< February 28	March 2 >

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. The subcats were removed so that the bots can process the nomination since there appeared to be consensus to keep the subcats. Vegaswikian 06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (This is a relisting from 13 Feb 2007, where the discussion was closed as "no consensus" despite 6 votes for deletion and 3 for keeping.) According to Founding Fathers of the United States, this category may contain "the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution, or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots." (Note that this statement is not supported by an inline citation in the article.) The inclusion criteria are overly broad and allow for too much of a gray area for the interpretation of who was a "leader" during the American Revolution. Several other categories already specify exactly what these people did to contribute to the foundation of the United States (such as Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Category:Signers of the United States Constitution). These specific categories are very useful; Category:Founding Fathers of the United States is too broad, open to vague interpretation, and ultimately less than useful. In the previous discussion, it was suggested that this could function as a container category for thes subcategories. However, because of its vague interpretation of what a "founding father" is, virtually any pro-revolutionary may be placed within Category:Founding Fathers of the United States. Moreover, some people generally called "founding fathers" (such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson) who also signed the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution will be listed by editors in both this parent category and the subcategories anyway. This category therefore will not work as a container category either. The category ends up contributing to category clutter in these people's articles, making the category lists difficult to read and thus difficult to use for navigation. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of the subcats per nom. Otto4711 00:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as much as the patriot in me likes the name and subject of this category, the Dr. makes a good argument. The definition of "Founding Fathers" is too vague to be either usefully or consistently applied.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. ReeseM 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of the more specific/verifiable subcats per nom. -- Black Falcon 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly subjective inclusion criteria. Subcats are better defined. Dugwiki 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjective. Far better to use specific sub-categories. --Xdamr^talk 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the subcats are fine. — coel acan — 20:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request if deleted, first make sure each article is in the Category:People of the American Revolution or one or more of its subcategories. Hmains 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Were all the people who wrote the Constitution involved in the American Revolution? If so, then a merge would be appropriate. If not, then the category should be deleted. (Many look like they are listed in "colonial people" or "American Revolution" categories anyway.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the revolution wasn't just a bunch of battles. I'd say the signing of the declaration was an event in the revolution. — coel acan — 22:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You do realize that the United States Declaration of Independence is not the same document as the United States Constitution, don't you? Also, the compilation of the U.S. Constitution took place a few years after the fighting ended in North America. Dr. Submillimeter 10:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realize that. While I was reading your comment, I was thinking of the nominator's statement: According to Founding Fathers of the United States, this category may contain "the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution, or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots." But you weren't talking about the Declaration. Ignore my tangent. — coel acan — 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Social justice and poverty into Category:Poverty

Category:Social justice and poverty to Category:Poverty

Merge - This is relisted from 17 Feb 2007. This was a subcategory of Category:Social justice, which was deleted mainly because the term "social justice" was too vague and appeared to encompass too many topics. While people agreed on deleting the parent category, no consensus was reached on what to do with this subcategory. I originally suggested deletion, but now I suggest merging this into Category:Poverty. I honestly see no difference between the articles in this category and the articles in Category:Poverty (and some articles, such as child poverty and War on Poverty, are found in both categories anyway). Dr. Submillimeter 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "Social justice" means whatever one wants it to mean. (Not that "Poverty" isn't a problematic term too, but I guess there is a topic here, so the related articles should be grouped.) ReeseM 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although both "social justice" and "poverty" are normative terms, "poverty" can be quantified (albeit arbitrarily) by government guidelines, etc. --William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:42, 2 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this has been tagged with Listify however I believe it is more appropriate to delete without listifying. The category is designed to capture voice actors who worked on cartoons which may be unrelated to each other in any way other than being produced by the same studio, making this more akin to the deleted and salted Disney voice actors category than a category for an individual televiosn series or film. Improper performer by production company-style categorization. Otto4711 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, delete − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:53, 5 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category makes no sense. It is entirely unclear what it even means. Does it mean that the makers of these films pledged not to release carbon during the making of those films? or that the films advocate carbon neutrality? Even this is problematic: what is probably the most likely candidate for this category, An Inconvenient Truth, never uses the phrase "carbon neutrality". ILike2BeAnonymous 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Wikipedia should not play along with this faddish form of corporate spin. ReeseM 01:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - ^{[Begin Rant]}The Day After Tomorrow is listed as a "carbon neutral film"???? It was made before Al Gore and his cronies ever conceived the term.^{[End Rant]} In addition to the nom's reasoning, I would also say the term itslelf is too WP:NEO to be a category name.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, the category criteria doesn't seem to make any sense. And the main article link in the category definition doesn't clear anything up either. Dugwiki 18:35, 2 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category is to capture performers from a variety of series, films, and specials, making it an improper performer by company categorization. Voice actors can and do work for a wide range of production companies in the course of their careers. We have already deleted similar categories for such people as Disney voice actors. The category should be deleted. Otto4711 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the same old, same old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:14, 2 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete in favor of List of The Land Before Time voice actors and per Listify tag. Otto4711 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the same old, same old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 22:14, 2 March 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 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the same reasons Lists of shows by Joss Whedon is a bad idea. Otto4711 22:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doczilla 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:38, 6 March 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 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Only one article other than the self-titled main article, and it redirects to it. OverClocked ReMix is already in the parent category so there's nothing to merge here. --Vossanova ^o< 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:38, 6 March 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 change.

Propose renaming Category:Dune book series to Category:Dune novels

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency with other novel series. The existing name sounds as if it has been left after deleting former sub-categories for the original series, prequels, etc. After this I will create an intermediate Category:Dune books between this and Category:Dune universe media to hold the short stories & 'pedia. Fayenatic london (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom - can't see how this survived so long :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure all the books are novels; I think at least The Road to Dune is an anthology of short stories. Avt tor 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Well spotted - what's more, Legends of Dune, Paul of Dune and Prelude to Dune are book series, so they should stay in the existing category. I'll just set up more categories as required. Discussion closed early - withdrawn by nominator. - Fayenatic london (talk) 19:23, 5 March 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 09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Báthory to Category:Báthory family

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity in line with many other categories for individual families. CalJW 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - per nom.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per general consensus for 'family' categories. --Xdamr^talk 14:39, 6 March 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 09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization - This category contains Unrelated subjects with a shared name. ~ Bigr Tex 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete There's really no reason to retain such a anal-retentive category with only 3 members. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is categorization by name, a form of overcategorization. The institutions have little to do with each other aside from their name; the category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:30, 1 March 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. Vegaswikian 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I originally nominated this for renaming on 2007 Feb 7 to be renamed as "futurist consultants". I had thought that the category was supposed to be used for people paid by corporations for information on future developments. However, looking at futurist, futurologist, list of futurologists, and future studies more carefully, it appears that this category was originally intended to include science fiction writers (who so frequently write about the future that it is not a defining characteristic), scientists and economists who have made predictions about the future, and other people. Few of these people are not connected to any other profession. This collection of people is not useful. In particular, discussion of the future is not a defining characteristic for some groups of people, especially science fiction wrtiers (where people normally write about the future). This should be deleted. (I apologize for not coming to this realization during the first nomination.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- relisted from Feb 22. Tim! 20:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and partly depopulate to sub-categories. Create new sub-Category:Futurist consultants, which would be a useful defining characteristic as per the second sentence above, and move such individuals down into it. The existing head category is also of interest. Let SF writers also be a sub-category of Category:Futurologists, and remove individual writers from the head category (or allow some to remain if widely recognised for making serious real-world predictions). Other futurologists who fit neither of these sub-categories, e.g. scientists and economists, should remain in the head category. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some sf writers have also written significant non-fiction books of speculation about the future. It's not really surprising, is it, if these two kinds of writing overlap somewhat in terms of the authors involved? David Brin is one who immediately springs to mind, though I'm not sure whether or not he has actually been placed in the relevant category. The most important is doubtless Arthur C. Clarke. I can think of others - Damien Broderick is another one - but it doesn't mean that every science fiction writer has done it; most probably haven't, and it would actually be a quite limited number who have. Really, I'm not sure I see what the problem is supposed to be. Metamagician3000 12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is not clear that Clarke or other sci-fi writers are included in this category because of their non-fiction works. Actually, it is not clear as to who would or should be included in this category. It seems like an economist who makes a prediction about future stock market prices or a sociologist making predictions about what society will be like in 20 years would fall into this category, too. It effectively boils down to "people who predict the future". Is it really useful for categorization? Dr. Submillimeter 13:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair comment - but there probably is a case to keep some sort of category for books such as those I mentioned, whether or not written by sf writers, and/or for their authors. My point is that there might be a legitimate explanation for certain sf writers falling into such a category. ~~I do wonder why we need futurist and futurologist. At a minimum, these cats need to be rationalised somehow.~~ Whoops, see below. I misunderstood. My bad. HOWEVER, when we look at the articles, Futurologist redirects to Futurist. So wouldn't it make sense to be consistent and make the caterory one of "futurists"? It would also make sense for consistency to change the List of futurologists article to List of futurists, yes?Metamagician3000 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's only one category for all futurist people at the moment, Category:Futurologists. This is within the useful category:Futurology. A focussed sub-category for consultants sounds useful to me. In case anyone was confused by the four pages linked in the nomination above, they are articles (short, stub, list and long article, respectively). - Fayenatic london (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:African American hip hop groups into Category:American hip hop groups. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American hip hop groups to Category:American hip hop groups

Merge, because 99.99999% of notable American hip-hop groups are African-American. Utterly pointless category. Urthogie 14:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

- Relisted from Feb 19. Tim! 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of pages in this group is not very large, nor does it explicity mirror the content of the cat "American hip hop groups." The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very large because people don't use it. If they did it would be 99% the size of American hip hop groups.

Merge but not per nom, rather because IMHO Category:White hip hop groups wouldn't survive as a category and I see no compelling reason why hip hop artists need to be categorized by race. Otto4711 22:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Otto4711; it is unnecessary in most cases to categorise by race.

Xdamr^talk 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per a related nomination. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nature parks in Bosnia and Herzegovina to category:National parks of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Rename I don't know whether or not there is a specific designation of "Nature park" in B&H, but both the parks in this category are national parks, so this category as presently constituted may be renamed to the same format as the hundred or so other categories of national parks. Abberley2 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, given that the national parks category already exists. Abberley2 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Abberley2 says. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom Johnbod 21:29, 3 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, including speedy delete for cast category - These are all inappropriate performer/producer by product categories. The cast category is eligible for speedy deletion per Listify tag. Otto4711 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list is at List of RoboCop actors by the way. Otto4711 18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous discusions of "Person by Project" situations. — J Greb 07:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:40, 6 March 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 09:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category is currently serving as a parent to six "cast members" categories, all of which have been put up for speedy deletion per their Listify tags. It is also holding ten articles for people who at some point had a show on HBO. This is an improper performer by company categorization. The typical article in this category has over two dozen categories on it, a solid mass of navigation-hindering text. This category should be deleted. Otto4711 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague category. Doczilla 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is similar to doing "actor by television network", and we've had other such cfds recently for other networks as I recall. Basically this is a bad idea because many actors perform for numerous production companies in their career and you could easily end up with too many of these categories per actor article. Dugwiki 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, for example Disney actors and we have also deleted Disney Channel actors, Disney voice actors, Nicktoons actors and a number of "personalities" categories including MSNBC personalities. Otto4711 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Dugwiki. Wimstead 18:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was planning a much larger "network personality" nomination for later, but nominating these one at a time will also work. Dr. Submillimeter 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry there pal, didn't mean to steal your thunder. ;-) Otto4711 00:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 14:43, 6 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Listify tag. List of characters from The Sopranos, List of characters from The Sopranos in the DiMeo Crime Family, List of characters from The Sopranos in the Lupertazzi Crime Family, List of characters from The Sopranos - Friends and Family and FBI on The Sopranos covers the territory comprehensively, some might say obsessively . Otto4711 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the same old, same old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:04, 2 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Listify tag. Six Feet Under and List of Six Feet Under characters covers the territory. Otto4711 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the same old, same old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:04, 2 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Listify tag. Characters of Oz contains a comprehensive cast list. Otto4711 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the same old, same old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:04, 2 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Listify tag. The Entourage article, List of recurring characters in Entourage and List of celebrities appearing on Entourage more than cover the category's territory. Otto4711 15:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the same old, same old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:04, 2 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Listify tag. The articles Curb Your Enthusiasm and List of celebrities appearing on Curb Your Enthusiasm have more entries than the category. Otto4711 15:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the same old, same old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:05, 2 March 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 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Listify tag. Article Big Love has a cast list (and relationship chart) which satisfies speedy delete conditions. Otto4711 15:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the same old, same old. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:05, 2 March 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 13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category used an arbitrary inclusion limit, a form of overcategorization. It is unclear why to stop at 400 instead of 300 or 500 other than Forbes magazine decided that 400 would be a cool number. Moreover, the category's contents will fluctuate from year to year, making this category unstable. The category should be deleted. If so desired, the Forbes 400 should be listed for a given year of publication. Dr. Submillimeter 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary moving target. Quatloo 17:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, the 400 is arbitrary and the results change year to year. A better way to handle this is to provide year to year list articles rather than placing category tags in the associated articles. Dugwiki 18:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A well chosen limit should not be described as "arbitary", but the problem with the category is that it does not reveal when each person made the list. Also, there is no way of telling at a glance whether the category is complete or accurate. Listifying is out of the question as it would be a breach of copyright. Wimstead 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To see why 400 is probably arbitary, simply ask why the list has "400" members instead of "300" or "500". The only explanation I can think of off-hand is that the Forbes editors pretty much arbitrarily picked the number "400", maybe for space reasons ("We can't fit 500 in one magazine") or for alliterative purposes (sounds better when said out loud than "Forbes 300"). So lacking evidence to the contrary, I'm guessing it's an arbitrary limit on the size of the category. Dugwiki 18:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Arbitary" is a pejorative term. 400 was a reasonable number for Forbes to choose (unlike 23 or 37,312) and the category creator could not have chosen any other number. In my opinion dismissing this name as arbitary is an unjust aspersion against the judgement of the category creator, who is an outstanding editor. Wimstead 13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Wimstead is correct that "Listifying is out of the question as it would be a breach of copyright", as I suspect he is. Johnbod 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If listing these people in an article is a breach of copyright, than why is listing them in a category not a breach of copyright? Dr. Submillimeter 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a breach of copyright. We have category:Billionaires, which has its drawbacks, but does not breach copyright (or provide free advertising for a magazine either). ReeseM 14:02, 4 March 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 as overcategorisation, and listify. Tricky, but I think I perceive a consensus. Purely on a head-count it's 9-3 support for the nominator's rationale. I looked at the previous discussion of blue plaque categories pointed to by Oosoom, and in my judgement it does not address the issue raised by the Dr. Submillimeter. While a blue plaque is not exactly a posthumous award, most contributors here seem convinced it is effectively one. Also the plaque links the person and a building, information not amenable to Wikipedia categorisation but perfectly feasible on a list. No-one disputed Jpbowen's argument for the blue plaques' cultural significance, but neither was it accepted as an argument in favour of keeping this category. My robot will create a list at list of people commemorated by blue plaques in due course. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify - This category is for people who are commemorated by blue plaques within the city of London. It is effectively categorization by award. The people who are commemorated by blue plaques tend to be people who are so famous that they win many awards anyway (such at W. B. Yeats and T. E. Lawrence and other people missing from the category). Categorization by award like this is infeasible, as it leads to severe category clutter. I suggest listifying and deleting this category (and I am willing to listify the category myself). Dr. Submillimeter 15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction Not the "city of London" if by that you mean the City of London, a tiny part of the whole city, which the scheme covers. Also see JP Bowen below - other parts of the country have similar schemes Johnbod 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should have said Greater London. I also acknowledge that blue plauqes are used in other parts of the United Kingdom, although the practice seems to be the most popular in London. Dr. Submillimeter 10:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrator - If this discussion is closed with a decision to delete and listify, please contact me so that I may listify the category. Dr. Submillimeter 15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If you listify (and I'm unclear on why a list is appropriate), can't the title be reworded to clarify what kind of "blue plaques" you're talking about? Doczilla 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Blue plaques are known to be special historical markers within the United Kingdom. Since the article on blue plaques does not contain any disambiguation links and since most Google searches turn up pages directly related to these blue plaques, I do not see the need for adding disambiguation to a list article. I will, however, add a brief introduction describing the blue plaques before writing the list. Dr. Submillimeter 23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are lists in the external links from blue plaque. Wimstead 18:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ~~Keep~~. This category was assessed for deletion three months ago. I believe the arguments for keeping it to be pesuasive and unchanged. Please read the discussion here before deciding to vote. I don't understand the reference to London above. This is not correct. Oosoom ^Talk to me 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That previous discussion does not address a key point made here. This category represents one of many honors that these people received for their actions. Categorization by awards and honors like this is not feasible, as some articles would be overwhelmed with categories listing all the awards that these people have won. I am willing to transcribe the information, which would also satisfy some of the other problems indicated in the last nomination. With a list, it would be possible to link the locations with the people. Dr. Submillimeter 10:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that category bloat could be an issue. However, I don't see the blue plaque as an award (such as an Oscar), but more as a factual link to a building or place. For example, Mozart's plaque(s) in London doesn't need to tell me that he was famous or important, but that he was here (sorry about the apparant local bias, but I made a special trip to see if it was really true). His being in a category, I could then jump straight to other buildings of interest, such as those of Handel and Jimmy Hendrix (intriguingly next to each other), and Vita Sackville West, actually next to Mozart's. Perhaps I am not sure how a list would help me, but I reckon that categories are the most reliable and easiest way to point both ways - person article to list, and list to person/place/building. Oosoom ^Talk to me 11:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Misunderstandings I think there are two general misunderstandings about blue plaques. 1 while they started in London, and while English Heritage has a strong link to blue plaques they exist all over the country and are created by many different bodies. In addition, there are many bodies erecting plaques in London. Any reference to London or English Heritage is mistaken. 2 Plaques are not awards to a person. They are a commemoration of an association of a person to a place or building and therefore a record of local history. While the individual building or site may not of itself be worthy of an article, it is the association of a person or event with that place which is notable. What I am trying to say is that it is the categorisation that is notable, and should remain. I see the plaques in the same way as monumental sculptures. Would anyone seriously consider deleting Category:Outdoor sculptures in the United States from such articles as Statue of Liberty? Oosoom ^Talk to me 13:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response While I wouldn't remove Category:Outdoor sculptures in the United States from Statue of Liberty, I would remove it from Stevie Ray Vaughan or Abraham Lincoln who both have outdoor sculptures because they were notable but who are not notable for having outdoor sculptures. ~ Bigr Tex 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — as mentioned above, this has been discussed before. The blue plaques category together with its two sub-categories for people and places, provides a useful and sometimes delightfully serendipitous way to cross-link people and places. Not many people achieve the status of being honoured with a blue plaque so I think it should remain manageable in practice. (For information, in London I believe you have to be dead for at least 20 years, usually much more, to get one and Jimi Hendrix was one of fastest to be honoured in this way.) I would be disheartened to see this category and sub-categories disappear. Please also note that blue plaques are not always in London (for example, Oxfordshire has a similar scheme) and there are not even always blue, although many are, especially if officially installed. — Jonathan Bowen 12:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - These "not many people achieve this status" arguments and "the categories make it useful for navigation" arguments could easily be applied to many other awards and honors won by these individuals. The problem is that everyone who likes a certain award or honor (such as the Boy Scout enthusiasts who supported Category:Silver Buffalo awardees) will somehow argue that their particular honor or award is more important than the Nobel Prize. The main problem with these award and honor categories is that if everyone includes their "important" award or honor category, the categories eventually lead to a sprawling list of category links in the people's articles that are difficult to read or use for navigation. These categories are inappropriate for navigation. Dr. Submillimeter 14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Essentially random. AshbyJnr 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (additional reason): Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners states that only those awards that are best known internationally should be categorized. Most of us non-Europeans have never heard of those blue plaques. This should be listified per nom. Doczilla 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (Argument for Keep) There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Blue plaques are not awards, they are not categorised as such on Wikipedia. Instead, they are a commemoration of the location of famous people at least 20 years after their death. They are much more to do with cultural heritage and history than awards, as you will notice if you look at the categories under which it resides. They are a very important part of recording British cultural history. Thus I do not think any guidance concerning awards should apply here. Rather, importance with respect to cultural heritage should apply. And I believe there is a strong case here. They are nationally important in Britain. — Jonathan Bowen 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to administrator - This should not be counted as a keep vote by Jonathan Bowen, who already voted above. (The way this is written, it may be misread as a keep vote. No offense intended towards Jonathan Bowen.) Dr. Submillimeter 08:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - These are not exactly awards, but blue plaques are only given out to people who are noteworthy (generally people who have won many awards anyway). Note that the information from this category will not be lost from Wikipedia; I will use the English Heritage website on blue plaques to create a list of blue plaques article. Dr. Submillimeter 08:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Due to the minimal level of connection between the articles. LukeHoC 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are certainly notable and distinct enough to keep. Johnbod 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one is notable for having a blue plaque, they are notable for the things they did to earn a blue plaque, and they will be categorised on the basis of those attributes. This is clutter. ReeseM 14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Listify Not a defining characteristic of the people who are mentioned, also per WP:OC#Awards. I am undecided on the other two categories that were previously discussed, but they are not up for discussion here. ~ Bigr Tex 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Listify Blue plaques are not a defining characteristic of the person commemorated, as such it is inappropriate that biography articles should be thus categorised. On the other hand they are somewhat defining for the buildings concerned, so I would probably have less objection to a notional Category:Buildings with Blue plaques, or similar. This information should most certainly be around somewhere, so I strongly support listification first—this is a highly significant cultural manifestation in the UK, not an award as some editors above seem to believe.

Xdamr^talk 14:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I figured out that a blue plaque should be called a "commemoration". I think the English Heritage website uses this term. While a "commemoration" is not necessarily an award or honor, it may certainly seem like one in practice. Dr. Submillimeter 22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they typically commemorate people who are long dead I'm not sure that it amounts to an award/honour in general terms. Still, I suppose that it is a minor point. --Xdamr^talk 02:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we already have Category:Buildings with blue plaques. I'd be happy to see more buildings added to this category. --Xdamr^talk 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename category:Deaths by horse-riding accident.--Mike Selinker 17:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Killed in horse-riding accidents to Category:People killed in horse-riding accidents

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The current name sounds incomplete to me. Haddiscoe 13:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Wimstead 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths by horse-riding accident to match other cause of death categories. -Sean Curtin 06:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths by horse-riding accident as above. LukeHoC 13:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Natives of Prato into Category:People from the Province of Prato. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from the Province of Prato, convention of Category:People by Italian province. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge Wimstead 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by nominator. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Natives of Pisa into Category:People from the Province of Pisa. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from the Province of Pisa, convention of Category:People by Italian province. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge Wimstead 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by nominator. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:54, 5 March 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 09:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. overcategorization. Trivial overlap. There have been lots of Christians who were scientists, lots of Muslims and Hindus and Jews etc. who were scientists, but their religion and their scientific careers are fairly well unrelated. Every scientist is a methodological naturalist in the laboratory anyway. — coelacan talk — 05:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Category is also excessively broad, essentially undefined, and inappropriately capitalized. Doczilla 08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For some scientists, their religion was related to their careers for various reasons (mainly because they were priests or monks). For most scientists, however, religion has little to do with their scientific careers, even if it did play a part in their personal lives. Also note that several science/religion categories have already been deleted (such as Category:Roman Catholic scientists (4 Jan 2007) and Category:Atheist scientists (11 Jan 2007)) for similar reasons. Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an irrelevant intersection in most cases. Haddiscoe 13:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could just barely see a narrower category, such as Category:Jesuit scientists, being useful for historical reasons. Anville 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" and then create Category:Christians in carpentry, Category:Christians in law, Category:Christians in publishing, etc… (this is a vote to delete) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to category:Atheism.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Criticism of atheism. Delete. — coelacan talk — 05:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete redundant category. Doczilla 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Metamagician3000 08:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and if not already done, merge members into Category:Atheism. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was endorse category's speedy deletion (carried out on March 1 by another admin). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:British socialists. Delete. — coelacan talk — 05:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete obvious. --Merzul 10:55, 1 March 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 08:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals do not need their own categories, since whatever information is contained in the navigation of the category should already be in the individual's article. Delete — coelacan talk — 05:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one subcat and the eponymous article. No reason for this category. Otto4711 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and Dawkins category. --Merzul 10:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category only includes the article on the person himself and a category for books by the person. Category:Alister McGrath itself serves no useful organizational purpose; it only adds a layer of categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, the category is unnecessary and just creating additional maintainence for no navigational benefit. A reader interested in reading the associated articles about Alister McGrath would almost certainly visit his main article first, from which he can easily find all the article links desired. Dugwiki 18:23, 1 March 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 08:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've seen a consensus that individuals do not need their own categories, since whatever information is contained in the navigation of the category should already be in the individual's article. Delete. — coelacan talk — 05:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe the consensus is 100% against eponymous categories. It depends on how many related articles and subcats there are. In this case there is only one subcat and two articles and the articles are interlinked so this one can go. Otto4711 06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The contents of this category are Richard Dawkins, an article on an organization named after him, and a subcategory for his books. The books do need a subcategory. However, a parent category for other Dawkins articles is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 10:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Merzul 10:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Otto4711 that there are cases in which a eponymous cat is prudent. However, this is not one of those cases. His books are well covered in the "books by" cat and the other two articles can also be easily categorized without this epon. cat. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above and the Alister McGrath cfd above, readers almost certainly would use the main article first anyway and have little need to visit the category for navigation. As Otto correctly mentions above, this isn't a 100% hard and fast rule against eponymous categories for people, but it's a very strong rule of thumb. Dugwiki 18:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A substantial number of directly connected sub-categories/articles are required to justify an eponymous category.

Xdamr^talk 19:45, 1 March 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 Withdrawn -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Rome, see also a related nomination. Unlike Naples and Genoa, there isn't a Province of Rome. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But there is - Province of Rome Mayumashu 05:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you are right ... I was looking at Category:People by Italian province, and Rome wasn't there. I guess there's two things we could do ... either we should create Category:People from the Province of Rome, or use Category:People from Rome for both city and province. Preferences? Since there's province categories for the others, I'm inclined to do the former. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, for now anyway. the recent CfD showed a consensus for a rename and that should be respected for now. If a couple of months pass, however, and this format isn't living up to our expectations, this discussion should be revisited. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, my mistake. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:27, 7 March 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 08:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopelessly vague and/or overbroad. Criticism of Christian fundamentalism and Hindu fundamentalism in one place? That's what this category would be, if anyone but its creator were using it. Those "fundamentalisms" are unrelated. The category verges on indiscriminate. Delete. — coelacan talk — 05:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 08:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and because the attempted application of this category has been reverted independently by various different editors. --Merzul 10:54, 1 March 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 08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of User:Chsbcgs's interesting category creations, but too obscure to be helpful. It's such a stretch to put anything in here that it's inherently WP:OR, but besides that it's just not a useful category for Wikipedia. Delete.— coelacan talk — 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense. Doczilla 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - getting too tenuous and convoluted to be useful. Metamagician3000 08:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apologetics, or "response to criticism of religion" would make sense, but criticism of critics would almost imply that the criticism has to be directed against the person, perhaps The Dawkins Delusion? fits in here, but very little else. --Merzul 10:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before we find ourseves facing Category:Criticisms of critics of critics of religion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the BrownHairedGirl...took the words right out of my mouth.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 02:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReeseM 14:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very POV pushing category--Sefringle 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:The Chronicles of Riddick.--Mike Selinker 17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Riddick franchise to Category:The Chronicles of Riddick

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The series is called "The Chronices of Riddick", Pitch Black was renamed to match it, so it logically follows that the category should be so named as well. Malla nox 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We've been through this one before (most recently [1]). A DVD release in which Pitch Black is called The Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black does not change its theatrical history, its listing at Box Office Mojo, its name under copyright, or its name on the DVD in my cabinet any more than something like Platinum Edition 10th Anniversary Groundhog Day changes that movie's name. Doczilla 07:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the proposed rename was rejected a month ago and there is no new or compelling evidence offered in this nomination to convince me that the decision of the last CFD was in error. Otto4711 13:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion. However, the existence of The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, and The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury strongly suggest this is the intended title of the "franchise", which incidently is a word that in this context seems strange to English ears. I still assert that the category name should be changed. Malla nox 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was the one who sugggested the category for renaming a month ago as mentioned above. I too orginally felt it should be renamed to "The Chroinicles of Riddick", however only two people posted a reply. One person wanted no change because the film "is not star wars", the other suggested "Riddick franchise" as a compromise. In fact, it was the same two people who have jsut commented now. I agreed to "Riddick franchise" if no consensus was met. No one else commented so thats what happened. So I vote the categoery be renamed "The Chronicles of Riddick". For one thing,The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, and The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury do support this naming convention and another Pitch Black was renamed in all subsequent DVD releases to follow suit. If you look at the Pitch Black article, there is an offical DVD website which clearly calls the film "The Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black" linked.(01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC))
Support marketting from the studios have rebranded Pitch Black to match the other two entries in the Riddick trilogy, and people know it as such. 70.51.8.30 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Pitch Black is as much a Chronicles of Riddick movie as Donkey Kong is a Mario game. Cosmetor 03:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Whatever the rights and wrongs it seems to be fairly settled that the studio now wishes to rebrand Pitch Black to match with the others. That being the case I don't see why we should decline to follow them, if for no other reason than to get rid of 'franchise'—an odd-sounding word this context.

Xdamr^talk 14:47, 6 March 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.

March 1

Category:Founding Fathers of the United States

Category:Social justice and poverty

Category:Looney Tunes cast members

Category:Carbon neutral films

Category:Modern Looney Tunes cast members

Category:The Land Before Time cast members

Category:Lists of shows by Tim Minear

Category:OverClocked ReMix

Category:Dune book series

Category:Báthory

Category:Institutions named after Albert Einstein

Category:Futurologists

Category:African American hip hop groups

National parks of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

RoboCop

Category:HBO personalities

Category:The Sopranos cast members

Category:Six Feet Under cast members

Category:Oz (TV series) cast members

Category:Entourage (TV series) cast members

Category:Curb Your Enthusiasm cast members

Category:Big Love cast members

Category:Forbes 400

Category:People commemorated by blue plaques

Category:Killed in horse-riding accidents

Category:Natives of Prato

Category:Natives of Pisa

Category:Christians in Science

Category:Criticisms of atheism

Category:British Socialists

Category:Alister McGrath

Category:Richard Dawkins

Category:People from Rome (city)

Category:Criticisms of Fundamentalism

Category:Criticisms of critics of religion

Category:Riddick franchise