will just have to learn to live with it. IZAK 04:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • IZAK, if I was a closing admin I certainly would take into consideration the fact that canvassing for votes on this CfD had been done and evaluate it accordingly. Even on the rename discussion that just finished (to rename from Anti-Semitic people to Antisemitic people) User:Jayjg noted the canvassing going on (as well as a keep canvassed votes) in such a way as to bring it to the attention of the closing admins. Trust me on this I am 100% certain that this spammer is User:SirIsaacBrock himself due to the fact that much like he's done in the past he's relying upon his Canada based Bell.ca IP addresses to go about skewing these discussions by calling for votes en masse like he did here and here. There's no doubt about it, spamming like that has affected an admin's decision on previous XfD discussions (for example what User:Nandesuka arrived at here). The fact that votestacking has been occurring on these discussions should seriously factor into the decision about whether or not there is genuine community "no consensus" or not. (→Netscott) 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Netscott: Honestly, what the anonymous anon has or has not done does not amount to anything and has nothing to do with the merits of this vote which are open for everyone to see. It is an insult to people's intelligenec to say that the way they have been voting and the time they have been taking here to express all their honest thinking, and indeed for many of the "Keep" voters there are suggestions coming forth as to how the category could be improved and perfected. So, let's keep out the red herring arguments and insertion of issues, that like the Red Baron (in Peanuts), has nothing to do with the vote before us. (Oh, and as for poor Sir Isaac sitting up there with all those Canadians around him, hopefully he is watching this and enjoying it as much as "Monday night hockey in Canada") IZAK 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • IZAK, uh huh it doesn't matter so much so that ArbCom member User:Jayjg was pointing it out himself on the last rename discussion. (→Netscott) 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Netscott: I think I have said everything I could say, so I will rest my case for now. I also need to get some sleep. Thanks. IZAK 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment This bickering back and forth is useless and disruptive and does not, in anyway, have anything to do with the voting now. This incident has been reported. MetsFan76 05:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Reported"? To who and for what exactly?! This is part of a serious discussion, have you even bothered to read what has been said? It's very funny you are "reporting" this after Netscott has just left me the following message: "Sleep well: T'was a pleasure jousting w/ you." [3] Can't make everyone happy. IZAK 11:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I read everything that was being said and did not notice the "sleep well" comment until after I posted this incident. It would not have mattered anyway because you two were acting childish. I don't see how it helps the voting process. MetsFan76 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep as long as the category is only applied to well sourced cases I don't see a fundamental issue. However, since we have a category for things related to anti-semitism is might be better to just lump them all there. Brownhaired's suggestion of making a list isn't such a bad idea either. JoshuaZ 01:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it interesting that so many of the keep votes are expressly contingent upon the category being changed in some way (e.g., "Should be reserved for people who have made a political point of expressing an explicitly antisemitic outlook..."). As this category is named without any such limitation, and such limits are ignored if they are not integral to the category name, those comments can't easily be construed as voicing support for this category instead of a different version. The deletion of this category should therefore not prevent the creation of a more limited version (e.g., "Self-professed anti-Semites"), only another unqualified category. Postdlf 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the cathegory is inheritently POV in the most cases (except its subcategory Nazi). Typical cases Lev Gumilev - in his historical theories made assumption about the negative role of the Jewish ethnos on the events 1500-1000 years ago, talked much about the Jewish NKVD iterrogators, on the other hand had many Jewish students who swear he was not Anti-Semite and certainly did not advocated any persecutions or something, Yasir Arafat - is he an antisemite or just anti-Zionist. Kurt Waldheim was a member of Nazi party in his youth, but was he an antisemite as the General Secretary of UN? Alexander Kuprin - signed a well-known letter against the Jewish cabal in Russian literature but also wrote Sashka one of the best stories against Odessa pogrom. And so can go on and on and on. Unless somebody was a top Nazi or a lunatic, then there are important shades of grades, nuances that are easy to put in the article but are impossible to set in a binary from Yes or No. The category is divisive, flame bait and in the most cases POV. Alex Bakharev 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The obvious case for a Keep is that there are probably people who describe themselves as anti-semites, or who are universally described as anti-semites by citable sources, to whom the category could apply. However, anyone wishing to use the category would have to make their case rigorously on the article talk page, and reach a concensus with other editors, before they even thought of using it. The use of the category would also need careful and constant monitoring to prevent abuse. As such, it's a valid category of somewhat dubious utility. Sockatume 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but make sure every claim of antisemtism is sourced properly and is not desputed. Taxico 06:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The criterion is too vague. It's of little help except in throwing unsubstantiated labels and spawning flame wars. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I say that only well-documented anti-Semites should be included; also, only non-living people should probably be listed here -- we need enough time to pass so that history can make the judgement (through personal papers and statements, articles/books, interviews, correspondence, etc). For instance, it would probably makes some sense to include Mel Gibson and his father, Kevin B. MacDonald, and many prominent Arab and South American politicians in this category, but for now it's best to leave them out until they die and all the facts are in. --Pseudothyrum 08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete alternatively make sourcing much more strict (e.g. described as such in books from UPs, peer-reviewed journals etc -- definitely not newspapers). Another option would be to only allow people who currently aren't living in (Hitler yes, Nick Griffin no). - Francis Tyers · 14:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too easily abused. Presumably this is why there is no category for "Racists."Bjones 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until standards can be set to insure proper inclusion within the category. --YoYoDa1 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Pseudothyrum. Paul B 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The risk of abuse outweights the necessity of categorizing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete One of the worst cats on Wikipedia. Crumbsucker 05:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Delete This is a horrible cat. but at the same time the power of Wikipedia is the ability to link information together. Maybe we could replace this cat. with a list instead? If we think that having a list would make the list-page too vulnerable to vandals, even with page protection, then we should keep the cat. with guidelines on how a person ends up associated into this grouping. CJLippert 07:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: we need to protect the opennes of information. Only Wikipedia will help us in this regards.--yidi 10:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful delete. I would perhaps have voted Keep on previous CfDs, but consensus can change. The sheer potential of abuse of this cat has been materialized numerous times. As Alex Bakharev said, Antisemitism is not a binary category and we have proven unable to restrain ourselves to keep only the egregious cases there. Duja► 11:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: A perfectly sensible and verifiable category. Difficult to take some of the objections seriously.--R613vlu 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both on grounds that this category represents a POV judgment and that it's application to date has done little to address concerns that have been raised. If preserved, it should be limited to self-identified anti-semites (in itself a potentially contentious issue). Sam 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important category. All categories are subject to potental abuse, as is any article. So does that mean we delete the whole wiki? Carlossuarez46 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep — it is a really difficult one to define. Restrict inclusion to individuals of either, a), publically declared subscription to the concept or, b), documented and reasonably irrefutable words and acts (but not including those under intoxication alone). -- Olve 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Samuel Wantman's comment. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful keep. I agree this category leads to lots of abuse, and is controversial. However, this isn't the only category of this kind, and were we to eradicate it, along with other areas of controversy and abuse, there would be nothing interesting left around here. On a positive side, this category does serve a purpose in distinguishing shadings of hate and political opinion. eg, Prussian Blue (duo) falls into this category as well as the category of White nationalists, whereas Jared Taylor may be considered by some as a racist, but apparently doesn't promulgate specifically anti-semitic views. That's something I didn't know until I looked at this debate and surfed through the category. Nevertheless, I must consider this vote a "regretful" one (and give a tip of the hat to Duja, above). Spir 05:08, 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 speedy redirected. David Kernow (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U-Boats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete/redirect - Category is redundant to Category:U-boats . Megapixie 04:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect - This is a clear duplication. The action to be taken is obvious. George J. Bendo 07:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge/Redirect/Delete - per above. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect - Clear duplication, delete & redirect. - Rcnet 10:05, 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 redirected to Leaders of political parties. David Kernow (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicate of Category:Leaders of political parties. Placed under Category:Parties which refers to the social as opposed to political party. Regan123 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete as appropriate. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge/delete after articles are placed in other appropriate locations Hmains 21:10, 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 merge (only remaining article was already in both categories). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Robot films, seems to be a duplicate... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Cbrown1023 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge - This is obvious duplication. The merge does not need additional debate. George J. Bendo 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge per GJB. - jc37 09:40, 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 keep (I added ((popcat))). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only member does not appear to actually be a charity. It's a reasonable category otherwise. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Given those comments, wouldn't populate be a more sensible move? Sure, if it can't be populated, then delete, but it seems like it might be worth giving it a chance... Grutness...wha? 05:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Aside from missing articles, the category is fine. This category can probably be filled later. George J. Bendo 07:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it still only has one article in it, but at least that one belongs there - a charity based in New Zealand :) Grutness...wha? 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' per Grutness Choalbaton 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, since it now contains an actual New Zealand charity. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:31, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese military strategists

• Delete This category is purely subjective - any biography added to this category is done so out of pure subjective choice. There is no objective standard with which to qualify Japanese historical figures as "strategists". The end result of this category would be somewhere between a random subjective collection of names and a popularity contest. Pure POV. --Kuuzo 02:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The word "strategist" is being loosely applied to any Japanese military leader or other well-known military figure. The categorization is not useful. George J. Bendo 07:13, 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 duplicate listing. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-war films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Blatantly and essentially POV.

• See November 22nd discussion, duplicate listing. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:39, 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 merge with B-Class U.S. road transport articles per ProveIt. David Kernow (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:B-Class New Jersey Road articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't think we should be putting articles in categories like this. NE2 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I assume that the "B-class" refers to a ranking within Wikipedia and not a ranking by New Jersey. If so, then the internal Wikipedia ranking is inappropriate to use for categorization. George J. Bendo 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:B-Class U.S. road transport articles. The ((NJSCR)) tag is supposed to go on the talk page. -- ProveIt ^(talk)
• Merge per ProveIt, that's the correct scheme per WP:USRD/A. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 2 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Universities and colleges in New York, or Rename to Category:Universities and colleges in Western New York. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge; it is not especially useful to sort universities by geographic regions within U.S. states. But the category could potentially be kept if re-oriented to Category:Geography of New York, akin to Category:Capital District, New York or Category:Long Island.-choster 14:39, 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 No consensus. Shyam ^(T/C) 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussions of Septmber 19th and November 9th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the creator of the category, I'm obviously biased. However I did so to distinguish between incidents such as Kent State, Orangeburg, etc - where law enforcement of some nature is involved and the use of force is questionable or justified depending on the circumstances and the outcome of a proceeding investigation ... from school shootings such as Columbine, where the shooter is legally liable for his (has always been his up to his point) actions and is usually mentally imbalanced. Equinox137 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless editor above recommends a replacement category. Your actions are unhelpful unless you provide a category you believe to be superior. The category is accurate, and a "university" or "college" is not the same as a "school," thus the "School shootings" category is inappropriate. Editor:ProveIt previously stated: "Delete, or at least Rename to Category:University shootings. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)" (emphasis added). Badagnani 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A solution would be to rename the "Category:School massacres" category as "Massacres at educational institutions." Then the subcats would be "Massacres at primary schools," "Massacres at secondary schools," (or these two could be combined into one category, such as "Massacres at K-12 schools") and "Massacres at colleges and universities." This seems the most logical way to proceed. Contrary to earlier comments, a college or university is not generally described as a "school," although it is an "educational institution." Further, it does not make sense that all other cats for school massacres are described as "massacres" in the cats, and the only nation to use a different terminology is the United States, where it is "Killings." Let's try to be as logical as possible with these categories. Badagnani 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as recreated content. Otto4711 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, recreation. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others Hmains 21:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You people may have a tradition of operating this way as your M.O., but it just isn't helpful to simply vote "Delete" without stating what is wrong with the category or how it might be improved. It does not reflect well on you as editors (I'm referring to all who voted above, without giving meaningful input into how the Kent State, Orangeburg State, and Jackson State shootings articles should be categorized). "School killings" is a misnomer because a college or university is not a "school," but an institution of higher learning. Badagnani 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You might benefit from reading University and School. While the modern university may be said to be a collection of schools, as such, it also qualifies as a "school". Also remember that Wikipedia does not favour one form of english usage over the other. - jc37 13:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Rename to University massacres. I know more. School is not a university. Amoruso 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussions, recreation, and my comments above. - jc37 13:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think there is a slight linguistic conflict going on here: "Contrary to earlier comments, a college or university is not generally described as a "school," although it is an "educational institution." In the United States, "School" would be used to describe a college or university, as in the construction: "What are you doing this fall?" "While, I'm still in school--I'm going half-time at the university, and then I have my job." I'm getting the sense this usage not be familiar in other countries. I suspect we need to clear up the language conflict before we can solve this issue. I personally think we'll eventually up with Category:Notable killings at educational institutions and sort by school level (grade, middle, high, college) or quantity (mass murder vs. individual killings, etc.) [Yay. What a fun topic.] Anyway, that's my $.02. jengod 23:41, 6 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 with Private schools in Indiana. David Kernow (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Private schools in Indiana, or Rename to Category:Private schools in Indianapolis. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Rename per nom, in that preference order. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a typo. The articles can then be recategorized into Category:Private schools in Indiana or Category:Private schools in Indianapolis.

• renaming it would be fine. i dont see the need for changing to private schools in Indiana. Indiana is a big state. it is fine as is -tiplickhahaha
• Rename - in fact, I just went through ,and I'm about to put another one on here. Doesn't that prove it's worth? :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:48, 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 merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:High schools in Texas, overcategorized. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:31, 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. If any gets recreated let me know and I will salt. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hulk actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fantastic Four actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wonder Woman actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:X-Men actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per precedents on categories for Batman actors and Spider-Man actors. These are not mere actors by series categories, despite their presence as subcategories of that parent, because they actually indiscriminately lump together actors from all films, television series, and video games (!) featuring the characters. This has the result of linking together people who never actually worked on the same project merely because the same licensed comic book character was involved in at least one of the films, television shows, or video games on which the actor worked. This is trivia, best handled by a list instead of cluttering the actor categories. Lest someone object that these could be broken down into categories for the individual television series or films, this deletion vote has nothing to do with such completely different categories (some of which may exist, such as Category:X-Men film actors). The ones proposed for deletion don't tell anything about how the category applies to the actor—even with the films separated out for the X-Men category, for example, the actor could have actually played an X-Men member in a cartoon series, played the voice of a supporting character in a single episode of a cartoon series, played an extra in a single episode, or contributed the voice of an extra to a single video game; it's all lumped in together with these. Postdlf 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom — J Greb 03:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These types of categories are clearly dysfunctional. George J. Bendo 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and break down into the actual series. Tim! 07:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 08:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't cat actors by film. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussions. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I further suggest that these all be preemptively salted, as they are likely to be recreated. Postdlf 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support salting. George J. Bendo 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose salting even if these are deleted as they could be valid supercats to specific series categories. Tim! 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with Tim!, at least to salting. If the "Renaming" proposal goes through with the "Actors in television series" umbrella, these along with the Batman and Spider-Man cats would be valid. If I understand "salting" correctly, it would prevent the creation of, say, "Actors in recurring roles in The Incredible Hulk (television)". Or have I got that wrong? — J Greb 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it would just protect these exact categories from being recreated; it would not automatically block differently named categories. Postdlf 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah... Thanks for the clarification. — J Greb 18:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt! We've gone through these discussions too many times already. Doczilla 01:55, 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 11:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Georgia counties to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) counties
• Category:Micropolitan areas of Georgia to Category:Micropolitan areas of Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Official seals of places in Georgia to Category:Official seals of places in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Registered Historic Places in Georgia to Category:Registered Historic Places in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Lighthouses in Georgia to Category:Lighthouses in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Magnet schools in Georgia to Category:Magnet schools in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia to Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Georgia railroads to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) railroads
• Category:Ghost towns in Georgia to Category:Ghost towns in Georgia (U.S. state)

Rename All as Georgia (U.S. state).Lwueid 21:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename all per nom Hmains 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't "U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state)" rather redundant? --NE2 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't "U.S. state" rather redundant? :) (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so - see state. --NE2 10:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant it expands to "united states state"; it seems to suffer from RAS syndrome. (Radiant) 13:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all per nom Choalbaton 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all per nom Georgia (U.S. state) is used in WP for articles on the U.S. state, while Georgia (country) is used for the country found in Eurasia. This nomination will help further the differentiation Hmains 21:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename Just reading the titles I thought these were about the country rather than the United States subdivision. 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.