< January 15	January 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 -- Drini 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another of the "villains" categories we've been questioning lately. "Villain" is POV, no standards for inclusion or definition. Otto4711 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per all the prior "villain" categories, too subjective. Is Tony Soprano a villain? Vic Mackey? Spike (Buffyverse)? They have all done reprehensible things but also have either reformed or done a number of good deeds and are protagonists on their shows (or in Spikes case, used to be an antagonist who later became a protagonist). Dugwiki 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - See my comments in the "fictional villians" discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 16:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, villains is far too subjective.--Wizardman 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all villains, heroes, and transient personal quality categories. --lquilter 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. "Villain" is often difficult to define and inherently involves POV and/or OR. Doczilla 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think we're not giving the audience enough credit. As villains are a stock character rather than a judgment on real-life individuals, I don't think this violates POV. And for the record, Tony Soprano and Vic Mackey are not villains but anti-heroes and Spike was a villain until he became good. --T smitts 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Especially POV when you consider that contemporary television has largely done away with the notion of "villains." At least in American Television of the last several decades, the trend has been to create multi-dimensional characters and introduce concepts of moral ambiguity. In such an environment, few characters if any can be confirmed "villains," or for that matter "heroes."zadignose 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I won't swing the vote, but I'll go down with the ship venting general annoyance of the villain categories getting targeted. I honestly don't feel it's that subjective. There is a general basis for what constitutes a villain, regardless of any redemptive features, and I'm sure many of these characters were created with the intention of filling in said role. Hell, many publications acknowledge the characteristics of the villain and their function in a series. In fact, I find the timing almost ironic since Entertainment Weekly recently did a feature on television villains.--Bacteria 12:37, 23 January 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 and sort. the wub "?!" 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional extraterrestrials into Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species

• Merge or perhaps Repurpose - Arising from this discussion I come to discover the two above-named categories. As they're currently being utilized they appear to be redundant. However, if "fictional extraterrestrials" is restricted to individuals and "fictional extraterrestrial species" is restricted to articles about species then both are useful. Rather than repurpose the categories unilaterally I bring the notion here. Merge the two or keep them separate with restrictions? Otto4711 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment - I think I did this backward. "extraterrestrials" is the broader category, encompassing both individuals and species. "extraterrestrial species" would exclude articles on individuals. So if the two are combined they should be reverse merged so that Category:Fictional extraterrestrials is what's left. Otto4711 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 13:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Sort my cursory examination of the categories is that they are being used for the most part the way you describe. If there are articles that appear in both, they should be sorted out. The subcats also seem to need some work. ~ BigrTex 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, it's not a particularly solid distinction, we could use "extraterrestrials" for both. >Radiant< 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Sort They could be both useful only if the individual and its species don't happen to share the same category. User:Dimadick
• Keep and Sort I aggree with User:Dimadick, both categories should be needed and sorted out because a "species" may hint as a plural category. A single alien should benefit from it's own category. Get my drift? Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:38, 2 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, and create novels category and put articles about his novels in it.--RobertG ♬ talk 09:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Novels by John Brunner, convention of Category:Novels by author. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and then Add "Novels" - bear in mind that some of these titles are not Novels "Entry to Elsewhen" and "Not Before Time" for example. They are short story collections which should be categorized as a Book. All the rest should go as Novels. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see a massive merge coming. Xiner (talk, email) 14:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Create Novels per Kevinalewis. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:39, 18 January 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 -- Drini 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Novels by Dave Stone , convention of Category:Novels by author. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somebody might also want to go through Category:Science fiction novels by author and Category:Fantasy books by author. I am not sure why their content was not included in the last mass rename. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my next list, in progress in my sandbox. Just taking a breather...<g> Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I'm sure the others will follow soon. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. If you nominate the renames you mention above I would certainly support them. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:44, 18 January 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. the wub "?!" 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish-Scots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Close to 100% OR, a POV magnet, hard to see how this could ever be encyclopedic. Guinnog 20:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment talking of "close to 100% POV" - I think you need to reread the above sentance!--Vintagekits 02:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - why would you want ot ignore the largest ethnic minority in Scotland?--Vintagekits 22:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't propose ignoring anything, but any category like this has to be verifiable (especially for living people) and none of the entries I saw were. This makes it WP:OR and so it seems like a worthless category to me. --Guinnog 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thats POV.--Vintagekits 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThats a poor agruement for deletion, more for a clean up!--Vintagekits 23:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might leave the category almost empty, which seems like a pointless category. Hence my nomination. --Guinnog 14:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nathanian 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 13:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The Irish are a significant ethnic group in Scotland and many people in Scotland are proud to be Irish-Scots.GSR05 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC) This user's first and second ever edits![reply]

• Keep and cleanup. There is no doubt whatsoever that there exists a group of people in Scotland who identify as, and who are identified by others, as Irish-Scots. Wikipedia has an article on them. We should not confuse 2 separate issues here: 1. is this a valid cat - Yes; and 2. is it correctly populated - Perhaps not. If the article lacks a reliable citation to that effect, remove it from the cat. --Mais oui! 09:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep Irish-Scots are a significant minority in Scotland]]. Disputed entries should be discussed in their own articles. User:Dimadick

• Comment tending towards Delete It needs a huge clean-up ie the entire category needs to be de-populated and only those where there is some good evidence for their conclusion included. Globaltraveller 18:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was starting to do that as it appears that most of the members of this category have been added solely on the basis of having Irish names, and then thought that as nearly all of its members need to be removed it might be easier just to delete the category. --Guinnog 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would get to work on tidying the Category up instead of deleting it.--Vintagekits 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment its one thing to add someone to a category with no evidence, but also you shouldn't remove people if you don't know for sure as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GSR05 (talk • contribs)

You may wish to read WP:BLP then. --Guinnog 19:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- POV and OR Astrotrain 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentWhat do you think is POV, the existance of the large ethnic minority in Scotland - here for further information or are you one of these type of people!?! or maybe you should read the Irish-Scots pages!--Vintagekits 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the first 30 or so and most of them looked like they were just done by picking Scottish footballers and politicians with Irish-sounding names. However I have to say there were a few interesting exceptions. I'm still not sure that when the category is cleaned out properly there will be enough to be worth keeping, but it's certainly starting to look a little more like a real category with some of the fluff cleaned out.--Guinnog 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats bull because I have added link for almost half the people you queried and also added more Irish-Scots to the category--Vintagekits 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It has obviously been the target of persistant speculative addition by POV pushers however I think it remains a valid category, although I would agree that a major purge of the unreferenced additions is required. I would also suggest a concensus is required as to who is an Irish-Scot: does someone meet the criterion for inclusion if a reference can be found to show they have Irish birth, parentage, grand-parentage or ancestry (which will result in large-scale inclusion), or must the person have publicly expressed their feeling of dual-nationality? (resulting in a much smaller category). Also, will the same level of scrutiny be applied to Category:Anglo-Scots and other such pages with numerous unreferenced additions? Caledonian Place 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are a number of people who identify themselves as Scots of Irish origin. --MacRusgail 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I finished my cleanup today. After removing all the entries where there was no evidence, the category is looking slimmer and fitter. I still don't think it is a very encyclopedic category, but if we can be vigilant and stop it from again becoming [[Category:People with Irish surnames]], I'll be happy. --Guinnog 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what kind of comment is that, stop it becoming people with Irish surnames, yes because most Irish-Scots will have surnames like Ali, Squires and Versace. It just seems as if you are on a personal crusade to deny the ancestry of particularly Irish people.User:GSR0518:42, 21 January 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 -- Drini 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mind Games (Mensa) to Category:Mensa Select winners

• Rename, since the award is called 'Mensa Select', and to match the other board game award categories Percy Snoodle 19:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No preference, however as the author of the category, I just want to state that the name of the competition is Mind Games, whereas the name of the aware is Mensa Select. "The five games that rank the highest during the Mensa Mind Games® competition receive Mensa Select® distinction." http://mindgames.us.mensa.org/samwaltz 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, since it's about Mensa Select (the winners) not Mind Games (the event). Jwolfe 20:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Jwolfe. Xiner (talk, email) 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it, no problem. Can anyone tell me how to get a 'bot to go through and change the cat name? I don't feel like delving into each of the pages' codes myself and doing it. samwaltz 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, don't do anything yet. When the nomination closes, there are bots that take care of all of the details. ~ BigrTex 15:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename what the hell, eh? samwaltz 13:49, 18 January 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. For future reference you can just put ((db-author)) on mistakenly created pages like this. the wub "?!" 17:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories:Wikiproject Oregon participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, I accidentally created category-like section from invalid link. Sorry for the trouble. —EncMstr 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the extra trouble, but the entry still exists. Note that it was not in the "Category" namespace due to a mispelled link. The template ((cfd2)) presumes "category". The correct item is Categories:Wikiproject Oregon participants. Thanks, —EncMstr 19:35, 16 January 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. the wub "?!" 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locator maps for départements of France → Category:Locator maps for departments of France

Category:Ardennes (département) → Category:Ardennes (department)

Category:Cher (département) → Category:Cher (department)

Propose renaming as above to conform to WP:UE and the main articles for these categories. --Bob 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Renames per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 04:52, 17 January 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 (note: category was empty). --RobertG ♬ talk 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lars Gyllenhaal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Eponymous singleton entry in category. TonyTheTiger 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't seem like a particularly prolific author either, so no need for category. The Rambling Man 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Bob 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --lquilter 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn underpopulated category. Doczilla 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, actually a common sense deletion here.--Wizardman 16:59, 18 January 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 -- Drini 16:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Novels by Conn Iggulden, convention of Category:Novels by author. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per ProveIt. The Rambling Man 16:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per naming convention.--Wizardman 17:02, 18 January 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. — CharlotteWebb 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as categorization by trivial characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Dugwiki 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because categories based on the names are either self-evident or too difficult to verify, and in either case better handled as a list. --lquilter 20:33, 16 January 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. Evenly split on a simple vote count. I see this debate has been unclosed for over a month, presumably because it touches on the ongoing dichotomy between supporters of the relative benefits of categories "Natives of Foo" (one was either verifiably born there or not, but need not necessarily be "readily associated with" Foo) and categories "People from Foo" or similar (one may be "readily associated with" Foo, but this association is not always straightforward, although it is sometimes unquestionable). It seems to me that both have benefits and drawbacks; has this ever been discussed centrally? Has anyone suggested that having both schemes might be beneficial? - I think of a comparison between Mozart/Salzburg with Beethoven/Bonn (unquestionably natives of…), Mozart/Vienna and Beethoven/Vienna (unquestionably people associated with…). No arguments put forward here address Oslo as a specific case. I note that the category text incongruously states "natives/residents of Oslo". --RobertG ♬ talk 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Oslo, convention of Category:People by city, for example see Category:People by city in Sweden. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Bakaman 22:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Being a "native" of somewhere is a verifiable fact, as per WP:CITE. But being "from" somewhere is a matter of opinion, breaching WP:NPOV. --Mais oui! 09:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The critiria of "native" is easy. They were born there. Who is included in the "from" categories? Anyone passing a year there? User:Dimadick
• Rename per nom. "Native" is not easy to define. Some people leave the city where they were born within days and never see it again. Wimstead 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's still easy to define. Those people who leave the city where they were born within days, and never see it again, are still natives. However, in many cases, the place of a person's birth in not particularly noteworthy, in which case those individuals should probably not be placed in such a category. How prominent it is in the person's biographical article should be a deciding factor.zadignose 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Follows convention Category:People by city. Also being born in a city may not be a factor in why an individual is notable. If you were born and lived there for 5 days, how did that fact influence anyones notability? Vegaswikian 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per arguements of Mais Oui and Zadignose. Also, from a cursory glance, Category:People by city contains both "People from" and "Native of" sub-categories - it would appear the convention is not as clear cut as is being made out. Caledonian Place 18:35, 3 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 -- Drini 04:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Expeditionary forces to Category:Expeditionary units and formations

• Rename for consistency with the other sub-categories of Category:Military units and formations by type. Not all of these were known as "expeditionary forces", so the more inclusive terminology is better here. Kirill Lokshin 13:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom NDCompuGeek 13:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 13:12, 18 January 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 -- Drini 04:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mercenary groups to Category:Mercenary units and formations

• Rename for consistency with the other sub-categories of Category:Military units and formations by type. "Group" has a fairly specific meaning in a military context; it's better to use the more inclusive terminology. Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom NDCompuGeek 13:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Nathanian 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 13:13, 18 January 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. the wub "?!" 12:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military Engineer units and formations to Category:Engineering units and formations

• Rename for consistency with everything else in Category:Military units and formations by type. That these are military is already implicit from the use of "units and formations"; and the actual units are referred to as "engineering", not "military engineering". Kirill Lokshin 13:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 13:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Engineering is not an exclusive military term, or even primarily one. Engineering units does not imply military. 70.51.8.140 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Engineering" may not imply military, but "units and formations" certainly does. (Or do you know of another context where those terms could possibly appear together?) Kirill Lokshin 14:16, 19 January 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 -- Drini 04:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Short stories by type to Category:Short stories by genre

• Rename, This is very largely a category for a collection of genres within Short Stories - and to place it in keeping with the naming style in other areas most notably "Novels by genre and "Books by genre". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 01:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, genre sounds so much better.--Wizardman 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, type is too vague --lquilter 20:48, 18 January 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 —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Postcommunist parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Category makes no sense. If anything, it is vague: I suppose it is for post-1989/1991 far left parties, but nowhere is it explicit. Judging by the title, any party that was created after the fall of communism [let me note, the fall of communism in all but three countries] would fit into the category. It also appears that the category is irrelevant: if those parties no longer describe themselves as "communist", then they should be fitted into the "socialist parties" category; if they do, then they well belong into the "communist parties" category. If indeed the category groups parties that used to be communist, that stem from communist parties but no longer follow communism, then it is POV, based on a personal assessment of their ideology [-ies] (and, in any case, the supposed goal would be easily achieved by placing those parties in both the "communist parties" category and another one to reflect the present-day ideology). Dahn 09:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Of course a definition could be included. The definition used is the most broad one, namely all political parties that were explicitly communists but ceased to be communist at some point. Not all those parties fit into 'socialist parties'. --Soman 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Soman, I could probably disregard the fact that a category along such lines would be created according to a POV ("not explicitly communist", again, is easily translatable into "socialist" - and since all communism is a form of socialism, I don't even know why we are debating this). Regardless: if you want to keep it, consider renaming to something explicit - I could fit anything anywhere in there. Dahn 10:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think this category fills a function, as it connects former communist parties to the communist party category. Take a party like the Left Party (Sweden), which was a communist party 1921-1990. It would be POV to include it in the category communist parties, but on the other hand it would be strange if their was no linkage at all to the communist parties category. --Soman 10:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Again, the cat seems utterly pointless to me: say you have an article for a party that was communist and now is, for the sake of the argument, fascist. What one does isn't to create a Category:Fascist parties that used to be communist, but include the article in two categories ("Fascist parties" and "Communist parties"). I fail to see how this is POV: I'm sure that Left Party politicians know their party used to be communist; POV is saying that they are still communists, not that the party once had a communist platform (and there is no indication of continuity in the cat - it is just an instrument for sorting, irrespective of period discussed). Dahn 10:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: In the category Communists, the definition is anyboday who at some point in their life was a communist. But concerning political parties the same principle doesn't really work. For example it would be very strange to categorize the Norwegian Labour Party in the communist parties category. The differentiation in communist parties and postcommunist parties contributes to clarification. --Soman 10:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I understood your point, but I fail to see why it would be "strange". If the party was communist for a while, it should not be a problem. Btw, in the case you cite, you have a better filter; if the party was a Comintern section (hence its communism), you have the [still mislabeled] Category:ComIntern sections to include it in instead (it also functions as a link to the "Communist parties" category). (There is a similar example in my country, but I haven't got around to writing an article on it.) Dahn 11:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Successors to Communist parties". Xiner (talk, email) 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Successors to Communist parties. Pinoakcourt 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suppose the actual meaning Soman intended was more on the lines of "Parties that used to be communist" (i.e: same party, no longer communist). The problem with "Successors to Communist parties" is that it leads the way for a POV inclusion of many parties in Eastern Europe, that are not and do not want to be considered communist (for example, the Romanian PSD was argued by many to be a successor to the Romanian Communist Party, but it denies this vehemently). If we have to keep the category, I suggest a name change to "Formerly communist parties", which is probably best suited to what Soman meant to say. Dahn 16:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever the name, such a category will serve a purpose. E.g. a Danish party split out of the Communist party, but today it is "merely" Socialist. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But, Valentinian, if it "split out of a communist party", it means that it was never communist... Dahn 07:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Political ancestry is complex and this is an ill-advised way to track it. How long will it be continued? If it continues into the future it will end up being applied to parties whose connection with communism is no more than a historical quirk. Nathanian 18:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Nathanian. Categories are not the optimal way to follow splts in political parties. It might have some immediate relevance, but as time goes, with further development of ideologies etc, this classification will become less and less relevant. A particular party's Communist heritage is best dealt with in the article itself.

Xdamr^talk 13:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Nathanian. Wimstead 22:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Xiner. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:27, 29 January 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:Types of military forces. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Types of forces to Category:Types of military forces

• Rename, to make it clear that it's for military forces and not physical forces, or any other sort of forces. Mairi 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Military forces. It seems many of the "Types of" categories are redundant. We don't call Category:Bridges Types of bridges. I could imagine making this sort of distinction if there were a huge number of articles in category XXX and only some of them were articles about types of XXX. But that isn't the case for this category. -- Samuel Wantman 08:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of military forces, per nom. Using simply Category:Military forces is unsuitable, since this category is explicitly intended only for types of forces; "military forces" can additionaly include both national militaries and specific military units, neither of which are meant to be categorized here. Kirill Lokshin 13:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (to "Types of military forces"). As Kirill mentioned, this is to differentiate the *types* of military forces, not create a list of military forces in the world (all the European military units, all the North American military units, etc.). The 'types of' prefix further defines what this category is all about, and limits the category from what it is not about. NDCompuGeek 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Kirill and ND. ~ BigrTex 15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator.zadignose 14:23, 21 January 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Currently used for fictional characters (and books), which makes it rather similar to Category:Fictional tomboys, which was previously deleted. Even if it were used for real people, I don't think we need to categorize people by gender roles. Mairi 08:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - It is recreated content. Dr. Submillimeter 09:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Kittybrewster 10:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - leads to WP:BLP problems.Bakaman 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Quickly zadignose 14:24, 21 January 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fry's Remixies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Obvious non-notable category. "Fry" (whoever he is) doesn't have his own Wikipedia, so why should there be a category? Tom Danson 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not to mention that remixes has but a single i. The Rambling Man 08:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Spam. - Kittybrewster 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There's a category for Category:Remix albums and I would imagine there should be also a category for Category:Remix songs and that that category would be broken down by artist. However right now I don't find a Category:Remixed music tree. However, this might merit further investigation before deletion. (But change "remixies" which sounds like a pleasant frothy drink into "remixes".) --lquilter 14:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:41, 16 January 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. the wub "?!" 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States National Guard bases to Category:Facilities of the United States Army National Guard

• Rename, to follow WP:MILHIST US task force naming conventions (X of Y), differentiate between Army and Air National Guard ("Facilities of the United States Air National Guard" will be a new category created, depending on this CFR). NDCompuGeek 05:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Rename to Category:Bases of the United States Army National Guard instead? Or rename per nom. I don't have a strong preference, but "facilities" just seems like such a broad and ambiguous term. Are articles being created about facilities other than bases? And if so, should they be lumped in with bases? Just askin'. Xtifr _tälk 12:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESPONSE: Yes, there are other articles being created other than just bases. For instance, Camp Grafton is the ND Army National Guard training facility, but it is a "camp" not a "base". There are other articles about "field"s, "armory"s, "depot"s, and of course "base"s. Lots of different kinds of facilities, and they all have Army National Guard in common, thus the 'master category'. Maybe later they'll be a need for further identification ("Armories of the United States Army National Guard" or the like), but for now the general category of 'Facilities' is enough. NDCompuGeek 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I see! I thought you wanted to add articles about components of particular bases, but you're talking about an upmerge to a sort-of parent category! That makes a whole lot more sense, and I apologize for woolly thinking. I've withdrawn my alternate proposal, as your suggestion is clearly best. Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:42, 16 January 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 relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 3#Category:Public accounts. the wub "?!" 12:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public accounts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - unknown what +cat means. We already have a category for Category:Accountants by nationality Octopus-Hands 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Accountants by nationality. Xiner (talk, email) 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is an important category, relating to the management and auditing of government finances: see for example Public Accounts Committee (United Kingdom). It is underused for now, but derseves to be populated rather than deleted. (note that while it overlaps with Category:Government audit, the two are not the same.--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't it be made clear what this "important category" is about? What is it supposed to contain? I can't make heads or tails of it.zadignose 14:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with other contributors that the current title of the category obfuscates its purpose. After a cursory glance, it appears to contain bodies and individuals who scrutinise public accounts. That seems to me a valid subject to want to use to categorise articles, so I suggest it be renamed to Category:Public accounts scrutineers. The closing admin may want to consider relisting this for further discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for further discussion. The category probably needs a new name. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:29, 29 January 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bones to Category:Bones (TV series)

• Rename It seems just silly to have the category Bones containing anything other than, well, bones. There are currently no mistakes such as tibia appearing in the category but if that hasn't happened many times already, it's bound to happen. The search term Bones correctly redirects to a disambiguation page and the article for the television series is Bones (TV series). And if you think it looks ridiculous now (which it probably does to anyone outside of North America), imagine how silly it looks in ten years when everyone has forgotten that this TV series ever existed... Pascal.Tesson 03:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is that a valid reason for a rename? What's the rule on disambiguating categories?Peregrine Fisher 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I don't see why we can't be proactive occasionally in seeing a likely dispute coming down the wire, and naming things correctly to begin with, rather than waiting reactively for both categories to actually be in conflict. Moreover, setting it up correctly now will, as Pascal.Tesson points out, help keep categorizers doing the right thing without being confused. --lquilter 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Bluap 04:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Agree with Iquilter that some policy should be set on naming of TV series, movies, books, etc., and possibly renaming these categories automatically. --MChew 05:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to stop femur being added. The Rambling Man 08:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It may be that this is a skeleton category, but before the different types of bones get put in here, rename it! NDCompuGeek 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if kept, rename per nom - Actually, this category seems to be an unnecessary eponymous category. It consists almost entirely of episode listings, which are already sufficiently indexed under Category:Bones episodes (a subcategory of Category:Episodes by television series). The remaining articles don't seem to require this category either. So I'd favor deletion. If kept, rename per nom, and also rename Category:Bones episodes to Category:Bones (TV series) episodes to match the spelling of the main article. Dugwiki 17:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 22:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Maybe we could make a category on actual bones someday, but this category is clearly for the show.--Wizardman 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename It's not so "clearly for the show" from the perspective of someone like me who never heard of such a TV show. I'm with Dugwiki on the suggestion that the episodes category should also be renamed to Category:Bones (TV series) episodes.zadignose 14:33, 21 January 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 upmerge. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional humanoid extraterrestrial species (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Silly. It will keep crossing over with its parent categories too. Are humanoid and human-looking the same thing? Isn't humanoid simply "bipedal". What about the alien in My Hero (TV series) who apparently has two penises, does that count? Should half the Doctor Who races go here as well as in the parent, making it hard to group? Overcatorization for the sake of needless detail. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species (which itself is misnamed since at this point all extraterrestrial species are fictional). I think "humanoid" here is meant to distinguish from bipedal lizard species like the Badoon but it's still over-categorization. Otto4711 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as any alien that can by played by a guy in a foam suit or other makeup is "humanoid" (two arms, two legs, a torso to connect them, a head on top of the arms and torso, bilateral symmetry)... perhaps it might be useful to distinguish non-humanoid, and non-Earth-similar life. (... like a Bandersnatchi ... or the Jotok ... or the Tripods ... or the Rutan Host ...) 70.51.9.11 08:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge - Kittybrewster 11:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge However, the category Category:Fictional extraterrestrial species does appear to be quite large, so somehow subdividing it by species type might be a good idea. "Humanoid" might have ambiguity problems, but what about "bipedal" instead? It might be worth thinking about ways to break this category up somehow. Dugwiki 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure we need to worry about breaking down the parent cat just yet. A cursory examination indicates that a number of the entries can be moved to one of the existing subcats (all the Marvel and Star Trek species for instance). Otto4711 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually y'all may want to see this related nomination before any diffusing of the parent cat happens. Otto4711 23:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per above. Doczilla 04:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per above. I think the logical subcats are by subject (i.e. Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, etc). ~ BigrTex 15:43, 17 January 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.