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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople to Category:Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for conformity with the article Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, which appears to be the title by which these people are best known. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; the Patriarch is ex officio "Primate" or Head of his church, so a "Primate" category is not needed. Having said that, really the far larger number of holders of this office in Category:Patriarchs of Constantinople (seems to be 111, vs 5 here - both out of a possible 280 I think) should be gathered into the renamed category, which could then be a sub-category of that, like the Armenian & Latin Patriarchs. There is also a case for using "Greek" rather than "Ecumenical" - less formally correct, but possibly clearer & commoner. At the moment this category is not even a sub-cat of Category:Patriarchs of Constantinople - a typical piece of pastorwaynery. Nom does not address the issue of the American sub-cat - are these guys Heads of a church? I suspect not. Johnbod 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think here Pastor Wayne's idea (not fully realised) is that we have 2 (at least) sorts of primate of the Greek Orthodox Church, namely Patriarchs of Constantinople and the likes of Demetrios, Archbishop of America, primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and Exarch of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (I quote). So we have an umbrella super-cat, primates of the Greek Orthodox Church (say), with 2 subcats, the American ones and the Ecumenical Patriarchs of C (say). I'm fairly sure there are Greek Orthodox churches in Africa too so there may be more exarchs. -- roundhouse 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Johnbod, I think it would be better for the new name to be the new name being Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople, which is clearer ("Ecumenical" has a different meaning in English); however the article would need to be renamed as well.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comment withdrawn per Dr S's observation about the official website for the patriarchate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Category:Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople - The corresponding article on the people is currently listed as Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and the external links listed in that article also use "Ecumenical Patriarch" as the title of the office holder. Therefore, the category should be renamed using "Ecumenical Patriarch". (A new name using "Greek Orthodox" seems unjustified given that the official website for the patriarchate uses "Ecumenical Patriarch".)Dr. Submillimeter 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match lead article, per Dr. S. I'm not an expert on the Greek church, but categories should match the name of their lead article if at all feasible. Xtifr _tälk 12:32, 6 June 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 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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mid-Continent Conference men's basketball tournament venues to Category:The Summit League men's basketball tournament venues

Nominator's rationale: "Rename", The Mid-Continent Conference has changed its name to The Summit League Fbdave 23:10, 4 June 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 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 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 debate was delete and protect --Kbdank71 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete and salt recreation. (See previous CfD.[1]) Too many characters have traveled through time for this to be a defining quality. For example, 99.99% of all superheroes have traveled through time at some point. Doczilla 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The category must be used with the restrictions explained in it, wich make sure that the characters in it will truly belong in it. You won't find Batman or Iron Man mixed in it by following such rules, only characters really related to time travel stuff.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Perón (talk • contribs)
• Speedy Delete per "Recreation of deleted material" criteria. Tarc 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that criteria applies, because this category is not equal than the deleted one. That one allowed any character that would have made any time travel. This one has more strict rules to keep only characters really related with the theme of time travel, rules that come precisely from the debate that deleted the category that had no restrictions Perón 03:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, speedy applies. It's the same category regardless of a difference in description. The poorly writtern criteria are arbitrarily chosen. Why use those as opposed to other criteria for defining time travelers? Categories get deleted for arbitrary criteria. Doczilla 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's see if I understood. First it was deleted because it did not include X and Y criteria explained in the debate, and because the lack of such criteria made the category useless because of being so generic. So, I recreate the category but making such X and Y criteria explicit. It is requested to be deleted again, because X and Y criteria are "arbitrary". But then, if they are arbitrary, why was the category deleted the first time? Perón 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some categories just don't work. There are some categories that simply cannot be defined objectively enough to allow in encyclopedic content. Read the previous CfD. We didn't just discuss the lack of criteria. We also discussed the problems inherent in trying to establish any criteria. Doczilla 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and block - Fictional characters travel through time so often that this is not a defining characteristic. The inclusion criteria written in the text of this category can always be changed later, so the category could become just like the previously-deleted category. Moreover, the inclusion criteria are not only subjectively chosen but also poorly written. This recreation does not work. Dr. Submillimeter 09:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a restriction of scope would solve the problem, as for some fictional characters, time travel *is* the defining characteristic. ie. Time Tunnel, Doctor Who, HG Well's The Time Machine. This would differ from time displacement being the key background / backstory element that introduces the setting. ie Planet of the Apes, Buck Rogers, Woody Allen's Sleeper, Rip Van Winkle. Or the insignicant TV episode with time travel in it (ie. Star Trek) 132.205.44.134 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These "restriction in scope" ideas do not work in practice. For example, no one could agree on who belonged in a "fictional characters who can produce/manipulate radiation" category, partly because of interpretation problems. Whenever the category was created, it was a mess. The category was always deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 07:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, not to hijack this nomination, but I have to object to that characterization of the radiation category. The people who were using the category had a pretty good handle on who should be in it. It was the people who commented at CFDs who kept tossing out bizarre examples like "a sheet absorbs light so it manipulates radiation." Otto4711 01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The people using the category could not distinguish between high-energy photons (such as gamma rays) and particle radiation (such as alpha particles and beta particles). I would guess that some characters worked with the whole electromagnetic spectrum. Sometimes the character descriptions were not even specific enough to determine how they emitted or manipulated "radiation". It was a mess. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as recreation, and as non-defining. Carlossuarez46 16:00, 8 June 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 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 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 debate was upmerge as per revised nom --Kbdank71 15:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anglican archbishops in Ireland to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland

revised to: upmerge to Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Ireland and to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese per discussion below --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, superfluous category. Having just created Category:Anglican Archbishops of Cashel for that defunct archdiocese, the only remaining archbishops are those or the defunct archdiocese of Tuam. If any articles are created or them in advance of a category Category:Anglican Archbishops of Tuam, they can be placed in Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical note: the Anglican archdiocese of Tuam was abolished in 1839 [2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland - It does not look like a convention has been established for these types of categories, but using "by diocese" looks appropriate here. The extra layer of categorization is certainly not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to both per revised nom. Johnbod 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge to Category:Anglican archbishops in Ireland. I don't know why we would opt for the more convoluted wording, and the two Primate articles are not a natural fit in a "by diocese" category.-choster 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Primate articles correspond to specific archbishops and can be moved into subcategories of the final category. The final category would be empty. Dr. Submillimeter 07:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland follows the naming convention of Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese, and Category:Anglican bishops by diocese. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I submit that both of those categories are also spurious, and the contents could easily be placed directly in the thinly populated Category:Anglican bishops.-choster 21:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that choster is right about upmerging, but wrong in the destination. Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland is a logical subcat of Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese. If the categories are to upmerged, it should be a dual upmerger, so I am changing my !vote to upmerge to Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Ireland and to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 7 June 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, Correct category is Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. I've put in a categoryredirect but I don't think there's a need for this at all. Marasmusine 19:48, 4 June 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 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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Spaghetti westerns to Category:Spaghetti Westerns
• Category:Spaghetti western characters to Category:Spaghetti Western characters
• Category:Spaghetti western directors to Category:Spaghetti Western directors
• Category:Spaghetti western composers to Category:Spaghetti Western composers

These were listed in the speedy section, and as no objections were lodged there, I moved them to Working. User:Cyde objected, so I'm moving them here. I have no opinion on whether these should change, except that the change matches the Spaghetti Western article title.--Mike Selinker 18:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looks like a simple capitalization change which is a valid reason. In no details on the reason for the objection were provided or are not provided here, I'd say close this and put it back in the work queue. Vegaswikian 19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming, but oppose speedy. If they were challenged, they need to go through CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I may not have been clear. There were no objections during the speedy process. Only when I moved them to the Working page did Cyde raise his objection, which I thought was a good enough reason to move it here for a full discussion. It's not a speediable nomination now.--Mike Selinker 20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod 00:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Greg Grahame 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming This actually gets into an interesting naming-convention question: under what circumstances is "western" a proper noun (proper adjective, actually, but I won't quibble) for the purposes of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)? I suspect that it comes down to personal inclination; I know that I have always seen "Western" capitalised in the context of politics, culture and religion (i.e., as opposed to Communism, non-Euro-American culture, and Taoism or Buddhism), but in relation to the literary and cinematic genre, the trend appears to have been to decapitalise the word. Since the general culture is equivocal on the matter and Wikipedia naming conventions express strong preference for lowercase after the first word, it seems best to leave the titles as they are. --7Kim 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Perebourne 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename — Per the Manual of style, we don't capitalize words in titles without good reason (e.g. if they are a proper noun). I don't think "Spaghetti western" is a fully qualified proper noun, so I don't think that "western" should be capitalized. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 10 June 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tonight Show hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - improper performer by performance category created by the suspected sock puppet User:TheJediCouncil. Otto4711 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as four entries will not overwhelm Category:Tonight Show.-choster 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are placed there, that becomes a performer by performance category. Greg Grahame 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#Performers_by_performance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also not much room for growth. Bulldog123 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 16:01, 8 June 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 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 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 debate was rename. the wub "?!" 11:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Distance education schools to Category:Distance education institutions

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The current name only makes sense to Americans. Most of these places are only schools in the American sense where "School" is used for all educational institutions, not in the rest-of-the-World, where "school" refers to places where the under 18s are educated. Postlebury 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, for clarity for those not in the United States. --19:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Perebourne 17:31, 9 June 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Dual License (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think it's time for this to go: Wikipedia has given up support for non-commercial use of text/media content since May 2005. Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the infomercials say, "But wait—there's more!"

• Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 License (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 License (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 License (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Dual Licence-IntEng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ((MultiLicenseWithCC-ByNCSA))
• ((MultiLicenceWithCC-ByNCSA-IntEng))

Hope I caught sight of all these "non-" licenses here. Any users should tell me if there's anything missing from this list, and I'll add it in. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all — we no longer all non-commercial licenses, per nom. I've already nuked the two templates. --Cyde Weys 19:15, 10 June 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 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 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patriarchs of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church to Category:Czechoslovak Hussite Church bishops

• Merge, another pair of duplicate categories. So far as I can see surmise from the little material on wikipedia, the modern Hussite Church appears to have bishops overseen by a patriarch. Since only have two articles on any of them (both patriarchs), I suggest that we do not need both categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge But I think it should be Category:Bishops of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church - the present wording is ambiguous, as it could mean either Bishops of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church, or Bishops of the Hussite Church who are/were of Czechoslovak nationality. The category inclusions need fixing too as they are nonsensical whoever is included (unless clerics are necessarily both Czech and Slovak simultaneously). -- roundhouse 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree: Category:Bishops of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church would be clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the other way round preferably: merge Bishops into Category:Patriarchs of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church ideally - if both articles cover both roles it seems logical to take the more senior for the category. But merge either way. Johnbod 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That's not my understanding: it seems that any one time there are several bishops, but only one patriarch (who is a sort of primate). However, as discussed above, the wikipedia articles are unclear, so I may be wrong! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my point. Johnbod 19:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current patriarch Tomáš Butta + at least 1 non-patriarchal bishop ("In 2000, Catholic representatives attended the consecration of Jana Silerova as the Hussite Church’s first woman bishop", from Czechoslovak Hussite Church). Given that there are 8 patriarchs to date, it seems unlikely that navigation will pose much of a problem in the next few decades. (The patriarchs could reasonably be placed in some overarching Primates category as well as the suggested Bishops one.) -- roundhouse 08:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution would probably to create a list of the patriarchs to place in Category:Primates (religion) or an appropriate sub-cat. I think that this sort of listification could be followed for many other small primates categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 5 June 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 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: redirected to Redirects for discussion. Please see the discussion there.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up since these are categories, I've nominated the last "Natives of" categories (all redirects) at the Redirects for Discussion page. This covers category:Natives of Arkansas, category:Natives of Beijing, category:Natives of Berlin, category:Natives of Cape Town, category:Natives of Danzig, category:Natives of Gdańsk, category:Natives of Leicester, category:Natives of Moscow, category:Natives of Munich, category:Natives of Paris, category:Natives of Pretoria, category:Natives of Reading, category:Natives of São Paulo (city), category:Natives of Sao Paulo state, category:Natives of Southampton, category:Natives of Strasbourg, category:Natives of the West Midlands, category:Natives of the Western Isles, and category:Natives of Warsaw. Please comment there on whether you'd like to see the last of these categories go away.--Mike Selinker 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. I'm happy for these to stay as redirects, but wouldn't mind them being deleted as long as they are salted; otherwise they may be recreated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if we have opinions and other not-votes in two places, this is going to be really confusing. It might be best to close this as "not a nomination, just a notification of a category-related discussion". Xtifr _tälk 12:48, 6 June 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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Die Hard locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Die Hard weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't think this category is useful. --NE2 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No real-world-locations-by-fictional-source categories.--Mike Selinker 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Real places should not be categorized by the fiction that takes place in or near them. New York City could end up with thousands of categories. Otto4711 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These types of categories have been deleted before, and they are impractical in the long run for some locations (such as New York City). Dr. Submillimeter 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I add Category:Die Hard weapons to this, or do I have to start a new discussion? --NE2 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add it here.--Mike Selinker 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining and per many precedents. These locations are not defined by this movie. Imagine how many movie categories New York would have if it got a new one for every single movie filmed there. Doczilla 16:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla. Carlossuarez46 16:02, 8 June 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 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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Chess Enthusiasts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Enjoyment of chess is a "non-defining or trivial characteristic" per WP:OCAT. I see no reason to categorize people by their favorite hobbies. szyslak 09:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Any category that includes the word "famous" needs at least a rename, and I think that pretty much any category of "Enthusiasts" is going to be overcategorization per nom. Note that we don't have Category:Enthusiasts. Xtifr _tälk 10:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems overly-vague. Who could be considered "famous", and what does it take to be called an "enthusiast"? Besides, categorization by hobby is generally a bad idea. Dr. Submillimeter 13:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague category with two subjective words. Doczilla 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Chess players and its subcategories already contain articles about professional chess players, and amateur chess hobbyists should normally not be categorized this way. Dugwiki 20:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining like Category:Manchester United supporters, Category:People who prefer chocolate to vanilla, Category:People who vacation in Florida, etc....
• Delete per nom. Perebourne 17:32, 9 June 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 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 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 debate was keep. the wub "?!" 11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English comic operas to Category:British comic operas

Nominator's rationale: All of the operas in this new, reduced category premiered in London. English is ambiguous with the language, British is not, and since the category is lumping together operas in a British tradition, this is clearer. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • 'Note: the nominator failed to follow the steps at WP:CFD#Procedure, so the category was not tagged. I have now tgaged it. --14:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose unless there is evidence that the genre is better known as "British comic opera". English is not the only adjective for a country which is the same as that for the associated language, and there are hundreds of other "English" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you search under British comic opera on Google, the hits are more relevant. Frankly, either way it's a semi-neologism, since the term normally used is just "Comic opera". Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may have missed this recent CfD, when the category was renamed from Category:Comics operas: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 11#Category:Comic_operas. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes... without informing the WikiProject actually involved with creating 90% of the articles, though I didn't like to complain. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was aware that they were creating this category. I didn't object then, so I don't think I can rightfully complain about it now. Now that you mention it, though, I do think it's too bad that they didn't post a notice about it on the WP:G&S project's talk page, in case others had an opinion, since the vast majority of the works in the category are G&S-related. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems to me that G&S is a very English form of comic opera, and it seems inappropriate to use "British" when we mean something specifically English. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, but English, if read as English-language, also includes America, opening the category to things like The Desert Song, which are largely in a different idiom. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - English-language operas go in Category:English-language operas, a sub cat of Category:Operas by language. Otto4711 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems effectively to be argument that the adjective "English" should not be used for any category of things from England, only for English-language things. If that's the case, then the point should be considered by a wider group nomination of similar categories, such as Category:English albums, Category:English folk dance, Category: English folk albums, Category:English literary movements, and Category:Category:English novels. Otherwise, a note in the category to explain its purpose would do fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, if properly noted, I could live with that, but it seems unduly ambiguous. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "English" is the adjective for England as well as its language. If there is a desire to exclude American items, can this not be done by placing some text at the head of the Category page, defining its scope? The claim to change it to "British" implies that you believe there are significant numbers of Welsh or Scots comic operas which ought to be included. But should they not have their own category (if there are any)? I am proud to be an Englishman, and wish my own national culture to be preserved. Peterkingiron 22:49, 6 June 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 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 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 debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mixed martial arts broadcasters to Category:Mixed martial arts announcers

Nominator's rationale: Rename - in line with the parent Category:Sports announcers. The subcats of that category are a bit inconsistent, so perhaps as part of this nom we can decide on a standard. Otto4711 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Broadcasters" is version of English neutral, and "Announcers" is not. How about using broadcasters across the board, including Category:Sports commentators and its subcategories? Nathanian 02:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with above comment In UK English, a "broadcaster" is the TV station that transmits the footage Bluap 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And a person who does broadcasts. Do a google search for any prominent British person-who-does-broadcasts in the form XXXX YYYY broadcaster, and you will get plenty of hits.Osomec 13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed when I saw the category (in isolation from the rest of the subcats) that it was going to be for TV stations that broadcast MMA events. I would not object to a rename across the board to "commentators" to avoid the issue. Otto4711 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Announcers for sporting events also has issues since announcer is also used for the 'voice' at the event and has nothing to do with the person covering the event for broadcast. Vegaswikian 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Announcers is ambiguous. Vegaswikian 05:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Mixed martial arts announcers (preference) or Category:Mixed martial arts commentators - "Broadcaster" may be used in UK and US English to refer to the TV stations rather than the people; this category clearly refers to the people, who are usually called "announcers" or "commentators". My preference is to rename the category using "announcers" to match the name of the parent category (Category:Sports announcers), but commentators would also be acceptable. (If the whole category tree was nominated for renaming, I would support "commentators", as it seems more inclusive than "announcers".) Dr. Submillimeter 07:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the main article is sportscaster, maybe Category:Mixed martial arts sportscasters is the best choice. I would have no objection to renaming the entire tree if there is agreement here on a general solution. Vegaswikian 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - To make life even more confusing, Wikipedia also has a list of sports announcers. Dr. Submillimeter 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have no objection to renaming this category to "sportscasters." Otto4711 03:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Announcers is U.S. centric. "Commentators" is also problematic, because it excludes presenters and summarisers, at least in British English. Osomec 13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do presenters and summarizers not comment? Otto4711 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They comment, but they don't commentate. The commentator is the person who describes the action. Osomec 17:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• At some point the hair is going to be split so fine that it will spontaneously discorporate to its component atoms. The difference between "commenting" on the action and "commentating" on it seems so slight as to be functionally meaningless. And what does a "summariser" summarize, if not the action? Isn't summarizing the action commenting on it? Or are they not allowed to use adjectives? Otto4711 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I left a request for help at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Sports. Dr. Submillimeter 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Apparently, no one from the WikiProject is interested in commenting here. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Apologies about that, for my part (can't speak for other project members). I concur with the overall quasi-consensus that this is an unsettled and thorny matter. I would suggest that the issue be raised again more generally at WP:SPORT's talk page (i.e. as a need for consensus discussion on consistent naming of these categories, not as an FYI about a particular CfD), and that a pointer to this new discussion be placed at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion so that input is broader. A pointer could also be put in the apropriate section of the Village Pump. The issue should be discussed and settled. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:04, 27 July 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 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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles which may be biased to Category:Wikipedia articles that may be biased

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are two minor changes proposed here. One is to change the word "which" to "that", which is simply better grammar. Also, "Articles" is somewhat vague and could apply to more things than this category is used for, so to make it clear that we're just talking about Wikipedia articles, we should add that into the category's name as well. Cyde Weys 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merger Seems reasonable Mbisanz 02:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename but I really have to ask how this category is unique and useful. We already have a template for tagging articles whose neutrality is questioned. I would also support delete as redundant to the POV tag. "May be biased" is pretty dang vague. Doczilla 06:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla. There number of administrative categories is excessive. Some articles have several with closely related meanings. Osomec 13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete admin categories are excessive and detract from the user experience (if we assume that categories are useful to it) moreover "may be biased" seems to contradict WP:AWW why should we encourage that by naming categories in violation of that guideline? Carlossuarez46 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, I'm also amenable to having this category deleted. I didn't even consider that an option at first. I agree that Wikipedia does have the tendency to go overbaord with administrative categories on articles. --Cyde Weys 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but keep: It's useful to be able to collect all the articles with problems so that people looking for things to do can find and fix them. Of course, if the POV tag adds a different category, ignore this and delete. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are aware that the same list of articles can be generated by using the "What links here" functionality on the template in question, correct? --Cyde Weys 00:35, 11 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.