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 --Kbdank71 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same reasons as Category:Leeds United AFC (below) so I propose to following category below:

• Category:Leeds City FC managers to Category:Leeds City F.C. managers

• Move as per nom Kingjamie 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per reasoning below. Punkmorten 07:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I looks stupid though that the category doesn't match the main article and tranditionaly British culbs also have the suffix F.C. or A.F.C. Kingjamie 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. robwingfield ^(talk) 13:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bluap 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If opposed, I suggest that someone list all the subcats of Category:Football managers in England by club for renaming. - jc37 04:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree. There has been some discussion about this on the football wikiproject, but nothing has been done yet. Punkmorten 21:38, 6 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 --Kbdank71 15:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Leeds United article has changed from Leeds United AFC to Leeds United A.F.C. it makes sense to move the categories related to this club to have the suffix A.F.C. instead of the old AFC so I propose moving following categories below:

• Category:Leeds United AFC to Category:Leeds United A.F.C.
• Category:Chairmen of Leeds United AFC to Category:Chairmen of Leeds United A.F.C.
• Category:Leeds United AFC players to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. players
• Category:Leeds United AFC managers to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. managers
• Category:Leeds United AFC matches to Category:Leeds United A.F.C. matches

• Move as per nom Kingjamie 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Non-dotted abbreviations are more standard in the UK. Looking at the talks page for Leeds United AFC, the sole comment about the move says that the consensus on Wikiproject Football is to move all articles to the non-dotted forms. See [1] for a recent mention, likewise [2]. From my point of view, the parent article should not have been moved. Bluap 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Bluap, if anything all the other articles need to be moved the opposite way, i.e. from dotted to non-dotted forms. Punkmorten 07:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I looks stupid though that the category doesn't match the main article and tranditionaly British culbs also have the suffix F.C. or A.F.C. Kingjamie 18:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply traditionally, British clubs use "FC" or "AFC", not "F.C." or "A.F.C." Bluap 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. robwingfield ^(talk) 13:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If opposed, I suggest that someone list all the subcats of Category:Football managers in England by club for renaming. - jc37 04:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There needs to be some consistency here - all pages should be either A.F.C. or AFC and I agree with Bluap that AFC is preferable. I also don't know why it was renamed in the first place (as was AFC Wimbledon) but I vote that they all be changed back. -- MLD · T · C · @:  15:24, 3 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 --Kbdank71 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hungarian-born people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. I cannot see what this category is supposed to be in relation to Category:Hungarian people (of which it is... a subcategory). What is the precedent here? It looks like a subjective creation according to some obscure criteria. Its purpose other than listing Hungarians in Hungary (just as Category:Hungarian people) is to list Category:People of Hungarian descent. Meaningless, and potentially POV. Dahn 22:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Hungarian diaspora ... it's for people born there, who left and became citizens of other countries. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after properly recategorizing the remaining articles to 'Category:Hungarian people' plus 'Category:People of Hungarian descent' or one of the latter's subcategories. Hmains 04:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One of my cousins was born in Chile while my uncle was posted there. He left at two months old, and his place of birth is totally irrelevant to his life, as it will be irrelevant to his encyclopedic accomplishments if he ever has any (he's only 11). ReeseM 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Place of birth is not necessarily significant.Merchbow 18:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Categories are not a tool to turn WP into an online database. Pavel Vozenilek 16:32, 4 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. David Kernow (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IBM omnibus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, The category is rapidly growing to include anything that IBM has touched, ever. Its existence is encouraging a lot of needless article cat changes. John Vandenberg 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This looks like a variant on "X miscellaneous", which is never a good idea. Any significant articles that don't belong in one of the legitimate subcategories of Category:IBM should go in that parent category itself. Hawkestone 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --Gerry Ashton 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, see John Vandenberg's comment - "ever" even includes Brian De Palma, as he directed a movie "660124: The Story of an IBM Card", which seems to be more than a bit of a stretch. Guy Harris 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, after articles have been have been recategorized into category IBM or its other subcats. Hmains 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague and unuseful. Those articles that may be more precisely categorized should be. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - would likely eventually duplicate category:IBM, and not as well. - jc37 04:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Divide & Conquer The articles here don't seem to fit existing categories. There are consortia, specific IT projects, humanitarian projects, popular culture (CPU Wars, movies). Dumping them all into IBM doesn't seem a good idea either. Possibly the original set of IBM categories considered only IBM products and needs expanding.146.74.230.239 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no point in sticking all these articles in this category just because they have some vague connection with IBM - National Cipher Challenge was included just because IBM provide one of the prizes. More accurate categories - 'IBM products', for instance - seem like a better idea. Hut 8.5 09:58, 4 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. David Kernow (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-hero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Empty cat. Already covered by Category:Fictional anti-heroes Pascal.Tesson 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, empty, serves no purpose. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - jc37 04:42, 2 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. David Kernow (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Category:Fuck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete hoax Categories. Fpfkekw 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment see prior no-consensus CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_23#Category:Fuck. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While not a hoax, it's essentially trying to duplicate "what links here." Postdlf 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep it looks like a wrongly used CFD -- Fpfkekw appears to be the one who started it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete previous CFD looks damn near like nonsense. Maybe rename to something more descriptive like "Movies that use the word 'fuck' a lot", I dunno. Danny Lilithborne 17:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as rubbish. Hawkestone 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The category is not a hoax, and so the basis for the nomination is bogus. A well-meaning reading of the content will show that the category usefully groups encyclopedic information. --Mareklug ^talk 02:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but perhaps rename to something more precise, but I'm not sure what that is? --Dhartung | Talk 04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete bogus category without useful or appropriate criteria. Doczilla 09:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless, puerile and disruptive. ReeseM 13:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm not convinced the word "fuck" needs its own category. Recury 17:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not even supposed to have dictionary entries, so it certainly does not need categories for individual words. Greg Grahame 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No more useful than category:The.--Mike Selinker 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category will almost never be used, and seems to be only related to the word "fuck", and all the links and data could be duplicated on the fuck page itself. Badbilltucker 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per various sound comments. Osomec 14:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category simply bring together a lot of articles that use the word f*** or have something to do with f***ing. Otherwise, the articles themselves have nothing to do with each other. It is not useful and should be deleted. (According to the logic of this category, I should be listed in Category:George.) George J. Bendo 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or Category:Delete, because you just used the word. Postdlf 18:15, 4 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 (empty). David Kernow (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in Eau Claire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dubious value to start with, but in any case empty and subsumed by Television stations in La Crosse and Eau Claire. Pascal.Tesson 16:32, 31 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 all. David Kernow (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as self-promotion of Nagamuthu Karthikeyan Osho. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. ReeseM 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all; complete bollocks. --MCB 21:21, 3 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 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) 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Is this a defining characteristic? Besides, it is now an orphan category. RobertG ♬ talk 12:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep sure, kind of a trivial category but not necessarily useless. This gives me the opportunity to shamelessly argue yet again for a system of "minor categories" whereby some attributes in biographies would be hidden by default to avoid clogging. Pascal.Tesson 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I like the idea of a "minor category" system, so that the fans of trivial categories could populate them to their heart's content without cluttering articles, but that would just move the dispute to the issue of what categories should be "major" and appear on articles and which ones should be "minor" and be hidden. Plus the minor categories would largely go unnoticed without having their tags on articles to draw attention to them. Postdlf 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dahn 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. This information is already mentioned in each person's article, therefore the category is pointless. Doczilla 09:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; falls below the level of useful categorization. --MCB 21:22, 3 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 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) 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celebrity Roleplayers/Wargamers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, another hobby category of celebrities. As the nominator of Category:Celebrity Gamers said, "Categorisation by hobby is not useful or significant." Percy Snoodle 12:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Postdlf 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete George J. Bendo 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. Doczilla 09:06, 1 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 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) 04:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian pundits into Category:Canadian political pundits

• Merge, into the more clearly named Category:Canadian political pundits as there are pundits of many topics. The category for merger is already a subcategory of Category:Political pundits. Piccadilly 11:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 11:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I would agree, as 'pundit' seems too broad a term for this category. --SunStar Net 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Doczilla 09:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. David Kernow (talk) 04:37, 3 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 --Kbdank71 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Category:Terrorists by nationality
• Category:Murdered terrorists
• Category:American terrorists
• Category:Austrian terrorists
• Category:Bangladeshi terrorists
• Category:British terrorists
• Category:Canadian terrorists
• Category:Chechen terrorists
• Category:Colombian terrorists
• Category:Cuban terrorists
• Category:Dutch terrorists
• Category:Egyptian terrorists
• Category:French terrorists
• Category:German terrorists
• Category:Greek terrorists
• Category:Indonesian terrorists
• Category:Italian terrorists
• Category:Jamaican terrorists
• Category:Japanese terrorists
• Category:Lebanese terrorists
• Category:Malaysian terrorists
• Category:Pakistani terrorists
• Category:Russian terrorists
• Category:Saudi Arabian terrorists
• Category:Spanish terrorists
• Category:United Arab Emirati terrorists

The categories breaks WP:WTA as it labels individuals as terrorists from an editorial voice. I would propose either deleting them altogether (as my first choice) or renaming and re-organising (into several categories, such as 'Self confessed terrorists', 'People defined as terrorist by the UN' etc...). Localzuk^(talk) 10:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These categories have been kept several times. These are related articles and they need to be grouped together. Piccadilly 11:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What do you mean? My problem is that they define individuals as terrorists using an editorial voice (ie. giving WP an opinion) therefore violating WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. Why should we allow this to happen?-Localzuk^(talk) 11:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• One's being a terrorist is contingent on whether or not one engages in the actions of a terrorist. It's not POV in the least for Wikipedia to acknowledge that one has engaged in such acts. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is though, as the term 'terrorist' is a pejorative term. It has negative connotations and as such should be avoided. Even the BBC and Reuters both avoid labelling people and organisations as terrorist (see the talk page at Al-Qaeda). Your argument is against the guideline rather than its use on this cfd listing. If the categories were 'People who have engaged in terrorist acts' then this would not be a problem, but as it stands it is Wikipedia labelling people as terrorists - even though some people will see them as 'freedom fighters' or similar.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I vote as one of those who often removes the word 'terrorist' from article bodies, because of its potential to slant the reader. Thede cats however are valid, and if there is disagreement about a particular person's place on the list, it belongs on their talk page - not a CFD. (User:Sherurcij)
• Keep. The alternative of categorizing by why they are considered terrorists is unwieldy and unnecessary, and gives more weight to the perceptions of individual organizations or countries (and would result in dozens of "People designated a terrorist by X" categories on many articles), where otherwise we would apply the category if a consensus of contributors concluded that "terrorist" accurately encompassed general perceptions and accurately described the individual's reported actions. Furthermore, whether someone labels themselves as a terrorist is of no more import than if someone labels themselves a murderer, in judging whether they are one. Whether "terrorist" is pejorative or has negative connotations is beside the point; so is the term "murderer." Yet we don't want to equivocate serial killers with police officers who have shot suspects as "people who have killed other people," for example. Nor do we want to equivocate al-Qaeda with the French resistance as "civilians who have used violence to oppose a government." That kind of equivocation is typically more morally offensive to people (to the extent that is your concern), and it reflects a highly superficial, context-ignorant classification. Postdlf 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inquiry. Can there really be a general perception on what constitutes terrorism? I am under the impression that there is no generally accepted norm to designated someone as a terrorist. Yasser Arafat may be a strong case in point, as he was awarded to Nobel Peace Prize after being generally termed as a terrorist for decades. - Aditya Kabir 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Valid categorization. Dahn 22:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Am I the only one to find it odd that IRA members are in Category:British_terrorists and not Category:Irish_terrorists Bluap 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep WP does not engage in wishy-washy word play as some media do. Serves a valid purpose of identification. Individual articles that may be miscategorized may be fixed by editors when they see fit Hmains 05:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Not to be offensive to anyone but has anyone actually read Wikipedia:Words to avoid? It specifically says that we shouldn't use this word due to it being perjorative and pov, it gives wikipedia an editorial voice to catgeorise articles like this. -Localzuk^(talk) 13:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to something more neutral As Localzuk just pointed out, the existence of these categories completely contradict the Wikipedia:Words to avoid guideline. This is not about being wishy-washy, it's about having category names such that inclusion or non-inclusion of individual articles in them is as uncontroversial as possible. There's no denying that, whatever we think of that fact, the term "terrorist" comes with lots of connotations and the present category names are bound to create edit wars. Also, there's something odd to having, for instance, "Pakistani terrorists" as a subcategory of "Pakistani people by occupation". Pascal.Tesson 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep wrt to the point made by Pascal.Tesson "terrorist" is the only word that means "terrorist" so any alternative name would be inaccurate. Greg Grahame 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inquiry. Let's say you are right, but can you define a terrorist? Before we start throwing controversial designations like it, it is important that we read the WP guideline on the word and the WP guideline on fairness. - Aditya Kabir 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is why I think we need a rule that says if a category is kept it can't be nominated for deletion for a certain period of time. This seems to come up every few weeks.--Mike Selinker 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and Speedy Delete. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It must have a criterion to establish an individual as a terrorist. Editorial and journalistic views are unacceptable as an encyclopedic criterion, and can even be libelous. Controversy can not be accepted as part of an encyclopedic process. Both Wikipedia:Words to avoid guideline and NPOV policies stand to against such controversial inclusions. Before categories like these are accepted, WP needs a guideline to declare individuals as terrorists. Unless that is achieved with neutrality, these should be categorically rejected and summarily deleted. - Aditya Kabir 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per all the previous discussions on this and the various subcategories that have been nominated separately. Osomec 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and Speedy Delete per Aditya Kabir. Also, this is equivalent to putting blacks in Category:Nigger. Nobody wants to be called a terrorist, just like how nobody wants to be called a nigger. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and permanent keepPut an end to these disruptive and doomed repeat nominations.Merchbow 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Being on CfD over and over, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Terrorists. This is not well defined and generally agreed classification, only magnet for warriors. Pavel Vozenilek 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Per Sherurcij, I agree. If an entity is defined as a terrorist, per WP:WTA, then this category can be applied to said entity. For example, Theodore Kaczynski should be categorized in Category:American Terrorists. From his article: "For his actions, which he at one point classified as terrorism to the police,[...]" This satisfies the use of the term terrorist, per WP:WTA. We need to focus our attention on entities that have been unfairly classified and tagged as a terrorist. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 16:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Terrorism is a well-known phenomenon and we need a category for those who are involved in it. Beit Or 20:34, 6 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic Ministries-Roman Catholic Lay Societies to Category:Roman Catholic Associations of the Faithful or Category:Associations of the Faithful

• Rename. The current name is overly long. This category is a child of Category:Catholic lay societies so including those articles here, by virtue of the name, appears to be confusing from an orginization point of view. A child probably should not include the parent in its name. Vegaswikian 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Roman Catholic Ministries is inaccurate. These groups are not primarily ministries, but associations or communities. Also, they are comprised not only of lay people, but also priests; The basis for membership is not lay status, but baptism (the faithful). The Pontifical Council for the Laity maintains a list of these groups under the title, Directory of International Associations of the Faithful. Associations of the Faithful would be a more clear title which conforms to current official language. This title would not have to be prefaced with Roman Catholic since it is a term that is already particular to the Roman Catholic Church.
  • OK, nomination changed to your suggested name as one of two options. I think the caps are correct in this case, if not someone can change the nom. Vegaswikian 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, this category should just be merged into the parent category of Category:Catholic lay societies. Both cats list groups of a similar nature.

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 and block. David Kernow (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with facial hair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Res ipsa loquitur. Postdlf 04:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Frivilous. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and permanently block as recreation (categories for beards and moustaches have been deleted before, and perhaps this variant has been too). Piccadilly 11:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a sense of deja vu too, but there was no deleted history under this name, at least. Postdlf 16:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and permanently block as recreation this unnecessary and unstable category. Doczilla 09:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and permanently block whether or not it has been up under this name before. Wikipedia should be more proactive and block unsuitable categories in advance. No doubt there are other variations that could be created, and it should not be necessary to wait until each specific variant has been created twice before blocking it. ReeseM 13:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and per ReeseM. Pavel Vozenilek 16:43, 4 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Abortion and reproductive rights advocacy groups in the United States to Category:Pro-choice organizations in the United States
• Category:United States pro-life organizations to Category:Pro-life organizations in the United States
• Rename, First of all, this was nominated 10 days ago with a no consensus result. However, there are some important matters that I do not believe were taken into consideration. First of all, please look at the category tree#Abortion debate for WikiProject Abortion. There is an established format ([location] pro-[x] organizations), and this one category breaks from the format. The whole purpose of this category is to take all the organizations that fit under the parent category (Category:Pro-choice organizations) that are from the US and put them in their own category. See how the hierarchy works for the pro-life organizations? Furthermore, this renaming has nothing to do with the terms "pro-choice" or "pro-life" or "abortion rights". It has long been established on wikipedia that the most neutral way of referring to these movements is by the terms they use for self-identity. If we make any attempt to alter the self-identity, we risk imposing POV, and breaking wikipedia policy. So please, when you vote, try to ignore the political issues. Andrew c 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "United States" is not an adjective, so it's awkward to put it at the front like that. Rename to either "American pro-choice organizations" or "Pro-choice organizations in the United States." Postdlf 05:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The U.S. category names were modelled after Category:United States abortion case law. Changing this category as you have suggested would necessitate that we nominate four other categories in WikiProject Abortion for CfD to be consistent (see Category Tree). I would recommend "Pro-choice organizations in the United States," though, because, as an adjective, "American" can be used more broadly, and might cause confusion with Category:Abortion_in_the_Americas. -Severa (!!!) 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's go with "Pro-choice organizations in the United States," which is consistent with the other entries in Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States. Nothing else needs to be changed. "United States abortion case law," for example, is consistent with other case law categories and should stay that way. Postdlf 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Category:United States pro-life organizations would need to be changed for consistency. -Severa (!!!) 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's appropriate, as that is also a subcategory of Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States. Postdlf 17:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please note the motified rename proposals.--Andrew c 19:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and previous CfD. -Severa (!!!) 17:03, 31 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 09:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chief Dark Lords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, utterly pointless category. "Chief Dark Lords" is not standard nomenclature for any class of fictional villan. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I am not ashamed to admit I had a good laugh when I read the name of this category. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, or rename to Category:Supervising Dark Lords or Category:Dark Lord comptrollers. Or maybe Category:Dark Lord shift managers. Postdlf 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dark Lord middle management, perhaps? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Categoy makes no sense to most of the world. Doczilla 09:07, 1 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 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) 03:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ganguly Family Connection to Category:Ganguly Family (film)

• Rename, I created this category to keep the extended family of Ganguly's under one comprehensive category. The new category name is more appropropriate. Aditya Kabir 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the proposal is not in line with convention. Alternative rename to Category:Ganguly film family. Piccadilly 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. User:Piccadilly is partially right. But, it would be better if put in line with precedence - Category:Kapoor family of Hindi films and Category:Mukherjee-Samarth family of Hindi films. Therefore, it should be renamed as Category:Ganguly family of Hindi films. - Aditya Kabir 13:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Ganguly family of Hindi films Osomec 14:51, 2 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 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) 03:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Australian Capital Territory Women's Australian Football League clubs, or delete if still empty at closing time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no articles on the clubs exist. Recury 17:50, 1 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 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 Music teachers redirected to Music educators. David Kernow (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Music teachers, or the reverse. Keep both, but one should become a redirect to the other. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Music educators That is the larger category and the broader term. "Teachers" makes me think of schoolteachers, and most of these people were not schoolteachers. A decision was made to rename Category:Teachers to Category:Schoolteachers, but it was only implemented for the subcategories, so I will have that attended to. Osomec 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that ProveIt beat me to it. Osomec 15:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Music educators for the same reasons stated above by Osomec. J Lorraine 01:43, 5 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 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 (it's empty). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but only if it's still empty at the close of discussion ... otherwise it should stay. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:53, 31 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 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 --Kbdank71 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black lawyers to Category:African American lawyers

• Rename. To match name used by parent and virtually all other children of the parent. Vegaswikian 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not all people who fall into the category of "Black" are Americans. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that Category:African American lawyers should be a subcat of both Category:Black lawyers and Category:American lawyers, and should contain only United States citizens. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This was nominated previously (after an objection to a speedy) with a result of "no consensus". I just don't like "Black lawyers" and see no reason to co-categorize African and African-American attorneys, for example. Rename per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Categorisation by skin colour is not appropriate as it perpetuates the idea that a person's skin pigmentation is a essential factor in measuring their achievements. If you support this category, but not placing Hitler in Category:White German vegetarians, please explain why the inconsistency is appropriate. Piccadilly 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh? How does acknowledging one's skin tone imply that it is the measure of their acheivements? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 11:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While I don't see the point of having a "Lawyers by race" category, Black =/= African American. I'd support the deletion of all "Lawyers by race" categories, but I oppose this renaming, since several of the people in the category are not Americans. Guettarda 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you oppose the rename since some editors did not understand what should have been included in the category and incorrectly added some articles? Why not simply remove those that are not Category:African Americans? Vegaswikian 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, since as of yesterday it is a subcat of Category:American lawyers and Category:African Americans, however if there are any non-americans they should be removed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Oppose per Guettarda. This rename is innapropriate. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just create Category:African American lawyers as a subcat and move the us citizens to there? On the other hand, I'm not sure I see any pressing need for a lawers by ethnicity or race categorization at all. ProveIt ^(talk) 18:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe people are proud of the achievements of others of their ethnic group and wish for the ethnicity to be thusly acknowledged? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's great on a personal level, but how is it appropriate to use Wikipedia to further that goal? Postdlf 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not supposed to serve anyone's propaganda agenda, and it is not a feel-good self-help group. Hawkestone 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Propoganda agenda? I'd suggest deleting this cat before renaming it to a category that is actually incorrect for its contents. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Inappropriate POV category. Categorisation by ethnicity creates category clutter, but this is beyond the bounds of the reasonable. Hawkestone 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename or delete. Classification by skin colour will generate more heat than light, and is of very little relevance to the purposes of an encyclopedia. ReeseM 13:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy oppose!. Subcategorize if you wish the African-American category to exist! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Skin colour does not influence legal proficiency. Greg Grahame 22:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But neither does nationality, and but we have lawyers by nationality. Guettarda 03:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you honestly suggesting that the relationship between race and profession is of equal significance and presumptive categorical meaning as the relationship between nationality and profession? You're going to have to elaborate if that is really your point. Postdlf 03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Are you honestly suggesting that...". Nope. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that while I agree that "skin colour does not influence legal proficiency", neither does nationality, or a host of other categories we use for lawyers. Arguing to replace "Black lawyers" with "African American lawyers" based on the fact that there is no relationship between skin colour and legal proficiency just doesn't make any sense to me. Guettarda 14:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know you were just responding to Greg Grahame's comment that raised the relationship of skin color to "proficiency," but the proper response is that "proficiency" is completely irrelevant to any of the occupation categories (it isn't "Lawyers by skill"). The relevant question is simply whether there is a significant relationship between the two traits, X and occupation. It's a safe presumption that nationality always is related to profession, because how any job is practiced will differ from country to country based on local laws, culture, and economies, and nationality is such a defining trait of an individual that it would still make sense to subcategorize professions by nationality even if there wasn't such a relationship. Postdlf 01:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It should be noted that Category:Black people is also nominated for deletion. Vegaswikian 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (or delete if that is an easier way to go about things, but the main thing is to kill it off). As is mentioned in the discussion on Category:Black people the reason the main justification for this, and the reason we have this category but not Category:White lawyers, is that some people prioritize, "Highlighting the accomplishments of members of historically repressed or under-appreciated groups." Whether that is right or wrong, it is a political act, and Wikipedia categories should not be political. Wilchett 02:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom in line with the usual methods of classification (though as far as I am concerned every single ethnic category should be deleted). Osomec 15:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and prune contents accordingly, or delete outright. Postdlf 04:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no country or law system named "black". Pavel Vozenilek 16:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The African-American category system and the wider Xian-American system is well established. Wimstead 17:27, 4 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dragonlance templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Dragonlance templates is redundant to Category:WikiProject Dragonlance templates. Must have been overlooked when the WikiProject was created. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 00:08, 31 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.