< February 15	February 17 >

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. Vegaswikian 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not a widely used term. Article Renewers of society‎ is proposed for deletion. Ezeu 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV issues as well in deciding who "qualifies". Bencherlite 00:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherently POV. Metamagician3000 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - extremely POV: everybody thinks the person they like was a RoS! --Orange Mike 03:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Using this as an actual term is tantamount to proclaiming the Lutherian church's opinion to be fact (wikipedia is a fact-only encyclopedia). Cosmetor 07:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as there is an existing precedent in both the article Doctors of the Church and the category of the same name. Only those individuals who are actively described by this term in the Lutheran Calendar of Saints are being added to the category, making both the use of the article and the category similar to that used in the existing Doctors of the Church article and category. If these pages were to be deleted, it would set a precedent for the similarly used "Doctor of the Church" content described above. Please also note that they are specifically included in the Category:Lutheran saints, which is reserved exclusively for those individuals mentioned on the Lutheran calendars. I cannot see how using a term used by this one church in an relatively official and limited manner is in any way, shape or form different than that used in the Doctors of the church article and category. Also, and here I acknowledge that I am not myself a Lutheran (actually, I'm a Roman Catholic), I question whether the stated reason for the proposed deletion is actually sufficient for deletion. I acknowledge that I have rarely if ever participated in these discussions before, I note that there is nothing I can see in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) that this category violates. But, like I said, I am rather new to this, so I may have overlooked something. John Carter 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_Winners and talk page for extensive discussion of issues with award-winners; honorary titles are a type of award. The problem with these categories is not that they are vague (they are usually quite discrete); it is that they are (1) usually not defining attributes (so not that helpful as a navigation aid from the article); (2) add to category clutter (because notable people often receive multiple awards; and adding every one to the list of categories on an article would render it unusable as a navigation aid); and (3) the navigational benefits of the automatically-generated listing produced by creating a category for something are better served, in this case, by a manually produced list on the relevant article, which can include references, notes, sorting, etc. --lquilter 16:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an award, and categorizing recipients of awards is a bad idea. --lquilter 16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list Doctors of the Church is not relevant because we are dealing with a category rather than a list. Category:Doctors of the Church designates the role certain individuals had in the history of the church. On the other hand this category is an award handed out by a church to members and non-members alike. Wimstead 13:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fuzzy and subjective concept. There have probably even been serial killers regard themselves as "renewing society" by removing bad elements. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization by "award." Mr. Irrelevant contains a list dating back several decades and in this instance a list in the relevant (heh) article is far superior to a category. Otto4711 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Category:BBC Sports Personality of the Year winners and Category:BBC Scotland Sports Personality of the Year, delete Category:BBC Sports Personality of the Year Overseas Personality. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overcategorization by award. This is one of many awards these people might win and categorizing them leads to category clutter. Anne, Princess Royal and David Beckham each are pushing two dozen categories. Otto4711 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorization by award generally does not work well, especially for athletes (who are listed in many categories anyway). Dr. Submillimeter 23:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main award, Delete the two lesser awards (Scotland and Overseas). The main award has a long history and is highly regarded as an honour and it is a good way of categorising leading British sportsmen/women. The Scottish award is nn outside Scotland, and the Overseas award is likely to be less relevant for such recipients. The existing list at BBC Sports Personality of the Year Overseas Personality is enough. Bencherlite 00:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC Sports Personality of the Year winners, which is the most prestigious sports award in the UK by a million miles. Ditto the Scottish one, which is very notable in Scotland. But not the overseas award, as it is just one more award for top global sportspeople. For Princess Anne, delete all the honours except the Garter, which is the top award of its type. LukeHoC 03:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC Sports Personality of the Year winners; Abstain on BBC Scotland Sports Personality of the Year; Delete BBC Sports Personality of the Year Overseas Personality Bluap 04:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I don't see why they can't all be useful, and they are certainly workable, with clear criteria. However, the order of importance for keeping them is the order in which they have been listed. Metamagician3000 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per above. Philip Stevens 06:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Metamagician3000. Perhaps make the Scotland and Overseas categories subcategories to the main award category. -- Black Falcon 07:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please note that the Overseas award is actually a sub-award of the main one, but the Scottish award is totally separate: it is organised by BBC Scotland. Bencherlite, surely all national sports awards are non-notable outside their country of origin?!? The Scottish award is certainly far from unusual in that respect. Or are you saying that a country of 5 million people is non-notable? An awful lot of Scots read (and contribute to) Wikipedia. --Mais oui! 07:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, after a little ponder, I would like to vote Weak delete on the Overseas category. If international superstars are given these awards by countries around the world, which I presume they are, then they could be in a hundred of these cats, but none of the cats would actually be a notable event in the career of the international sportsstar in question. Conversely, being awarded the BBC Scottish Sports Personality of the Year is a highly significant recognition for all concerned - it may well be the only time in their career that they are given a national award outwith their own chosen sport. --Mais oui! 08:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long its winners and not nominees, this is fine. Tim! 08:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UK and Scotland. Delete Overseas. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the overseas category as trivial for the individuals. Keep the other 2 as they represent the highest level of recognition for British sportspeople. Wimstead 13:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify - one of many awards and honors that these players receive and having them as a category leads to clutter. Brett Favre has 14 categories. Jim Brown has two dozen. Otto4711 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorization by award generally does not work well, especially for athletes (who are listed in many categories anyway). (Terry Bradshaw has over 30 categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Categorization by such an important award is a very good distinguisher. --Djsasso 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, then Rename to something with fewer acronyms Bluap 04:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Annandale 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a major award. Dlong 16:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created to house Category:NBA's MVP prize winners. The category is redundant to Category:Sports award winners. Otto4711 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Unnecessary subcategory of Category:Sports award winners. Note also that outside North America, the acronym MVP is not meaningful and it seems just silly to have a category for MVP prizes that would not contain equivalent "player of the year" awards because they use a different acronym. Pascal.Tesson 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 19:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this category: the article NBA_Most_Valuable_Player_Award contains a current list of all NBA MVP recipients. Myasuda 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of an article is not justification for elimination of a category. TonyTheTiger 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it is true that a list does not automatically supplant a category, in this instance the list in the article is superior, as it allows for additional documentation. Being named MVP is likely to be one of a number of awards and honors that the players will receive and this category can lead to clutter. Bill Walton for example already has 14 categories. Magic Johnson has 19, excluding those related to lack of sources. Michael Jordan has 23 plus this one. Otto4711 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the category should be renamed to something like Category:National Basketball Association Most Valuable Players to expand the abbreviations. Otto4711 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Categorization by award generally does not work well, especially for athletes (who are listed in many categories anyway). Dr. Submillimeter 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to match article. --Djsasso 22:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delet If it is kept rename as I've never heard the term prize associated with the award. Quadzilla99 04:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Metamagician3000 05:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. Annandale 01:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tomer T 22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tales from the Crypt is one of several shows that does not feature a regular cast; the actors (often high-profile actors) only appear in one episode. Therefore, having this category is nonsensical. The category should be deleted. (Also note that similar categories for Twilight Zone and Outer Limits actors have been deleted in the past.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Suggest that this not be listified as the members of the list would have little or nothing else in common. Otto4711 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. So what we're really saying here is that we're changing this from "listify and delete" to "delete without listifying". -- Samuel Wantman 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was listify and delete. the wub "?!" 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization. Directors are likely to work on a number of different television series in the course of their careers. Categorizing them by series is not feasible. Directors can be noted in the article for the series, in the article for the episodes they directed if such articles exist or in a separate list article similar to List of Six Feet Under writers and directors. This nomination encompasses the parent cat and all subcats, except the Six Feet Under category which is already nominated as a writers category. Otto4711 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Directors will generally work on many projects during their careers. This type of categorizations will lead to unreadable category links at the bottoms of people's articles. The categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Listify. I'm not convinced that "overcategorization" is a serious problem, and I believe that categories are a useful navigational tool in these circumstances; however, if others disagree, the categories should not be deleted until the information contained in them is transferred to a list. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Check articles such as John Cleese, who is categorized according to performance. The category links already appear as several lines of text in most browsers. From a technical writing standpoint, the links are difficult to read and difficult to use. Now imagine the same thing for directors (or imagine more categories for Cleese). If such categorization is put into widespread use, then the categories for many directors will become unreadable. Dr. Submillimeter 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. It's an aesthetic judgment, and I don't find the categories at John Cleese to be excessive. But if others do, I hope that the information is listified before the categories are depopulated and deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Listify --John Kenneth Fisher 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per actors, producers etc. no evidence of clutter presented and all other arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT Tim! 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yours boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. As for an example, in addition to John Cleese offered above, I previously offered J. J. Abrams as an example of why these sorts of categories can contribute to clutter. If every TV and film series had one, Abrams would be categorized as: Alias writer; Alias director; Alias producer; Alias actor (he said "Joey's Pizza?" in several episodes in season 1); Alias composer; Felicity writer; Felicity director; Felicity producer; Felicity composer; Lost writer; Lost director; Lost producer; What About Brian producer; Jimmy Kimmel Live director (he directed one episode); Avatar, The Last Airbender writer (he co-wrote one episode); Shrek crew. That's sixteen categories for things which can be captured in a credits list in his article and appropriate credits lists in the series articles.

Delete per nom as overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 14:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete except for the parent category which should remain as a repository for the lists. This overcategorization should be deleted for all the reasons we decided not to categorize actors this way. In general, categorizing an artist by their creations is incestuous and adds little or no utility while cluttering the article about the artist with categories. We have the opportunity here, to put an end to this with directors before it spreads. --Samuel Wantman 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simpsons directors: There are twenty some odd Simpsons directors. What category would we put them under if the directors category was deleted? -- Scorpion 07:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In all seriousness? "List of directors for The Simpsons" either as a section of "The Simpsons" article or linked by a "The Simpsons" category (I assume one already exists). As you point out under the writer, a list can be annotated to what each director handled, either by title or production number. — J Greb 08:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never understood peoples fixitation with getting categories deleted. Wikipedia is supposed to be about articles, not categories. Having a directors category helps keep the Simpsons crew category neat and organized and also, there is no Simpsons directors list. -- Scorpion 08:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually this is about the articles and keeping them user friendly. In general terms, the way the categories sit in the articles and the number there can cause people to miss the thing there looking for, if they use the cats at all. Having categories such as "Profession by Production" encourages the creation of lots of cats, adding to the problem. Moving that type of information to lists reduces the clutter in the cat section, making it more user friendly. — J Greb 19:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as pointless as, say, categorising people who've guest voiced in at least one episode... Lugnuts 10:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Upmerge, turn them into lists, and make sure that the articles are at least in Category:Television writers or Category:Television writers by country. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Duribald 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Upmerge The cats need to go as overcating, but, as pointed out above, the bios should still be categorized by profession. — J Greb 19:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all People often direct just the odd episode of a series. If we keep any of these, it will be hard to stop them proliferating. Greg Grahame 13:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Again, listify if necessary. Garion96 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was listify and delete. Note List of writers of The Simpsons already exists so Category:The Simpsons writers can be deleted already. the wub "?!" 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization. Television writers can work on any number of projects in the course of their careers. It is not feasible to categorize TV writers by individual project. Writers for a particular series can be noted in the article for the series itself or in a sub-article like List of writers of The Simpsons. This nomination encompasses the parent cat and all 20 subcats. Otto4711 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and ~~Delete~~ Upmerge Given the nature of television shows overcating is a problem. Also, a list can be annotated for tenure (for head writers) and contributions. — J Greb 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: TheDJ makes a good point. The writers should still be categorized by their profession. — J Greb 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Writers will generally work on may scripts over the course of their careers. This type of categorizations will lead to unreadable category links at the bottoms of people's articles. The categories should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Listify. I'm not convinced that "overcating" is a real problem, but if consensus feels that it is and this is an example of it, the information should not be removed until it is transferred to a list. It should also be noted that Category:Doctor Who writers, like Category:Doctor Who producers below, includes writers of spin-off material as well as writers for the television programme — a list of writers for the television programme alone would lose information. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Check articles such as John Cleese, who is categorized according to performance. The category links already appear as several lines of text in most browsers. From a technical writing standpoint, the links are difficult to read and difficult to use. Now imagine the same thing for TV writers (or imagine more categories for Cleese). If such categorization is put into widespread use, then the categories for many TV writers will become unreadable.
  - Doesn't really look problematic to me — saying "too many categories" is an aesthetic judgment, and I don't think it's a real danger. But if others' aesthetic judgment disagrees, I just hope that the content of the categories is listified before they are depopulated and deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete all except the top one, which should then be renamed to Category:Lists of television writers by series. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per actors, producers etc. no evidence of clutter presented and all other arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT Tim! 08:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yours boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. As for an example, I offered J. J. Abrams as an example of why these sorts of categories can contribute to clutter. If every TV and film series had one, Abrams would be categorized as: Alias writer; Alias director; Alias producer; Alias actor (he said "Joey's Pizza?" in several episodes in season 1); Alias composer; Felicity writer; Felicity director; Felicity producer; Felicity composer; Lost writer; Lost director; Lost producer; What About Brian producer; Jimmy Kimmel Live director (he directed one episode); Avatar, The Last Airbender writer (he co-wrote one episode); Shrek crew. That's sixteen categories for things which can be captured in a credits list in his article and appropriate credits lists in the series articles. Otto4711 15:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreeing with Tim!. -Duribald 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 14:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete except for the parent category which should remain as a repository for the lists. This overcategorization should be deleted for all the same reasons we decided not to categorize actors this way. In general, categorizing an artist by their creations is incestuous and adds little or no utility while cluttering the article about the artist with categories. We have to put an end to this before it spreads. --Samuel Wantman 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simpsons writers: There are seventy some odd writers with pages, many of them have pages mostly because of their Simpsons work. If the writers category was deleted, what Simpsons category would they go under? Plus, there is already a Simpsons writers list, which is very long (as it lists the episodes written by every writer) and not every writer in the list has a page. -- Scorpion 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the directors, the "List" would be under "The Simpsons" cat. As for the writers themselves, isn't the a "TV writers" cat? Seems that they would fit there. — J Greb 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a more comprehensive "List of" article is actually an argument against the category. Someone who wants to research Simpsons writers is better served by being able to review a single list article that includes all writers than by a category that includes only those writers who are otherwise sufficiently notable for articles. A list article also encourages editors to see if redlinked names are sufficiently notable to support articles. Otto4711 09:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Lugnuts 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Upmerge, turn them into lists, and make sure that the articles are at least in Category:Television writers or Category:Television writers by country. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Duribald 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is not overcategoriztion, most of the people only have pages because of the work that they did for the shows that the categories are based upon. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this nomination is essentially asking for the removal of all TV show writer categories. I'm sure there are people on Wikipedia notable for writing for a specific TV show. I'm all for the Afd nomination of individual show writer categories, but not a broad group like this. --Vossanova ^o< 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Make a list if necessary, otherwise it's overcategorization. Garion96 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Fauna of Canada. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora and fauna of Nunavut to Category:Fauna of Canada

Merge - First, categorization of flora or fauna by Canadian territory or province leads to category clutter, as some users will place widespread animals (such as the snowy owl) in every category. Second, categorizing flora and fauna together is a bad idea anyway. Since everything in the category at this moment is an animal or a list of animals, I suggest merging to Category:Fauna of Canada. Dr. Submillimeter 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Metamagician3000 05:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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: Close discussion. Per a previous CFD that recently closed, this category is already tagged as ((listify)), and will be deleted once a replacement list has been created. I don't see objections for having the list, so there is no reason to restart discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Professional voice actors work for many studios and projects over the course of their careers (see Ben Stein's voice acting credits at the Internet Moive Database, for example). Categorization by voice acting work is infeasible, as many voice actors' articles may realistically acquire 50-100 categories (and again, see Ben Stein's voice acting credits). This category for Nickelodeon voice actors as well as categories for voice actors by series and studio in general should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as untenable performer by studio categorization. Otto4711 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unworkable category. Metamagician3000 05:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a thoroughly unworkable scheme of categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 14:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous discusion re "Preformer by Broadcaster/Employer" — J Greb 18:52, 18 February 2007 (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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all into Category:Birds of Mexico. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Mexico by state

Category:Avifauna of Baja California

Category:Avifauna of Baja California Sur

Category:Avifauna of Campeche

Category:Avifauna of Chiapas

Category:Avifauna of Chihuahua

Category:Avifauna of Coahuila

Category:Avifauna of Guerrero

Category:Avifauna of Jalisco

Category:Avifauna of Michoacán

Category:Avifauna of Nayarit

Category:Avifauna of Nuevo León

Category:Avifauna of Oaxaca

Category:Avifauna of Quintana Roo

Category:Avifauna of San Luis Potosí

Category:Avifauna of Sinaloa

Category:Avifauna of Sonora

Category:Avifauna of Tabasco

Category:Avifauna of Tamaulipas

Category:Avifauna of Veracruz

Category:Avifauna of the Yucatán

Category:Avifauna of Yucatán

Merge all into Category:Birds of Mexico - Although categorization of animals by country is questionable (since animals' ranges have little to do with political boundaries), categorization of animals by Mexican state is infeasible. Most Mexican animals are found in multiple states. If the appropriate categories were added to animals' articles, the categories would quickly become an unusable mass of wikilinks. Given that the categorization system plainly is not practical, the entire category tree should be merged into Category:Birds of Mexico. (Also note the related debates on categorization by U.S. state from 2007 January 31 (where a similar category tree was deleted) and 2007 February 10.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge allper nom. LukeHoC 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - Besides, what other "avifauna" are there besides "birds"? - Parsa 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge allBluap 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom, birds are wide-ranging, it does not make sense to categorize them by political boundaries. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all into Category:Fauna of Mexico. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Mexico by state

Category:Fauna of Baja California

Category:Fauna of Baja California Sur

Category:Fauna of Campeche

Category:Fauna of Chiapas

Category:Fauna of Chihuahua

Category:Fauna of Coahuila

Category:Fauna of Durango

Category:Fauna of Guerrero

Category:Fauna of Hidalgo

Category:Fauna of Jalisco

Category:Fauna of Michoacán

Category:Fauna of Nayarit

Category:Fauna of Nuevo León

Category:Fauna of Oaxaca

Category:Fauna of Puebla

Category:Fauna of Quintana Roo

Category:Fauna of San Luis Potosí

Category:Fauna of Sinaloa

Category:Fauna of Sonora

Category:Fauna of Tabasco

Category:Fauna of Tamaulipas

Category:Fauna of Veracruz

Category:Fauna of the Yucatán

Category:Fauna of Yucatán

Category:Fauna of Zacatecas

Merge all into Category:Fauna of Mexico - Although categorization of animals by country is questionable (since animals' ranges have little to do with political boundaries), categorization of animals by Mexican state is infeasible. Most Mexican animals are found in multiple states, as seen in jaguar. If the appropriate categories were added to animals' articles, the categories would quickly become an unusable mass of wikilinks. Given that the categorization system plainly is not practical, the entire category tree should be merged into Category:Fauna of Mexico. (Also note the related debates on categorization by U.S. state from 2007 January 31 (where a similar category tree was deleted) and 2007 February 10.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Dr.S' reasoning above. It doesn't make much sense to subdivide by state when there is so much overlap of Fauna between states. Dugwiki 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge allBluap 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all into Category:Fauna of Canada. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Alberta

Category:Fauna of British Columbia

Category:Fauna of Manitoba

Category:Fauna of New Brunswick

Category:Fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Fauna of Northwest Territories

Category:Fauna of Nova Scotia

Category:Fauna of Ontario

Category:Fauna of Prince Edward Island

Category:Fauna of Quebec

Category:Fauna of Saskatchewan

Category:Fauna of Yukon

Merge all into Category:Fauna of Canada - Although categorization of animals by country is questionable (since animals' ranges have little to do with political boundaries), categorization of animals by Canadian province or territory is infeasible. Many North American animals are found in multiple Canadian provinces, and some (such as the ubiquitous red fox and the amazing moose) are found in almost every Canadian province and territory. These two animals as well as others could easily be placed into almost all of the above categories, creating category clutter problems. Given that the categorization system plainly is not practical, the entire category tree should be merged into Category:Fauna of Canada. (Also note the related debates on categorization by U.S. state from 2007 January 31 (where a similar category tree was deleted) and 2007 February 10.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Same reasoning as States of Mexico above Dugwiki 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom. Maps are the best way to cover animal ranges at this level of detail. LukeHoC 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all into Category:Birds of Canada. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avifauna of Canada by province

Category:Avifauna of Alberta

Category:Avifauna of British Columbia

Category:Avifauna of Manitoba

Category:Avifauna of New Brunswick

Category:Avifauna of Newfoundland and Labrador

Category:Avifauna of Northwest Territories

Category:Avifauna of Nova Scotia

Category:Avifauna of Nunavut

Category:Avifauna of Ontario

Category:Avifauna of Prince Edward Island

Category:Avifauna of Quebec

Category:Avifauna of Saskatchewan

Category:Avifauna of Yukon

Merge all into Category:Birds of Canada - Although categorization of animals by country is questionable (since animals' ranges have little to do with political boundaries), categorization of animals by Canadian province or territory is infeasible. Many North American animals are found in multiple Canadian provinces, and some (such as the Great Northern Diver and the Snowy Owl) are found in almost every Canadian province and territory. These two animals as well as others could easily be placed into almost all of the above categories, creating category clutter problems. Given that the categorization system plainly is not practical, the entire category tree should be merged into Category:Fauna of Canada. (Also note the related debates on categorization by U.S. state from 2007 January 31 (where a similar category tree was deleted) and 2007 February 10.)Dr. Submillimeter 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Same reasoning as the other fauna categories above Dugwiki 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Birds are wide ranging, it does not make sense to categorize them by political boundaries. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as categorization by name. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the fact that things that share names often have little else in common, this is a silly category title. Dr. Submillimeter 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As it stands now, "and other Things" is too broad and unclear. Apart from that I am not opposed to the concept, as I can't picture the Opium War and the Egg War would be overwhelmed with category types. Bbagot 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename to Category:Military conflicts named after objects, so that battles can be included (omitting "and other things" per Dr. S); I think that the adjective "military" is needed, because "conflicts" could be taken to inclde all sorts of civil commotions and disputes. Otherwise delete, because this is a bit trivial and it might be better to just listify it. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, because categorization by name -- especially "named after things" -- is a trivial feature, adds to category clutter, is not helpful to anybody that I can imagine, and if and when it is ever helpful it would almost certainly be better handled by a list. --lquilter 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listify per BrownHairedGirl. Neonblak 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely not a defining characteristic, and members have no meaningful relationship You might just as as well have Category:Wars that started on a Tuesday or Category:Military conflicts whose name rhymes with "indulge". Also, the inclusion criteria are a bit vague. Two is a number, and a number is a thing, so we should include WWII? And even if we get rid of "and other things", a huge numbers of wars and military conflicts are named after their location (Crimean war, Battle of Hastings), and a location could be considered an object. For that matter, so might participants: Mexico and America are (large) objects, so should we include the Mexican-American War? What about the Boer War? (I could argue either side on that last.) For these reasons, plus the fact that this smacks of original research, I'm mildly opposed to making it a list unless someone can provide cites showing that this is a recognized concept. Xtifr _tälk 21:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a bit too silly to even listify IMO - Parsa 23:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirely too silly. Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too arbitrary. Metamagician3000 05:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Categories of how things are named are icky. And isn't "World" a thing? --Vossanova ^o< 19:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or make into a list - I agree with BrownHairedGirl's suggestion. — AnnaKucsma (Talk to me!) 17:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I started the category, and also agree with BrownHairedGirl's suggestion. My desire was to provide a place for military conflicts with strange names; it seems like a useful way to provide users with access to wars that are outside the mainstream of common name usage. I'll keep an eye on this space and can make the change over the next few days, unless the community votes to delete. EricRodenbeck 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitary and pointless - just a game for a rainy day. Greg Grahame 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Appleby College alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Appleby College alumni, convention of Category:People by educational institution in Canada. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Lesnail 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Absolutely Corpx 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Metamagician3000 05:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was split. the wub "?!" 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of Regent's Park College, Oxford to Category:Alumni of Regent's Park College, Oxford

Nominator's Rationale: Split existing category into two / Rename, This suggestion is linked with the following one. The other Oxford Colleges have separate categories for Alumni and Fellows (see Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford and Category:Fellows of Colleges of the University of Oxford), whereas Regent's Park has only one for Members. Whilst the numbers in each new category would be small, it would be more consistent to have two. Whether this is best done by creating two new categories or creating one and renaming this, I don't know and would welcome suggestions if approved. This suggestion had already been left for discussion on the talk page of Regent's Park College, Oxford before I realised that CFD existed! Bencherlite 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Create alumini and fellows categories and populate accordingly; this one is too vague, and renaming it will only cause some articles to be miscategorised. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was split. the wub "?!" 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Members of Regent's Park College, Oxford to Category:Fellows of Regent's Park College, Oxford

Nominator's Rationale: Split existing category into two / Rename, As above. Bencherlite 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Create alumini and fellows categories and populate accordingly; this one is too vague, and renaming it will only cause some articles to be miscategorised. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many management personnel in professional sports are former professional players. Being a "player-manager" is therefore trivial. This category, however, does contribute to category clutter; see, for example, Joe Torre and Frank Robinson. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I think the nominator does not know what a player-manager is. A player-manager is one who simultaneously plays for and manages a team. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Twas Now. Player-managers are relatively rare (Pete Rose being the last one, 22 years ago) Neier 13:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so long as the category is restricted to people who played and managed at the same time. Otto4711 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and redefine per Otto4711. Do all 207 articles currently in this category really meet this definition? If so, it's not as rare a phenomenon as Neier suggests, which is why I say "weak keep", because I wonder whether it can be used properly. (Who is going to maintain it?) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Twas Now. This is quite uncommon these days, and it's a non-trivial thing that all of these men have in common. Coemgenus 18:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the person who suggested deleting doesn't know what a player-manager is.Kinston eagle 19:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawl of nomination - I did not understand that this meant playing and managing simultaneously, which I agree is notable. I suggest adding a definition to the top of the category (with a link to player-manager) so that people understand. Dr. Submillimeter 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the creator of this category, I am open to suggestion. As you can see, there are quite a few player-managers, mostly pre-1930. Since 1970, there has only been 4. I will add the definition you suggested. Neonblak 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - By Rare, I meant presently. At any rate, I think this may be one case where a list of MLB player-managers would trump the need for a category. The list would be able to emphasize the waning popularity of player-managers in a way the category cannot. The list would also not be difficult to maintain, and a link in the See also section of each of the 207 current articles would not be so overwhelming either. Neier 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per twas --Djsasso 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant and informative category. TonyTheTiger 21:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think further "votes" are needed as withdrawal was before any asked to delete. But I'll record a view anyway. Metamagician3000 05:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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: Close discussion. This category is already tagged with ((listify)) from the previous CFD that closed a few days ago. The decision there was to rename, listify and eventually delete. We can continue to debate this here, but it seems that deletion review is the correct forum. I can't talk for anyone else, but I don't want to spend most of my time at Wikipedia discussing the same categories over and over. Let's stick to the process. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is categorization based on movie roles. Such categorization is infeasible, as film actors appear in tens or hundreds of films during their careers. George Kennedy and Leslie Nielsen, both of whom are in this category, are good examples. This could lead to highly active actors being placed in tens or hundreds of such categories. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with nomination. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and listify, as with other such cast members categories, to avoid category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally disagree with the nomination, and this is for a film series, not a single film. Mr. Stabs 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The series is only comprised of three films. This is hardly a series. Dr. Submillimeter 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How are three films not a series? Surely anything of more than one part is a series, by definition. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above -- as a film series that is part of American culture, I see nothing wrong with the category. It would be similar to an "Actors who appeared on Dr. Who" category. (Note: I have no knowledge if such a category for Dr. Who exists, only that with a strong cult following and having passed the test of time for popularity that it would not be out of bounds.) 66.75.8.138 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Categorizing actors by the film or film series in which they appear is madness. Otto4711 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Naked Gun casts are well-covered in wikipedia articles on Naked Gun, and the automatically-generated alphabetical cast listing created by this category adds no value over and beyond the existing articles. --lquilter 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm opposed to categories for cast lists of single films, but I'm a little more lenient for cast lists involving a series of multiple films and television spin-offs. The reason I might be willing to give franchises more leeway is because there isn't necessarily a good main article to use to look up the combined cast lists for the franchise. A reader interested in this material probably would have to peruse multiple articles. So I'm still undecided in general on when to keep or delete cast lists for franchises. I can see a practical reason from the reader's perspective for a category like this, but depending on the situation there still might be problems with doing things this way. Just some things to consider. Dugwiki 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That depends on the view of how categories should be used. In a case like this, a category such as Category:Police Squad could hold the television show, the three movies, and any relevant lists to large to be part of those articles. The casts lists would be there, all be it in 4 parts. Both systems have a down side. The franchise cat would result in the reader having to open 4 articles to compare lists while the actor cat would not indicate if an actor appeared in one place or all four. The franchise cat system seems to already be in place for most situations like this (Buffy, Star Trek, Law & Order, Doctor Who, etc). — J Greb 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not create a list for the franchise, and transclude individual series information? Each series article could transclude from things like: Article/cast, Article/majorguests, Article/creators (for directors, writers, producers, and so on); then the franchise article could gather and assemble transcluded content as needed: "Cast of X Franchise", "Creators of X Franchise", and so on. The only real downside I can see is whatever additional machine load comes from transclusions, but it helps keep these things modular and avoid having to edit multiple things in multiple places. --lquilter 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'm following you. I know that Templates transclude, are you saying the same can be done with an article? Or are you suggesting the creation the lists as templates? — J Greb 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LukeHoC 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — useful navigational tool, especially for a series (which this is). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would a navigation template not work in this case? Vegaswikian 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What sort of template did you have in mind? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all well known film and television series cast categories. Tim! 08:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:58, 17 February 2007 (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 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: Close discussion. This category is already tagged with ((listify)) from the previous CFD that closed a few days ago. The decision there was to rename, listify and eventually delete. We can continue to debate this here, but it seems that deletion review is the correct forum. I can't talk for anyone else, but I don't want to spend most of my time at Wikipedia discussing the same categories over and over. Let's stick to the process. -- Samuel Wantman 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the categorization of people by movie role. Actors may work on tens or hundreds of movies during their lifetimes. Categories for each movie appearance are not feasible, as it will overwhelm the category lists on individual actors' articles. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − YEAAARRRGH!! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr S. This is aleady listified in the articles on the films. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
Keep for film series Mr. Stabs 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otto4711 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Shrek cast is well-covered in wikipedia, and the automatically-generated alphabetical cast listing created by this category adds no value over and beyond the existing articles. --lquilter 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with The Naked Gun cfd above, I'm against categories for cast lists of single films, but for combined franchises I'm still undecided. See my comments in The Naked Gun cfd. Dugwiki 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 21:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful navigational tool, especially for series; note that articles for each of the three films will not have (for example) John Lithgow and Antonio Banderas on the same page, as the category does. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all well known film and television series casts as categories. Tim! 08:06, 17 February 2007 (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 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. Vegaswikian 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete newly created category that is redundant to other categories and essentially a recreation of previous broad soap opera character categories. Probably qualifies for speedy delete as recreation. Title is also unclear. Only people who regularly refer to daytime television or soap operas as simply "daytime" will get it. Wryspy 10:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a less clear title for soap opera characters. The category does not qualify for speedy deletion as, according to the "what links here" links, it has never been discussed on this page. Nonetheless, the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with nomination. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad, and unclear Bbagot 15:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otto4711 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — poorly named category, redundant with existing Category:Soap opera characters. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly broad, unclear in scope, and redundant. --Xdamr^talk 14:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see EJBanks, LedgerJoker and Soap Opera characters. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly broad overcatergorization. — J Greb 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Native fauna of Hawaii to Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - This is a category for animals found exclusively within Hawaii, which may be described more accurately using the term "endemic" rather than "native" (which only implies that the animals naturally occur in Hawaii). The word "endemic" is used in many wildlife and biology books, including my book on Hawaiian birds by the Hawaiian Audubon Society. The word should also be used here for precisison. Dr. Submillimeter 10:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming but Category:Fauna endemic to Hawaii is another possibility. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii is more standard than Category:Fauna endemic to Hawaii. See for example: List of endemic fauna of Puerto Rico. Lesnail 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Endemic fauna of Madagascar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fauna of Madagascar to Category:Endemic fauna of Madagascar

Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Madagascar is an island that contains many species not found elsewhere on Earth. This category could be very useful if it is used only for the endemic animals (i.e. animals found only in Madagascar). The category should be renamed to exclude non-native or widespread animals. Otherwise, the category may be used along with other "fauna by country" categories to list every location where a widespread species is found, as is happening with some articles (see jaguar, leopard, boar, and Eurasian lynx for examples). Dr. Submillimeter 10:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming but Category:Fauna endemic to Madagascar is another possibility. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Lesnail 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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: Close discussion. This category is already tagged with ((listify)) from the previous CFD that closed a few days ago, as are Category:Battlestar Galactica (1978) cast members and Category:Battlestar Galactica (2004) cast members. The decision there was to rename, listify and eventually delete. When the three tagged categories are replaced with what I suspect will be two lists, all three can be removed, and there'll be no need for the fourth. -- Samuel Wantman 11:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Formerly titled "cast and crew", this was a deprecated category renamed confusingly following another CfD. This nomination of an empty category is for cleanup purposes. BlueSquadronRaven 09:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with nomination. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Otto4711 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --lquilter 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete this or delete Category:Battlestar Galactica actors and transfer its contents to Category:Battlestar Galactica cast members. Note that Category:Battlestar Galactica actors now contains Category:Battlestar Galactica (1978) cast members and Category:Battlestar Galactica (2004) cast members. An argument could be made that Category:Battlestar Galactica cast members is a better parent category for those two cats than Category:Battlestar Galactica actors — but I don't feel strongly about it. Whichever way you go, having both "actors" and "cast members" is redundant, and one should be deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on information from Josiah Rowe and previous discussions, Listify the information either in the main article or, more appropriately in this case, as a separate article. Once this is done, Delete all four categories. Use the "Listify" template if necessary. — J Greb 18:48, 18 February 2007 (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 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. Vegaswikian 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the subcats of this category have been put up for deletion (by me, but still). Categorizing people by what degree they have earned or been awarded is untenable. Otto4711 08:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A little too nitpicky in my opinion Corpx 08:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with all subcats. Educational qualifications are not a defining attribute, and are too widely held to make for useful categories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Glad you took this one on; I was just reflecting the other day how utterly useless "by degree" cats are. --lquilter 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unworkable. Metamagician3000 02:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no indication that holding a First Class Honours degree is so notable that it warrants a category. Otto4711 08:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also nitpicky Corpx 08:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a variant on categorization by awards and honors that probably is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: educational qualifications are not a defining attribute, and are too widely held to make for useful categories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all of the above reasons Bbagot 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unworkable. Far too widely held for us to use it properly. Metamagician3000 05:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar to Category:Honorary doctoral degree holders this is not anything approaching a defining characteristic. Otto4711 08:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I passed on nominating this for deletion a while ago. However, upon further reflection, it should probably be deleted. Many of the professional researchers and other professionals in Wikipedia have advanced degrees. Categorizing people by their advanced degrees would not be useful, as would end up being redundant with corresponding profession categories. (For example, most people in Category:Astronomers hold doctoral degrees, so simultaneously listing them in a category for people with astronomy doctoral degrees is redundant.) This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike astronomers, many people in religious fields do not have doctorates. It is a defining characteristic, not a redundancy. Bbagot 15:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr S. Educational qualifications are not a defining attribute, and are too widely held to make for useful categories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not workable. Metamagician3000 05:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bbagot. Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may be unusual for people in religious fields to have a doctorate but this doesn't seem a sufficient justification for a category. roundhouse 16:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Annandale 01:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - colleges and universities routinely award honorary doctorates to a wide variety of people. In many instances, "honorary doctorate" equals "invited to speak at graduation." This is a minor award and does not warrant a category. Otto4711 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another subcategory of Category:Awards that go to people who win many awards anyway. Like many other awards and honors, it says little about the individuals' accomplishments while adding clutter to the people's articles (as seen in Isaac Asimov, for example). The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr S and Otto4711. This is another product of Wikipedia:Wikiproject categorise artcles in as many categories as possible, so that the category box at the bottom of an article ends up impressively big, even if the most of the categories are useless. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
Keep Woe, nelly! We seem to be getting a bit attacking, not assuming good faith. While I do not know the reasons for all awards of this type, from the research I have done it DOES seem such degrees ARE notable and important, and a reasonable and helpful way to cat bio articles, to compare and contrast important people. Thanks. Pastorwayne 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please read WP:AGF before you refer to assuming good faith. It specifically says that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". There is plenty of evidence that some editors (mercifully very few, but including the creator of this category) have created large numbers of largely useless categories.
  Rather than simply asserting that honorary degees are a "reasonable and helpful way to cat bio articles", please explain why you believe that to be the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These are handed out like confetti to famous people who are willing to engage in a little mutual flattery with academics. LukeHoC 19:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and LukeHoC. Not just famous people, but also donors. Not remotely defining for 99.9% of people who receive them. --lquilter 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unworkable and meaningless. This one is worse than the others, given the nature of an honorary doctorate. Metamagician3000 02:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and deplore. roundhouse 17:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 13:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination says colleges and universities routinely award honorary doctorates to a wide variety of people. In many instances, "honorary doctorate" equals "invited to speak at graduation." I also do not always agree with the rationale for awarding these degrees in the first place, however I may not agree with the reasons people choose for selecting politicians to represent them either, yet I doubt people would dispute the validity of Category:UK MPs 2001-2005 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This category should not be deleted, but split into one per institution, this would mean that the reader who notices that Joe Bloggs received an honoury degree from Metropolis University to notice that John Doe had also received one from the same institution
Delete Splitting by institution is a terrible idea as some people would end up in a dozen of them. Greg Grahame 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Pontifical College Josephinum alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Pontifical College Josephinum alumni, to match Pontifical College Josephinum. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. —BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Metamagician3000 05:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, single item category, not expecting it to grow. -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically no chance of any other articles here. SubSeven 10:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Turgidson 17:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The fluid structure of the game seesm likly to preserve us from the usual slew of several thousand articles about each character, each object in the same, and how the chacters feel if they drink too much on the third monday of a month with the letter L in it. Thanks be to G_d :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Doctor Who producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:EastEnders producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Firefly (TV series) producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Torchwood producers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all Parent along with sub-categories amounts to over categorization. Since the television show infobox allows for produces to be listed in addition to executive producers, the information is better served there and links to the show(s) in the bios. J Greb 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Cast and crew categories are falling into disfavor because any particular actor or crew person can work on any number of projects in the course of a career. Link appropriate articles within the show article and delete the categories. Otto4711 06:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Producer categories are even less likely to cause "category clutter" than actor categories; these are a useful navigational tool, especially for long-running programmes like Doctor Who or EastEnders for which it would be impractical to list every producer in the infobox on the show's page. It's also worth noting that Category:Doctor Who producers includes not only producers of the television series, but also producers of the related audio drama series, who would be inappropriate to add to the TV series' infobox. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with the idea that producers can't be listed in the infobox, producers can certainly be listed within the article itself, and if there are so very many producers that including them in the main article becomes cumbersome they can be split into a subcat. Otto4711 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A subcat? Do you mean a subpage? Because these categories are already subcats of parent categories about each program. (And while it would be possible to list the producers of Doctor Who in the infobox, there are at least 22 to date, which makes it impractical.)—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did mean subpage, although I'm rather intoxicated at the moment so I may be misremembering my intent. Drunk r sober i don't see the need for this category when a list woukd serve as well or better. Otto4711 07:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point with the Doctor Who cat, but that should be put forward as an exceptional circumstance. At this point however, there is not a guideline for for how long or short the info box should be. The 'box is present on the show page, the slot is there for the producers, the cats are redundant, and they can, and in some cases do, generate excess material in the category section of articles. — J Greb 07:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Side note: Looking at the Doctor Who 'box, it includes links to actor lists, one for Doctors and one for Companions. The same is viable for Producers, writers, directors, etc.) — J Greb 07:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all per Josiah Rowe. Tim! 07:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, is there any categorization that you're not in favor of keeping? Otto4711 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned you about trolling before. Tim! 07:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whatever Tim, your "warning" about trolling was in a series of nominations in which you posted identical material in multiple discussions. When I posted a question to you in several noms where you had posted word-for-word comments, you accused me of "trolling." Your accusation was crap then and it's crap now, and it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Otto4711 07:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, you've just admitted that you're drunk — maybe you should wait until you're sober before posting? Posting while drunk does tend to make WP:CIVIL violations rather more likely. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, neither does you question of him. If he wishes to show support with only the comment of "Like that editor", that's his choice. It's also his right to turn out only to support/protect those cats he fells strongly about. He is not obliged to pop in to condemn if he doesn't want to. — J Greb 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lest this nom turn into a "Drunk Otto vs. Tim" debacle, I officially withdraw my comments regarding Tim's desire to keep articles and categories. However, his accusations of "trolling" remain crap. Otto4711 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Producers, like actors, work on many projects over the course of their careers. Categorizing them according to every project would lead to a category list that is too large to use effectively. The producers' projects should be listed in their articles, and the producers for these series should be listed in the articles on the series. The categories, however, should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Buffy cast and crew category should not have been changed to start with, as there was only a decision to change categories named "actors" to "cast". -Duribald 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Josiah Rowe's comments. Mr. Stabs 14:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actors by performance and indeed any individual by institutional affiliation or employment adds to category clutter. --lquilter 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for single series - undecided for franchises The central question for me would be whether or not the main article can serve the same navigational function as the category for the reader. Usually the cast and crew list for a film or series can be included in the main article, or an easily found subarticle. The only exception might be franchises like Doctor Who which cover multiple shows and multiple articles. So my recommendation is for the single series like Firefly above to include the producer's list in the main article (or a "cast and crew list" subarticle). On franchises I'll defer making a suggestion for now. Dugwiki 17:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Josiah. They all have a purpose and could easily be useful without getting in anyone's way -- though I do think it's a bit silly to have a Sarah Jane Adventures one already - (it's had one bloody episode so far) - I don't think it needs to be removed now that we have it. Conversely, a show as long-running and with as much producer-induced variance as Doctor Who would be incredibly unwieldy to cram into infoboxes. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per arguments above. Categorising producers-by-series suffers just the same problems as with actors and crew.

Xdamr^talk 14:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gungadin 22:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is either categorizing by performance or by employer and in either case it's not helpful, and not defining on a category-wide basis. --lquilter 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too unpractical to use. Garion96 (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is a useful category. My bottom line for categories is that they should be useful and studied. This seems neither. The producers should be linked from the page about the show, which is far more useful. Categorizing a producer with another because they worked on the same subject in a different media seems like a very big stretch. It is like categorizing directors together who all remade the same film. I don't see these being worthy of categories. -- Samuel Wantman 01:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Tim! 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Alpha Gamma Rho brothers, convention of Category:North-American Interfraternity Conference. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All information was moved to the Category:Brothers of Alpha Gamma Rho please transfer the jostpry log and delete the old log. All links to other articles have been updated. Jzwei 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:United States history timelines. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Timelines of the history of the United States to Category:United States history timelines

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to one or the other, as their purpose is the same. Most other sub-cats in the timelines cat are "Foo timelines", so I'm leaning that way. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge items in "TothotUS" to the more cogent and compact "USht", then delete TothotUS. --Blainster 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. While there was more opposition here, the decision is clear when taken in context with the parent and siblings. Vegaswikian 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overcategorization. Lklzs 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolindigo 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak rename to Category:People who did not graduate from high school. The only reason I suggest this is because of the existence of Category:People by educational degree. If the parent cat and its sub-cats were deleted then I would support deletion of the dropouts cat. But if categorizing by degree is desirable then high schol dropouts is a legitimate sub-cat. If they were nominated I would be in favor of deleting all degree-related categories. Otto4711 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Delete per nom. I have nominated most of the subcats for deletion and there is no justification for this cat. Otto4711 08:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-defining characteristic, and category name is specific to the United States. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems like a defining informational category Bbagot 15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorting people by their educational level does not seem appropriate. Besides, this category is U.S.-centric. Dr. Submillimeter 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This information can be very useful in many ways. NorthernThunder 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, as negative category (it's effectively "people who didn't finish high school"). We don't categorize people by what they didn't do! Furthermore, for the vast majority of people on in the cat (and, I suspect, the thousands more who could be added), their educational status is basically irrelevant to anything. Being a high-school dropout generally has no impact on the career of an actor or musician, so this is definitely not a defining characteristic. Xtifr _tälk 22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unworkable. Metamagician3000 05:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Wimstead 13:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep many people have gone on to be highly sucessful, despite lacking a high school education. this is not common knowledege. good to be able to figure out who is a dropout! a list-worthy page if not a category. better yet, rename it to ppl who didnt finish high school Cannibalicious!
Strong delete Wikipedia is not here to boost the morale of high school drops outs. Also, as stated, the concept is somewhat U.S. centric. Greg Grahame 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category gives interesting information to the reader, and I don't see any reason to delete it. Tomer T 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overcategorization. Garion96 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and ((category redirect)) per nominator. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Temples in India, manmade structures are always "in". The text should be reviewed and adapted into a list article, if possible. -- Prove It ^(talk) 03:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Bbagot 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support In would bet the better word choice Corpx 17:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the much better populated Category:Hindu temples in India unless there are some articles about non-Hindu temples in India. LukeHoC 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to be consistent with other categories in Category:Places of worship in India. However, the current page is malnamed as a category. It is a list. Listify by changing page name and make sure entries are in category. TonyTheTiger 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Hindu temples in India.Baka man 03:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Temples in India, which does contain categories for non-Hindu temples. Greg Grahame 13:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tomer T 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Firstly, a similar category, CTD:Manifestations of God was deleted on January 4. Secondly the term prophets is incorrectly used; in Baha'i terminology, what others usually call prophets are called Manifestations of God, when they are major. Thirdly, there is no authoritative list of people who are considered prophets in Baha'i literature, so many of the people who are in the list is OR. Jeff3000 02:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above, with particular emphasis on this being OR. MARussellPESE 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Perhaps this would be better contained on the page for the Bahai religion instead of needing a special category. Bbagot 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to nominate this also. There is no definitive list of who is a "Prophet" in Baha'i scripture. The Baha'i writings mention a few persons as specifically being "Manifestations of God". However, there could be thousands of "prophets" if the Islamic hadith are sourced. Also, simply because a person is not mentioned as being a prophet, does not mean they were not one. I know of Baha'is who believe White Buffalo Calf Woman was a prophet of God. How should I know one way or the other? The category list is one person's OR. - Parsa 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 05:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The manifestations of god article talks about prophets other than the manifestations of god and calls them minor prophets thus keep --67.65.196.121 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and also concerning your comment "there is no authoritative list of people who are considered prophets in Baha'i literature, so many of the people who are in the list is OR" that is false there are a few people who's status as a prophet is disputed also the quran is accepted by Bahá'í and also all the prophets of it--Java7837 22:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your argument is a synthesis which is also original research and not allowed. -- Jeff3000 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certian people that are universally recognized by Baha'is as Prophets and they should be included here. The list we have now however is ridiculous. Was was Jesus of divine mercy there? Zazaban 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to this universally recognized list of prophets by Baha'is in some reliable source? As it is the category is OR. -- Jeff3000 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there was a list, but that there are certian people Baha'is universally regard as Prophets. Zazaban 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source that these people are universally accepted by Baha'is to be prophets. -- Jeff3000 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems very unnecessary. There are only two Prophets in the Baha'i Faith, and tagging the other articles such as Jesus and Muhammad seems silly. Cuñado - Talk 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Withdraw and renominate. --Stratadrake 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Feudal Japan computer and video games to Category:Computer and video games set in Feudal Japan

Nominator's Rationale: Maybe I'm reading this too literally, but the current phrasing should not be interpreted in the same way as titles like "Australian computer and video games" or "American computer and video games" -- after all, there were no video or computer games produced by feudal Japan. Stratadrake 01:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawing the nomination. There is a mass rename nomination pending to decide whether to rename all "computer and video game" categories. If that nomination is passed with a rename result, this category should then be offered for rename under the new accepted naming criterion. Otto4711 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. That is a bizarre mistake. Cosmetor 07:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawing. It will now be named Category:Feudal Japan video games."--Mike Selinker 11:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right then (I wasn't paying much attention to previous CFD discussion), re-nominating here. --Stratadrake 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy to Category:Repubbliche Marinare

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The phrase "of Italy" is inaccurate, and potentially POV. Some of the Repubbliche were entirely outside the boundaries of modern Italy, and there was no singular Italy during the time the Repubbliche existed. The Italian form of the name is indication enough that these city-states were Italian in character, if not entirely in population. Αργυριου (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested redirect Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy to Category:Maritime republics. The phrase "of Italy" is innaccurate, but I don't know see why the category itself is in Italian either. An English cat already exists, which would be much clearer, and less POV. --Thewanderer 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad redirect, but "Maritime Republics" should then also be renamed "Italian Maritime Republics", or "Maritime Republics of Italy", as being culturally and politically Italian is another common bond between the republics. Αργυριου (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need. A Google search [1] shows that Maritime Republics are understood in English to singularly refer to the "Repubbliche Marinare" (which can be linked to on the category page). The addition of "Italian" is misleading, as it is an overly modern conception (the issue is much more complicated because Italy did not exist as a state at the time). --Thewanderer 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this a little more, I agree with Thewanderer that Category:Maritime Republics is an acceptable renaming of Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy. Αργυριου (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it, I'd like to consolidate Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy and Category:Maritime republics (small 'r') into Category:Maritime Republics (capital 'R'), using the capital R as "Republics" is part of the name. Any objection? Αργυριου (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per closing comments of the CFD for Actors by series, cast member categories may be deleted with a suitable cast list in place. The cast list in the article along with the article List of characters from Alias should be sufficient to answer any concerns regarding preserving the information. Otto4711 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a list is not a replacement for a category and does not reflect the self-referential nature of a category. Also it is not linked from each article. Tim! 07:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also favour a Speedy keep blatantly disruptive nomination per from Otto: "Let the Festival of Cast Category Deletions begin!". Tim! 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- With all due respect, this is yet another bullshit accusation from you, Tim. The "actors" to "cast" argument was long and drawn-out and the "festival" comment was intended as a joke commenting on the length of the process and the likelihood that large numbers of the cast categories would be nominated as soon as suitable cast lists were in place. As for this having just been renamed, I already linked to the previous AFD in my nomination and pointed to it as justification for the nomination. The rename closure of the previous AFD stated in plain language "I am closing this as rename all (to "cast" rather than "actors"), and I am willing to delete any category on this list after a suitable list has been created and several interested people agree that this is a suitable alternative." This nomination is entirely within the letter and the spirit of that decision and your calling it disruption amounts to a POV-pushing lie and a failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 19:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Question Could you clarify in plain English the following: "the self-referential nature of a category". That almost reads as the category is better because the category contains itself... — J Greb 07:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this was explained in WP:CAT but I can't find it now. Basically a category is a self-reference in an article as it informs the reader there are other topics on wikipedia about the same subject, i.e. Flag of Lithuania is in Category:National flags, this tells the reader that wikipedia has articles about other national flags. Tim! 08:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to cast members in the Alias articles and the linked articles in the character list will ensure anyone interested in researching Alias cast members the ability to do so. Otto4711 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Category:Pages for deletion even admits it is a self-ref ;-) Tim! 08:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still don't quite understand what Tim! is getting at. Is it simply that category acts as a keyword tag? --lquilter 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, unless I'm misunderstanding him, it does sound like that's basically what Tim is saying. Personally I don't agree that "self-reference" is useful in this case, because a cast list with links to actor articles serves exactly the same purpose. After all, if I'm a user reading an article about a tv series, and I see that the cast list has clickable links to the actors, then obviously I now know that there are "related articles" that I can read regarding those actors. Adding a category tag to do exactly that same thing is redundant. Dugwiki 18:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can see where Tim! is coming from though, a Category implies that there are at least 2 other articles related to the one currently being viewed. I'm not sure though if it is a good fundamental principle to use to keep categories. Doing so would mean that all categories with at least three items would need to be kept save in cases of POV or consensus determined trivia. It would also invalidate concerns of redundancy, clutter, and/or usability. It wouldn't matter if an article had 5, 25, 50, or 100 categories attached, if they were NPOV and not "trivia" they would stay, even if no one could, or would use them as a navigation tool. (Apologies to Tim! if I'm reading more into his statements than I should.) — J Greb 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Will the cast list update actors/actresses who have left the show? Corpx 09:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. Otto4711 09:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to avoid category clutter; this categ is unnecessary, now that a cast list is in place. —BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this list only seems to have the main characters, there are quite a lot missing, so we should keep the category. Mr. Stabs 14:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Twighlight Zone has a self contained list of notable cast members. Perhaps the same should be done for Alias? What is it about Alias itself that warrants such a category? Bbagot 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are 99 actors listed in the category, and I know from having watched all 5 seasons of Alias that there are not 99 significant roles in the show. List of characters from Alias includes 20 major characters and an additional 28 significant guest stars or recurring characters. If you want to flesh out List_of_characters_from_Alias with single-episode villains and the like go ahead, but I see no reason to create a category, adding clutter to all the major actors, just to capture actors like Dayo Ade who had a single guest appearance on the show. --lquilter 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Alias cast is well-covered in wikipedia, and the automatically-generated alphabetical cast listing created by this category adds no value over and beyond the existing articles. --lquilter 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I try and look at these categories from the reader's perspective. Let's say I'm an Alias fan (in fact, I actually am a fan, but anyway...) and I want to read about the show and the actors in it. My first stop would be to type Alias in the search box. That calls up a disam page, and the top link is Alias (TV series). I go there, and POOF I have a cast and character list right there. Any regular cast actors I want to read more about, I click on their name. There is no need for me to go any further and use the category. Thus this category is essentially redundant with the main article itself, and by keeping it we're actually increasing the amount of editorial work needed to maintain the actors for the show (because we have to edit the actors in the main article AND change the associate category tags in their articles). Therefore the category poses no particular benefit to the reader while at the same time imposing additional maintainence cost, and should be deleted. Dugwiki 18:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LukeHoC 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please keep up the good work. Wimstead 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the "Listify" tag on the cat, since the information already exists in list form, Delete. — J Greb 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category is tagged for eventual deletion after listifying. But the list seems sufficient already, even though it has about half as many actors as the category. If someone wants to add the missing actors to the list, they can before this discussion closes. -- Samuel Wantman 11:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 16

Category:Renewers of society

Category:Mr. Irrelevant

BBC Sports awards

Category:AP NFL MVP Award winners

Category:MVP prize winners

Category:NBA's MVP prize winners

Category:Tales from the Crypt cast members

TV directors by series

TV writers by series

Category:Flora and fauna of Nunavut

Category:Nicktoons cast members

Category:Avifauna of Mexico by state

Category:Fauna of Mexico by state

Category:Fauna of Canada by province

Category:Avifauna of Canada by province

Category:Wars Named After Objects and Other Things

Category:Old Boys of Appleby College

Category:Members of Regent's Park College, Oxford

Category:Members of Regent's Park College, Oxford

Category:Baseball player-managers

Category:The Naked Gun cast members

Category:Shrek cast members

Category:Daytime characters

Category:Native fauna of Hawaii

Category:Fauna of Madagascar

Category:Battlestar Galactica cast members

Category:People by educational degree

Category:Holders of First Class Honours University degrees

Category:Religious doctoral degree holders

Category:Honorary doctoral degree holders

Category:Josephinum alumni

Category:Endless Online

Category:Television producers by series

Category:Brothers of Alpha Gamma Rho

Category:Timelines of the history of the United States

Category:High school dropouts

Category:Temples of India

Category:Bahá'í prophets

Category:Feudal Japan computer and video games

Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy

Category:Alias (TV series) cast members