< October 19	October 21 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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. — ERcheck (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Silver Buffalo awardees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-- routine award of no great importance--rarely mewntioned in major biographies. Rjensen 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing malformed CFD.... — ERcheck (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Hogwash. It's the highest adult award in the BSA--hardly routine and is VERY prestigious. Rlevse 10:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a highly honored award, and it DOES have recipients, not everyone can win everything. Darthgriz98 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Boy Scouts of America are an important part of the United States culture (even if not everyone agrees with them). Plus the award has been made to people of many nationalities for a variety of services to youth, not just for Americans working within the BSA. Kingbird 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is awarded for extraordinary service to youth, and is bestowed upon BSA members and non-members based on their service. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 09:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic in most cases. Nonomy 12:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Do we have another category like this where the directors make a similar award? With this year's recipient being the 'Order of the Arrow National Chairman' one wonders how open the competition is. Vegaswikian 06:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The original contention has been convincingly refuted, and if we were to follow a doctrine of 'defining characteristic' we would be deleting most of the categories in Wikipedia (the 'Year X foundations', birth years, death years,'University of X alumni', etc.) --Robminchin 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, lot's of categories could go, but this discussion is about this category. You are free to nominate any other category you wish to see deleted. Hawkestone 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I generally don't like "award winner" categories, because there are hundreds of organizations that bestow awards on people and particularly famous people therefore could end up with hundreds of categories, one per award, if each award had its own category. Only the very, very top, most notable awards should have their own category; otherwise you're better off using a list article instead. It's only because the Boy Scouts are such a prominent group and this award is their top award that I'm somewhat ok with keeping this specific category. Dugwiki 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Not even close to being a defining characteristic. Hawkestone 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since this appears to be an award that has no notable selection criteria, it needs to go. The apparent lack of other categories like this is support for deletion. Just because the BSA is notable does not automatically make their awards notable. Vegaswikian 05:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ludicrous rationale. If you'd bother to check, it has a very high standard for selection. That other cats like it are few is not the fault of this cat. The award is notable on its own. Sumoeagle179 09:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The award is hardly 'routine' just because it is awarded regularly (compare to something like the NBA MVP), and if it were to be overseen in a "major" biography, I'd fault the biographer, not the award. Scoutersig 14:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep International recipients, top award from a prestigious organization for exceptional service to youth, there is no 'defining characteristic' requirement for wiki--this is certainly more useful and notable than a cat like 'living persons'. Get real folks. Sumoeagle179 09:59, 27 October 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 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. David Kernow (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:History of the American West. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --Endgame1 05:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. David Kernow (talk) 07:35, 23 October 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 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. Despite "raion" not being a common (English) word, per people's remarks below it like "oblast" is used to discriminate between country subdivisions that would otherwise be (mis)label/led "district" or the like. Hope that makes sense. David Kernow (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Districts of Ukraine to Category:Raions of Ukraine

• Rename, for consistency with articles about this subdivision in Ukraine. However, it is not incorrect, but almost all of the articles about the "districts" or (say for instance Boryspilskyi Raion) are titled as "xyz Raion" (a more correct official term for the subdivision) and not "xyz District". —dima/s-ko/ 23:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave I have no idea what Raions mean :) --Endgame1 05:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raions are official titles for subdivisions like "counties" (Lake County) only we use "raions" (Boryspilskyi Raion)... Basicly the same type of subdivision but with a different title connected to it. —dima/s-ko/ 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this problem shows up here over and over (also with Russia). There's category Category:Subdivisions of Ukraine and very vaguely defined Category:Regions of Ukraine. I asked for opinion on Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board. Pavel Vozenilek 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename—'District' is also sometimes used to translate oblast, and I don't think there is an acceptable or direct translation. Raion is consistent with other usage in Wikipedia, and the discrepancy is likely to confuse more than the consistent use of an unfamiliar name (tens of thousands of articles have unfamiliar names, but we are discussing the name for a category, which is full of articles with raion in their titles). —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 15:40 Z
• Rename, per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tufkaa (talk • contribs)
• Leave Who, other than Ukrainians, will know what a Raion is? Rlevse 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, not only Ukrainians use "raion" titles for their subdivisions. Belarusian and Russian wikipedia users will also know what a raion is. And so might some other users (like Polish or German) who are interested in the subject. —dima/s-ko/ 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. There are states in the U.S., provinces in Canada, regions in Italy, prefectures in Japan, voivodeships in Poland, or parishes in Barbados. Raion is a well-defined unit of administrative subdivision (see Raion), used predominantly in the countries of former Soviet Union. While it's similar to what is known in some countries as districts, categorizing raions as raions is the first best. --MapLover 01:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I have to agree per above. Raion is pretty distinct on its own. District just does not carry the same meaning, especially since district is likely to be confused with Oblast.--Riurik ^(discuss) 04:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can anyone give a citation/reference what these "districts" are called in English? Is "raion" the correct term, or how are they translated? - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not directly relevant, but the start of the discussion here may provide pointers...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:42, 23 October 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 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. — ERcheck (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Bushisms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

Delete, it makes a fun and interesting article, but it doesn't really need a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there will not be actual articles on each Bushism. The sheer number of them is too great. --musicpvm 06:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Silly category. -- Voldemort 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Musicpvm. ThuranX 00:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty The only article in the category is the main article. There aren't any actual "Bushisms" in the category currently. Now, if a bunch of articles like "strategery" started to appear on Wikipedia, then this might be a good category at that point (since telling you a word is "Bushism" describes an important part about its word origin). For now, though, keep as a list. Dugwiki 17:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete As funny as that is, it really doesn't need a category since each 'Bushism' should not have it's own article. Darthgriz98 15:04, 24 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 15:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rename to Category:Bollywood films nominated for an Academy Award.-- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I don't believe all of these very actually nominated. The category should have a similar title to the article, List of India's official entries to the Oscars, but I'm not sure what the best name would be. --musicpvm 06:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list. Of the four entries in the category, two were actually nominated, one was submitted last year but not nominated, and the fourth was submitted this year and the nominations won't be announced until January. --Metropolitan90 18:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think we can redirect from a cat to an article. If there is a way, then I would support that. Otherwise this should be deleted since the list can provide critical information that you can not get with the category. Vegaswikian 04:32, 24 October 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 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 as it's empty, delete --Kbdank71 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Munich Soviet Republic, since both names are used. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: until very recently the article was named Bavarian Soviet Republic (suggested on Talk as the most used name). User:Str1977 had moved it to current location, thoroughly wiping out the old name. It looks that except Germany Wiki Bavarian is /the/ name. Google Scholar gives ration 63: 24 in favour of Bavarian. The "official" name was Räterepublik Bayern [1] though they hardly had a control over Munich. Pavel Vozenilek 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I echo User:Pavel Vozenilek comments and was in on the original naming discussion. All articles titled Munich should be moved back to Bavarian. —ExplorerCDT 15:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The name "Munich Soviet Republic" is both more common and more accurate, as that regime only controlled a tiny spot of Bavaria, centred around Munich. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - It would seem that even the name of the category requires citations/references. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, one should be redirect to the other. No preference as to which is the redirect and which is the category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2 - about analogies. Two other shortlived communist states of the time, outside of former Russian Empire, Hungarian Soviet Republic and Slovak Soviet Republic, have technically incorrect name in English world. The second entity would be better "Slovak Republic of Councils" (with 'Slovak' being kind of exaggeration, large part of population were ethnical Hungarians and was on mercy of the Hungarian republic). The Hungarian Soviet Republic would be more correctly named "Hungarian Commune". Names as Alsace Soviet Republic and "Soviet Republic of Saxony" are seen sometimes. The Persian Socialist Soviet Republic used the pretentious name in spite of controlling just a small part of Persia. Pavel Vozenilek 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is common to use the Russian term "Soviet" for these councils also in other languages, at least in English. In German the term is Räterepublik, but the Räte in question are clearly the same the Russian soviets: councils of soldiers and workers. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:40, 23 October 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 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, empty --Kbdank71 15:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish theater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Duplicates Category:Theatre in Poland, which is how all the other categories are named. Appleseed (Talk) 20:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --Endgame1 05:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge Nonomy 12:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect per nom. David Kernow (talk) 20:57, 21 October 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 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) 13:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monotesticular people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a defining characteristic, and also vulgarly intrusive and out of place in a serious encyclopedia.Piccadilly 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 07:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless I can add my high school gym teacher, and the creepy guy down the street. Otherwise, per nom. ThuranX 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - would definitely require references : ) - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Darthgriz98 15:05, 24 October 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 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) 13:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous comic book readers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a defining characteristic of the person - nobody is famous for being a comic book reader. CovenantD 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speak for yourself! :) Yes, delete, impractical use of the category structure, better hived into article space somehow. Hiding Talk 18:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I said famous, not infamous ;) CovenantD 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and not just because I made it. Nobody is famous for coming from Liverpool, but there's a category for them. Nobody's famous purely for being alive, but there's a category for them. Since when did the defining aspect of a category have to be that it makes the person famous? In any case, it's encyclopedic, interesting and verifiable. There's no good reason for deleting it at all and plenty to keep it around. --Mister Six 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories of people should either highlight why they are notable (they were president of the U.S., a Nobel Prize winner, etc.) or highlight what is notable to their biography (they were from Liverpool, they served in the army, they were born in 1959). We don't just make categories for anything that happens to be a fact, such as Category:People with brothers named "Jack", or Category:People who live on the tenth floor of a building. Postdlf 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia, not a category. Such reading habits are not a defining feature of anyone's biography nor of anyone's notability. Postdlf 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All hobby/personal interest related categories. Piccadilly 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am a comic book creator and I still think this is an incredibly useless category. Is there a category for Famous Movie Watchers? --Radiomaru 20:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For reasons previously mentioned. Nick Curtis 21:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Exactly what is this trying to state? That a bunch of celebrities, writers, directors, singers read comic books? I'm sure each and everyone of the "famous" people have read at least one comic book in their life time. Not to mention it's overcategorization. UnDeRsCoRe 22:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Endgame1 05:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, people should not be categorized by their hobbies. --musicpvm 07:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Underscore and Musicpvm. --Metropolitan90 18:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This would make an interesting list (though someone forgot Albert Einstein : ) - But it needs citation. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivia. Think "Category:People who like rock music" and tremble. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify with proper citations. This is not a defining quality in a person's life. We cannot come up with categories for every single detail about a person, or each person will be in nine thousand different categories, rendering them all pointless. What's next, "Famous people who don't eat apples"? Doczilla 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not listify. Hawkestone 23:09, 25 October 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: SPEEDY DELETED; deletion requested by only contributor for mistakenly created duplicate category. Postdlf 17:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Compositions by Antonín Dvorák (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, I mistakenly created a incorrectly cat that already exists under the correct name, Category:Compositions by Antonín Dvořák. Quale 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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/merge to Category:Lawmen of the American Old West --Kbdank71 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to ...? Best so far is Category:Lawmen of the old American West. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral about it. Old West Lawmen is more succinct, but I could see a change for extra clarification, if it was felt to be neccisary. --mordicai. 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Dugwiki. --mordicai. 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Lawmen in the American Old West - I'd suggest maybe using that name, since it would be consistent with the phrasing for sister category Category:Years in the American Old West. Dugwiki 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Lawmen in the American Old West, per Dugwiki. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is only one entry. Maybe the problem is the name, so editors don't know about this cat. If kept, rename to Category:Lawmen of the old American West kind of matches Category:History of the American West. Category:Lawmen in the American Old West is a hard read. Vegaswikian 06:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The catagory is new as of a few days ago, & hasn't had much of a chance yet; deletion is, I think, hasty. --mordicai. 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If renamed, rename to Lawmen of the old American West per above. David Kernow (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to 'of' not 'in', as per above. ThuranX 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Lawmen of the American Old West per the article name: American Old West. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm the guy who created the category, as a response to how the current default category for most western lawmen, Category:American police officers, seems more suited for and populated by 20th century (and after) policemen. I realize it has only one entry at present, but I've made it my personal project over the next few days and weeks to fill out the category by adding to it the entries for all current Wiki old west lawmen, and writing new articles for it. The arguments for a Rename are sound, and I will be happy to do it myself, once I figure out how. Ford MF 20:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't figure out how to do a move of the category, since the regular MOVE button's not there for some reason. In the interim I am creating Category:Lawmen of the American Old West and will now endeavor to populate it while I try to figure out how to delete the original category page. If anyone can offer assistance with this, I would be grateful. Ford MF 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay. NOT creating a new category, as I've been counseled by Mordicai that this is an admin job and I have to wait for someone else to do the Rename? Okay, I guess I'm going to continue to add entries to the old category then? If there is any problem with this, please let me know.
  • Sounds fine to me. A rename should be triggered in a day or so. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:09, 26 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 15:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Abortion and reproductive rights advocacy groups in the United States to Category:United States pro-choice organizations

Rename, Retitle will help harmonize this recently-created category with other categories in WikiProject Abortion. Current title is on the long side and also presents a neutrality concern in the use of "Abortion and reproductive rights." A previous CfD nomination established that the succinct, self-identifying terms for the two sides in the abortion debate, "pro-life" and "pro-choice," are preferrable for use in categorization. Severa (!!!) 16:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency.--Andrew c 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Agree with Severa's comment. -- Voldemort 14:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hope I haven't missed anything obvious, but:
  1. Rename to...?
  2. My recollection (albeit passing) is that "pro-" (and "anti-") type categories are to be avoided; cf recent CfDs on pro/anti-gay issues etc.

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/reply Both sides identify with a 'pro' prefix, eliminating the POV casting of one side of an issue as 'pro' and the other as 'anti'. ThuranX 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. ThuranX 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't know which is worse, the NPOV mouthful or the POV slogan. Do the "pro-X" names allow for moderate groups and those which focus less on abortion and more on other topics? I have a sense of pigeonholing here. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There is a difference between an organisation and an advocacy group. I also don't know if "pro-choice" is a good umbrella term for a category. I am leaning rather towards delete. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; the proposed rename introduces ambiguity as to whether members are "pro-choice" or "pro-life" as a matter of primary focus/organizing principle, such as NARAL or NRLC, as opposed to those which are broadly "pro-choice" or "pro-life" as a position on a few issues among many, such as People for the American Way or the Christian Coalition. Even the existing name is somewhat problematic, though less so than the proposed. It's hard to find a simple construction which captures the intent of (Pro-choice advocacy) + (organizations) as opposed to (Pro-choice) + (advocacy organizations). -choster 15:37, 24 October 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 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 mark as ((deletedcategory)). David Kernow (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polymaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of polymaths for reasons why such a category is inherently inappropriate. Rmrfstar 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Postdlf 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've noticed totally inappropriate people in this category and its subcategories before. it is not intended to be for people with portfolio careers, but there is no reliable way to keep such people out. The subcategories need to be tagged. Piccadilly 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If deleted, mark as ((deletedcategory)) (perhaps with pointer to AfD above). David Kernow (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Apparently requires citations/references. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too hard to define and too likely to be misused. Mark as ((deletedcategory)) due to liklihood of recreation. Hawkestone 23:11, 25 October 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 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. David Kernow (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Virginia Railway Express stations, expanding the abbreviation. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename - per nom. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename it looked like Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus to me... 132.205.44.134 21:57, 23 October 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 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. David Kernow (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Good Charlotte songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --Endgame1 05:57, 21 October 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 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 nom withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:H anime, or suggest something else. It looks like a duplicate to me, but I'm hardly an expert. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ecchi is not hentai: hentai is explicit, ecchi is not. Hentai is the US equivalent of pornography and equally restricted, ecchi is not. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn, thanks for explaining. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:06, 20 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 15:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Depowered mutants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Aside from the category name making no sense due to lack of context, even if that were corrected it would still be even more ephemeral trivia than a "dead mutant" category. Postdlf 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hiding Talk 16:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Completely necessary in regard to all other Marvel Universe related articles. -- Voldemort 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...because? Postdlf 14:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of the significance the Decimation has had on the entire Marvel Universe. Within that fictional universe, being a depowered mutant is pretty significant aspect. -- Voldemort 14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Within our universe (which is the only one that matters here), it's a very recent storyline of questionable permanence (how long do you honestly think the X-Men editors going to keep Magneto, the title's chief villain, powerless)? And if we don't have categories for fictional characters who are depicted as having died, why should we have categories for fictional characters who are depicted as having merely lost their powers? You haven't explained why a category is "completely necessary." Postdlf 15:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the category is no less legitimate than the other categories on Marvel Comics mutants. -- Crevaner 21:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...because? Postdlf 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Marvel's not going to let a vast quantity of merchandisable characters wallow in normalcy indefinitely, and the category will rapidly depopulate, since WP:COMIC zealously insists one permanent present stle writing. ThuranX 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See also this prior deletion decision on Category:Deceased X-Men. Death is not permanent enough in comics fiction to be suitable for a category; "depowering" necessarily less so. And as ThuranX pointed out about present tense writing about fiction (and as was true of the dead fictional character categories too), unless the character is introduced as depowered, it isn't depowered in every depiction (and that's not even taking into account appearances in other media that don't follow the same story changes). Postdlf 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At best temporary, at worst inaccurate.--Mike Selinker 01:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There have been characters in the various Marvel mutant series that have both lost and regained their powers over the years. Does Storm belong in this category? There was a storyline in the eighties in which she lost and regained her powers. This category just isn't clear enough and will lead to too much confussion. Stephen Day 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then after staying depowered for maybe a year or so, Storm was killed (along with the rest of the X-Men at the time) and very shortly afterward resurrected (along with the rest of the X-Men at the time, and which I believe caused her to regain her powers), and then made into a child. Then she got better, again. As they always do. Which is why plot-driven alterations of established characters are a really lousy way of categorizing them. We should stick to defining traits—what makes a depiction of that character identifiable as that character. Unless we want to create a parent Category:Fictional characters by what writers have inflicted upon them. Postdlf 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are plenty of other marvel mutant related articles. -- TrojanMan 08:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? I really don't understand the meaning or relevance of your comment. Could you please address the problems with this category that have been raised above, and put forth a clear rationale for keeping it? Postdlf 15:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - but it needs renaming. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I think the instructive thing here is that we don't do this in other categories. We don't have former members of the Roling Stones, only Category:The Rolling Stones members. We don't have deceased Presidents of the US, only Category:Presidents of the United States. We don't have Category:People terminally ill, and we only have Category:Living people due to legal necessities. Depowered mutants aren't special, aren't fixed, aren't real and aren't without controversy. Depowered mutants aren't quantifiable without attribution, aren't recognisable without detail and aren't important. The research value of the category is limited, we shouldn't be promoting the category structure as a research method, that's what the article space is for. We shouldn't be detailing the trivia of comic book plotlines, we should be looking at the broad sweep of publishing history, we should be looking at the cultural impact of the medium, we should be looking at the influences within society, the uses the comics language is being put to, the scope of the medium and the longevity of the form. We shouldn't be analysing the plot points of works in situ; we should be seeking to summarise other thinkers on the worth of anything. Depowered mutants are hard to categorise, and ultimately, the worth of categorising them has to be questioned. Hiding Talk 16:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misleading title does not specify "Fictional mutants depowered in the 2005 Decimation Marvel Comics event" as it should and means to. If it did, then it would be even more obviously trivial. Fails WP:WAF's aim of out-of-universe treatment of fictional characters. --Newt_ΨΦ 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after checking to make sure it's fully listified in the Decimation (comics) article. All the character articles should note that they've lost their powers. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The title alone violates WP policies regarding making it clear what's fiction. The article's name makes it sound like these are real mutants of some kind. And it's a pointless, transient category that cannot be properly maintained. Doczilla 20:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per the above, the nature of the stories makes the "tag" transitory and vague. — J Greb 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although maybe with a minor renaming. -- HowardDean 11:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, given the rapid recovery of dead characters, one can presume this cat of merely depowered ones will be so fluid as to be unmaintainable and virtually useless. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Voldemort's reason. -- AmeriCan 18:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "reason" did he express? Perhaps you could answer what he did not: If we don't have categories for fictional characters who are depicted as having died, why should we have categories for fictional characters who are depicted as having merely lost their powers? Could you please distinguish that prior precedent? No one stating a preference of "keep" has addressed any of the arguments for deletion. CFD is not a vote; unsupported opinions should not be given any weight by the closing admin in the face of substantive, policy-based arguments. Postdlf 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, per ThuranX, per Mike Selinker, per Stephen Day, and per KillerChihuahua. --Rindis 16:16, 26 October 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 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. Current membership now listed at List of Marvel vs. Series characters. David Kernow (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel vs. Series characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete category based on crossover video games between Marvel Comics characters and Capcom video game characters. A list would suffice; the fact that Spider-Man was licensed for use in a particular video game is hardly a defining feature, any more than if he were merchandised in a particular toy line. Just unnecessary and trivial clutter on articles. Postdlf 14:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hiding Talk 16:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify as above Dugwiki 16:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NetK 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Was arleady listified in Marvel vs. Capcom series. Pikawil 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I actually thought this was for the VS System card game. Ambiguous and unnecessary.--HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had the same thought as HK. --Newt_ΨΦ 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I thought we'd gotten rid of this already when we removed the other comic book game character categories. Doczilla 20:25, 22 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of the Scottish Highlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, I have Listified this category here List of fauna of the Scottish Highlands. I am hoping to get some discussion going here Category talk:Biota by country. If this delete is sucessful I plan to continue the process. GameKeeper 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, unless a link to the list is provided as a "see also" from every article to be removed from the category. Making useful information less accessible is a bad idea. Guettarda 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization. I think "fauna unique to the Scottish Highlands" could be appropriate and useful (if there are such species), but the effect on the animal articles has to be considered—how many countries, regions, and sub-region category tags would be applied to animals that have a very wide range? A "see also" is not useful or necessary to add to the article unless their presence in the Scottish Highlands is significant to the species. Red Deer exist on several continents, so their presence in the Scottish Highlands may be of note to the topic of the Scottish Highlands, but not to the topic of Red Deer. Many animal articles, such as Rat, would have more category tags (or see also links) than article text if every country and region got its own fauna category. List articles are the way to go for such highly localized divisions of flora and fauna. Postdlf 16:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind also that clicking "what links here" would show that an animal article is linked to by List of fauna of the Scottish Highlands, etc. Postdlf 16:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Fauna of Scotland, which is quite local enough, if not too local itself. Piccadilly 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every article in Category:Fauna of the Scottish Highlands is already in Category:Fauna of Scotland. GameKeeper 19:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse Merge Category:Fauna of Scotland to Category:Fauna of the Scottish Highlands, per previous cat by geography discussions. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorisation. Better covered in an article (and I mean a proper article, not a list). Twittenham 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much too narrow. Hawkestone 23:11, 25 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 15:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, part of a failed attempt to create a speedy deletion criteria for userboxes (see a similar nomination on TfD for the associated template). — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - all this template is doing is saying that this userbox has been userfied via the German Userbox Solution and is ready to be deleted. It was tons of help when I just cleaned out the 160 userbox backlog. —Mets501 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete exactly because of what Mets said. The issue is that WP:UM is not a policy, does not have consensus, and is most certainly not a CSD. Incidentally, this discussion is possibly moot anyway as the template populating the category is on TFD and heading for deletion. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for the avoidance of doubt, the categoery would be speedied as a category fed by a deleted template. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since WP:UM, as I understand it, is supposedly supposed to be "just do it" by individual users for their own creations, I don't see the purpose of the category. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 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 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 first as nominated, rename second to Category:Battles of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) --Kbdank71 14:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Seven-Year War to Category:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)
• Category:Battles of Seven-Year War to Category:Battles of Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)
• rename see Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)--Kekeqe 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Battles of Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)" doesn't make sense to me; do you mean Battles during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)...?   Regards, David Kernow (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it should be Battles of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). But the renaming itself seems in line with the general convention of having category names match the corresponding article names. Kirill Lokshin 23:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. "Battles of" an invasion or invasions seems an odd turn of phrase to me, but have cast a wide "vote" below. Regards, David (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Eh, those are awfully long category names.--Kross^Talk 04:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, but they look as succinct as possible...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename first category per nom (to Category:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598));
  Rename second category to Category:Battles during the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) or Category:Battles of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598).  David Kernow (talk) 11:34, 25 October 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 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 upmerge to Pirates. David Kernow (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pirates by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, I believe most pirates do not care about gods! Szvest 12:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Pirates. This category holds Category:Muslim pirates, which exists to hold articles about pirates from the Muslim world in early times, many of whom cannot sensibly be fitted into a category based on a modern nationality. There are quite a few such categories. Piccadilly 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Pirates George J. Bendo 00:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per above. --musicpvm 07:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per above, though I presume that that means that the subcat and its members will be retained. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They should be retained obviously. So does that mean that we have to include them in Category:Pirates before deleting the subcat? -- Szvest 14:43, 26 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 13:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Skeptics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:British sceptics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Indian skeptics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Finnish skeptics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:American skeptics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 13#Category:British skeptics and my closure of it, I have grouped all the skeptic categories together for an umbrella listing. The issue is whether to delete the categories, or to rename them to make their purpose clearer, something along the lines of Category:Skeptics to Category:Skeptic philosophers, and then a discussion of whether to follow the same convention for the sub-categories or whether to delete them as unneeded with the newly named category. Note the sub-cats are sparsely populated, 3 in the British, 3 in the Finnish, 9 in the Indian and 35 in the American, which includes Isaac Asimov and Julia Sweeney. I myself support renaming Category:Skeptics to Category:Skeptic philosophers and deleting Category:British sceptics, Category:Indian skeptics and Category:Finnish skeptics and Category:American skeptics. Hiding Talk 11:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep national subcategories, weak keep of "Skeptics" - First, I'd suggest keeping the national subcategories as that seems to be in line with having national subcategories for occupations and philosphies, such as Category:American agnostics and Category:American philosophers. I also would recommend using a standard spelling for all such categories; either have them all use "skeptics" or "sceptics". Using different spellings will make it more difficult for readers to locate the category they're looking for. Finally, just my personal opinion, I think simply saying "Skeptics" in this context is probably sufficient. I'm not sure "Skeptic philosophers" is really necessary, as the category description and its parent categories should make pretty clear to the reader that you're talking about people who espouse skepticism in the philosophical sense. Dugwiki 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We just had a cfd on this that renamed the British one to sceptics. Hiding Talk 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - India uses Commonwealth English, so - if kept - the Indian one should probably be changed to "sceptics". Grutness...wha? 23:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge--Endgame1 06:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the children to the parent? Vegaswikian 06:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. I think "skeptic" is clear enough, and renaming to "skeptic philosophers" just makes it a completely different category. It's a classification of a philosophical position, not philosophical profession—Penn & Teller are skeptics, but not philosophers. Postdlf 03:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I really don't care whether the nationality subcategories are merged. Postdlf 03:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge all the "national" subcats. I think they should be by topic (such as skeptics of psychic phenomena). - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming of category:Skeptics. I think "philosophers" is redundant in this case, and actually makes it more ambiguous. I understand the reasoning, and the want for a rename, but I can't think of anything better than the current cat name, atm. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is - do not rename or merge.. James Randi is not formally a philosopher. And if you don't know who he is, you don't know enough about our American skeptics to be saying we should go monkeying with their cateogry. Renaming can make sense because the word "skeptic" is broad, but this proposal is not an acceptable alternative. Doczilla 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep scientific skepticism is not the same as philosophical skepticism. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:38, 22 October 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 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) 12:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who support the Bahujan Samaj Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary category that will lead to many more such categories. A waste of donors' money. Jimbo discourages such categories[2]. This category doesn't help in article development anyway (unlike some other categories based on political ideas, which might help Wikipedians to find people interested in similar articles). Delete. utcursch | talk 11:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not involving the person (who has created the category) in this voting and taking unilateral decision seems like a UN Security Council/US Congress vote, its better if you involve concerned parties in such voting. For me its a very elitist decision, can you people apply same principle for numerous other categories present in 'Category:Wikipedians by politics'.

POV : I feel currently most of the wikipedians are quite elitist people but am sure it will change over time.

Pls forgive me for ignoring 'pls do not modify it' notification as the category in question doesn't exist.

I Accept the Delete decision. Regards. Vjdchauhan 06:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per above. -- Szvest 12:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Endgame1 06:05, 21 October 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 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 both to Category:New train stations in Mexico. Ha ha, just kidding. Reverse merge. --Kbdank71 13:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Mexico train stations into Category:Passenger train stations in New Mexico

• Merge, Overlapping content - no overriding preference for which way to merge. Ian Cairns 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge definitely. -- Szvest 12:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. (For how long does the description "new" last...?)   David Kernow (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Was that a joke? - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No... I must've been tired...!  Sigh, David Kernow (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Railway stations in the United States seems to have categories listed both ways. Personally, I think "passenger" is superfluous. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge Category:Passenger train stations in New Mexico to Category:New Mexico train stations (or perhaps to Category:Train stations in New Mexico). - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge I agree, "passenger" is a little superfluous. Just make it "train stations". PerryPlanet 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge to Category:New Mexico train stations. I like this one since it is the shortest form. If there is consensus, then I propose that this become a guideline and that the other children of Category:Railway stations in the United States be speedy renamed to this format. Vegaswikian 04:38, 24 October 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 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 10:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors who appeared in MST3K movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is another case of overcategorization. Mystery Science Theatre 3000 was essentially a rerun program of bad movies with funny commentary provided by puppets. CovenantD 05:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tom Servo. This is not a defining characteristic of any person in the category. --Dhartung | Talk 08:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator, overcategorisation. Hiding Talk 09:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify I agree, this would be overcategorization. However, a list article would be a fun read, and would allow you to also include which movie(s) the actor appeared in. In fact, it would be interesting to know which actors appeared in multiple MST3K movies, and also to be able to see in the list particularly well known actors that appeared in an MST3K clunker (the best example would be the 1969 film Marooned, which despite starring both Gene Hackman and Gregory Peck managed to be absolutely awful and also made for a pretty funny MST3k episode.) Dugwiki 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Endgame1 06:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. Nonomy 12:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Landolitan 13:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agreeing with Dugwiki. - jc37 10:57, 22 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel animated characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Should be deleted, nearly every Marvel Comics character has appeared in a TV show based on the comics. UnDeRsCoRe 02:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 05:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcategorisation. This stuff will make for a better article than category. Hiding Talk 09:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article is for characters created on these various marvel cartoons and animated films. This has every right to be here as much Category:DC animated characters does, if you disagree, remove that one too. (BackLash 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment As above, this category is specifically for characters who made their debut on an animated program. The nominator apparently didn't realize that in his nomination and thought it would apply to every Marvel character. Note that knowing where a character first debuted is important historical information for comics, so categorizing by the character's debut vehicle might be worth considering. At the very least, a list article outlining a table of all Marvel characters and where they first appeared sounds like an ambitious but potentially pretty cool article for comic book fans. Dugwiki 17:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe rename to take that into account then. Um...Characters debuted in animated adaptations of Marvel Comics properties is way too long, Marvel characters debuted in animations? Hiding Talk 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Category:Comic book characters created from television already exists. CovenantD 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yeah, that sounds okay, but characters like Spyke (the one that's Storm's mephew), Spiderman's Herbert Landon never made it into the comics. Would that still be okay to use? (BackLash 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

• Delete per Hiding's line of reasoning. NetK 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a common name? --Endgame1 06:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Not sure what to, but agree that a character's place of debut being animated series isn't cruft, but informative. Find a way to preserve, but I've got nothing on a new name, sorry. ThuranX 01:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If the animated characters each had a separate articles, I might have said Keep, but since they don't... - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They do

• Delete overcategorization. Nearly every Marvel character has appeared in animated form. A list might be okay, but a category cannot be properly cited to back it up. For most of them, their articles do not mention these appearances, therefore this is not a defining quality. Doczilla 20:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, the article was not for every Marvel character, just the ones created specifically for the cartoon seires based on their proporties, some of which have gone one into offical comic cannon, but mainly this category dosen't count those who started in the comics (like Spider-Man of Iron Man).

• Rename, good category, but impossible to understand actual scope with current name. Suggest Category:Marvel Comics characters created for television or a minor variation. --Rindis 16:25, 26 October 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 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Montenegrin models, convention of Category:Models by nationality and Category:Montenegrin people by occupation. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for clarity. --Dhartung | Talk 08:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. -- Szvest 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Supermodel" is an inherently POV term that has been overused to the point of meaninglessness by marketeers and the lower branches of the media. Piccadilly 19:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and per prior deletion of "supermodels" category. Postdlf 19:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge--Endgame1 06:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Overuse of term. Doczilla 20:30, 22 October 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 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, although renamed to Railway freight terminals per other subcategories of Rail infrastructure. David Kernow (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Rail freight terminals, just to make it clear it's rail cargo. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral --Endgame1 06:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Trying to see the use of this cat. Information would be welcome : ) - jc37 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, at present there's no consensus; at least a rename to Rail freight terminals would clarify the category. As regards usefulness, there must be some railroad/way enthusiasts out there who'll oblige... (e.g. do you know/recall what became Wikipedia's 1 millionth article...?)  Chuckle, David Kernow (talk) 11:38, 25 October 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.