< March 9	March 11 >

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 09:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only has one entry - unlikely to be a need for this category which cannot be fulfilled by simply making a list in the band's main article. greenrd 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --rimshots^talk 13:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the category might include at most only eight entries. See Mohiner_Ghoraguli#Live_performances Thus, it is unlikely that there is a need for this category. -- Jreferee 00:01, 16 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 09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contains just one template - which produces an error message when clicked on. greenrd 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the template does work. If the category is kept, it should be named Metric conversion templates and be a child of Category:Conversion templates. Nevertheless, I vote Delete, because the existing template category is not overcrowded. --rimshots^talk 13:08, 15 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 09:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we already have a huge military category hierarchy, e.g. there is Category:Military_units_and_formations_by_country. greenrd 23:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant with Military units and formations, went ahead and recatted its single article. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:09, 11 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:Members and associates of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences into Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences

Category:Members and associates of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Sciences

Merge, Obvious duplicate. greenrd 23:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, also note speedy rename is allowed to expand abbreviations. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, duplicate. --Xdamr^talk 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge as per expanding abbreviations for country names. --rimshots^talk 13:14, 15 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 09:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we should not be in the business of listing every single notable member of every single "good cause" organisation. greenrd 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Honbicot 12:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wilchett 15:52, 12 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 09:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. greenrd 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat. Doczilla 06:18, 11 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 09:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marist Brother schools to Category:Marist_Brothers_schools

Merge, obvious duplicate category. greenrd 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Note you can use speedy rename to pluralize. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge both to Category:Marist Brothers schools underscores are never structurally needed in category names so why use them. Hmains 02:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Marist Brothers schools and Category:Marist_Brothers_schools are the same. Vegaswikian 00:47, 15 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 (I left a redirect). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Ships of Sweden, convention of Category:Ships by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge as per non-conformance with naming conventions --rimshots^talk 17:34, 15 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 Speedy Deleted, Darwinek 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. greenrd 22:47, 10 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 Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora to Category:WikiProject African diaspora. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject African diaspora, per usual WikiProject conventions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- good idea. futurebird 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom RaveenS 16:26, 13 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 (I left a redirect). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty, and clearly a duplicate of Category:Isle of Man. greenrd 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete redundant, empty cat. Doczilla 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and empty. --Xdamr^talk 02:54, 12 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 Category:Locomondo to Category:Todomondo. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Locomondo to Category:Todomondo

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The band have decided to rename themselves.[1] greenrd 22:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the category should reflect the current name. --rimshots^talk 17:36, 17 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 Dumfries, Scotland into Category:Natives of Dumfries and Galloway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Natives of Dumfries and Galloway, convention of Category:Scottish people by council area. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedydelete:- as empty category.O'Donoghue 22:10, 15 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 09:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is not enough material to warrant an eponymous category. The articles are all on films and characters played by Sutherland, making this a performer by performance category. The articles should all be linked through the Kiefer Sutherland article rather than categorized. Otto4711 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Honbicot 12:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 23:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. --Xdamr^talk 02:55, 12 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 Speedy keep. Part Deux, you don't work on the unblock review crew, let alone an admin so this nomination is quite misguided. The sub-category helps us admins prioritise which cases to review first when there's a backlog. -- Netsnipe ► 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Requests for unblock-auto to Category:Requests for unblock

Merge, unnecessary subcat; does not help administrators when figuring out who to block. Part Deux 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why this nomination? It seems the admin who created it would know why they did it. If admins find it unuseful, they can take get rid of it. I can imagine it would be helpful to know who wants their username changed. — coel acan — 01:01, 12 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 Speedy keep. Part Deux, you don't work on the unblock review crew, let alone an admin so this nomination is quite misguided. The sub-category helps us admins prioritise which cases to review first when there's a backlog. -- Netsnipe ► 07:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Requests for username changes when blocked to Category:Requests for unblock

Merge, unnecessary subcat; does not help administrators when figuring out who to block. Part Deux 21:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why this nomination? It seems the admin who created it would know why they did it. If admins find it unuseful, they can take get rid of it. I can imagine it would be helpful to know who wants their username changed. — coel acan — 01:00, 12 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have moved the only article into a more specific category. greenrd 20:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague, incorrectly capitalized, and now empty category. Doczilla 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too vague and of uncertain utility. --Xdamr^talk 02:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague and empty. --rimshots^talk 13:19, 15 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 keep. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. greenrd 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is a very important category. The reason it is empty is not because there are no articles to categorise under this, but because all categories under Category:Karnataka have been under reorganisation for some time now. There were infact, more than 20 categories and I have myself cleaned up lot of them and brought it down to 12 or 14. This is a WIP and even as of now there are dozens of articles that can be categorised under this category. It is just that at the moment, I am a little confused about how the subcategories should look like and/or whether this category itself should be a subcategory of something else, etc.,. See this page for more details. I had created that page for feedback when I initially started cleaning up the cats. I have done a lot of cleaning up since then but there is still some work left to do, which I will do asap. So please do not delete. Also feel free to comment on that page. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if still empty at close of discussion. Otherwise Keep -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Sarvagnya. Categorization and recategorization has been done, and the work is in progress. Category is no more empty, and the nomination reason has now become obsolete. - KNM ^Talk 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important category in combining literatures of different languages of Karnataka. Gnanapiti 18:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that this categorisation is part of a work-in-progress, with realistic prospect of being used, I don't see any point in deleting it. ~~If it is still empty in a month or so then that would be a different matter.~~ --Xdamr^talk 02:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's already not empty now. — coel acan — 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Sarvagnya. -- Naveen ^(talk) 13:33, 12 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 (in any case qualified for CSD G7 and C1). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lists are not categories. greenrd 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague, inappropriate, and incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and Category:Artists by medium already has multimedia, new media, video artists and others. --rimshots^talk 13:23, 15 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 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lists are not categories. greenrd 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague, inappropriate, and incorrectly capitalized category. Doczilla 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wilchett 15:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Major is POV. --rimshots^talk 13:21, 15 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: reasonable arguments for both keeping and deleting, so a merge should be a reasonable compromise for everyone. >Radiant< 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - category is being used to hold several subcats, all of which are either going to be listified and deleted or are up for deletion. If any of the subcats survive, the main category Category:Doctor Who is sufficent as a parent. Also holding a number of people involved in the production, making it an improper categorization of person by project. Otto4711 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subcats are useful and should survive; making this a useful super-cat to put them in. Jheald 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even if the subcats do get deleted, this cat will be useful for all the lists that they get turned into! Jheald 20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the subcats, for cast members and directors, are already going to be deleted, probably by the end of the day. Of the other three, dozens of CFDs over the last several weeks have established that categorizing people by individual project is improper. Even if for some bizarre reason those three cats don't end up deleted, it doesn't address the unnecessary layer of categorization or the dozens of articles that have been improperly categorized there. Otto4711 21:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a category containing the resulting lists, even if the sub-categories themselves are deleted. Bluap 06:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have already established that we should not categorize people by TV show like this, as the categorization leads to severe category clutter problems. Dr. Submillimeter 09:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if List of Doctor Who actors is an example of what people promoting deleting this category would prefer in its steadTim! 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See list of blue plaques for a better example of how a category can be turned into a list. (The page was started when a category for people with blue plaques was deleted and listified.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the list of actors so that the category could be deleted. I am not a subject matter expert which is why I put right in the article that the attention of a subject matter expert was required. Regardless, the existence of that article in a poor form has no bearing on whether this category should exist. Otto4711 15:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bluap, the lists that will be created should be placed in this category. —

AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least as repository for lists. I also happen to think that this is a useful category for people like Sydney Newman, who is notable in part for his role in creating Doctor Who, but who would not fit into any of the proposed lists. If Category:Doctor Who people were deleted, would it be appropriate to put Sydney Newman in Category:Doctor Who? If not, why not? And if so, why would it not be appropriate to subdivide Category:Doctor Who to distinguish people who worked on the programme from other Doctor Who-related topics? This seems like excessive deletion zeal to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong consensus not to categorize anyone by the projects on which they work. Actors, writers, directors, producers, general "crew" categories, all deleted per strong consensus that categorizing people by project is overcategorization. "(Project name) people" is also very vague. We recently deleted "Star Wars-related people" for just that reason, because people were putting everyone from George Lucas to Joseph Campbell to random Star Wars bloggers in it. It's hard enough to maintain project-based categories without encouraging misuse by have "...people" categories. Newman should be named in the main article on Doctor Who and other projects that he was involved in creating and those projects should be named in his article, but there is no reason why he should be categorized under either "Doctor Who people" or "Doctor Who." It's an unnecessary layer of categorization for holding lists and I see no reason to depart from consensus because there may be one or two unusual cases. Otto4711 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't agree with the consensus that categorization by projects is overcategorization, but I won't stand in its way if it's really that widespread. But even granting this consensus in general, I don't see why it needs to be applied as a universal rule: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
When an individual is primarily known for his or her association with a project, I don't see why it's inappropriate to categorize them by that association. It really is beginning to look as if people are using "overcategorization" as a buzzword excuse for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure how, looking back over the CFDs for the last six weeks or so, you can't see a consensus against categorizing people by project. All actor by series categories are subject to listification and deletion. All director by series categories are subject to listification and deletion. All writer by series categories are subject to listification and deletion. All crew by series categories are subject to listification and deletion. We've deleted a couple of dozen sports-related categories simply because they were being used as de facto performer by network categories. We just deleted over a dozen eponymous categories that were being used as containers for the individual's projects. We deleted "Star Wars-related people." We deleted "Joss Whedon shows." We deleted "Tim Minear shows." I don't agree that applying the same standards to these Dr Who categories is a foolish consistency. I think it's a bright line that we can point to as a way of reducing foolish inconsistency. It's easy enough to point at specific articles and say "what's the harm in making an exception for this article?" but then where does the line get drawn? Why put ourselves in the position of deciding that this person is important enough to this project to be put in the category but that person is not important enough to that project? Otto4711 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that such a consensus exists. I just think it's misguided and is being overzealously applied. And I really don't see the difficulty in making the decision you speak of, but that's probably because my judgment would generally be to include categories if someone thinks they would be useful navigational tools. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As navigation tools, lists do a much better job than categories for presenting this information, without cluttering up articles with scores of categories. Listifying is really a win-win solution. --SamuelWantman 09:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subcategories should be listified and categorized in the "Dr. Who lists" category. -- SamuelWantman 09:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after being listified. Over categorization. Vegaswikian 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lists can be placed in Category:Doctor Who, there is no need for a separate category for 2/3/4 articles. --Xdamr^talk 16:55, 15 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 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: convert to list. Same reasoning should apply to this one and the two below. >Radiant< 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorizing novelists based on whether the subject of their books is a licensed property or not is overcategorization. Otto4711 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this "overcategorisation"? And what is this mania for deleting categories? This category, and many other categories of person by project, are useful navigational aids to find other people associated with the said project. There is no evidence that the subjects of the articles are suffering from an excessive number of categories. So why delete the useful navigational pointer? Jheald 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doctor Who is a highly notable licensed property.--greenrd 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, I mentioned that in my nomination. That the property is notable doen't mean that people who write novels about the property should be categorized as such. Otto4711 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is essentially a performer by performance category. Doczilla 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we categorise every author by the "universe" in which they have written books, then popular tie-in authors will end up having dozens of categories. Bluap 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These authors have written books for multiple "fictional universes". This is akin to categorizing comic book writers by specific title or TV writers by show, both of which were not practical (as the long lists of categories for every project in every writer's article would be difficult to read). This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if List of Doctor Who actors is an example of what people promoting deleting this category would prefer in its steadTim! 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See list of blue plaques for a better example of how a category can be turned into a list. (The page was started when a category for people with blue plaques was deleted and listified.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the list of actors so that the category could be deleted. I am not a subject matter expert which is why I put right in the article that the attention of a subject matter expert was required. Regardless, the existence of that article in a poor form has no bearing on whether this category should exist. Otto4711 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim!, nominator also gave no rationale except "I don't like it.." Matthew 11:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent my words. Stating that something is overcategorization is nothing like "I don't like it." Otto4711 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla. Honbicot 12:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per other similar categories. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — many authors are known specifically because of their work on a licensed property, and there is no legitimate threat of overcategorization here. This particular nomination is a prime example of excessive zeal in deletion of categories. However, if the article is deleted, please listify and leave a note somewhere indicating the title under which the list has been created. (The recently created lists List of Doctor Who actors and List of Doctor Who directors were created with no links to them from anywhere.) I would also ask that the creator of the list wikify it: List of Doctor Who actors is staggeringly un-useful in its present form, because the actors' names are not linked. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list was created yesterday. I was not aware that lists were supposed to be letter-perfect the day after they were created; I'll try to do better next time. Otto4711 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jposiah Rowe - this is a useful category in that it is one in which many writers are known specifically and widely only for their work within the fictional universe in question. StuartDouglas 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Overcategorization. Tim's disappointment with how categories are being listed is legitimate, but only to the extent that replacement lists should be wikified so they are at least as functional as a category page. That this has not happened in other occasions is not a good reason to keep this category. -- SamuelWantman 08:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after being listified. Over categorization. Vegaswikian 00:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm ambivalent as to whether listification is merited. --Xdamr^talk 16:57, 15 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 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: convert to list. >Radiant< 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Doctor Who composers to Category:British television composers

Merge - overcategorization by specific performance. Merge in line with all recent CFDs deleting or merging project-specific categories. Otto4711 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the story editors below. The relevant biographical articles do not appear to be suffering from an excessive number of categories. Therefore the proposed reason for deletion is spurious and over zealous. Why delete useful navigational cross-referencing ? Jheald 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because CFD after CFD after CFD has come to the consensus that categorizing people based on specific projects on which they worked in inappropriate. We have deleted tegories for actors, writers and directors by TV series, categories for personalities by TV network, and so on. There's nothing about writing music for Doctor Who which necessaitates an exception to that consensus. Otto4711 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we end up categorising composers by series of programmes and/or films that they have composed music for, then many composers (e.g. John Williams will end up with scores of categories. Bluap 06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my comments for Category:Doctor Who novelists. Those comments apply to this category as well. Dr. Submillimeter 09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if List of Doctor Who actors is an example of what people promoting deleting this category would prefer in its steadTim! 09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See list of blue plaques for a better example of how a category can be turned into a list. (The page was started when a category for people with blue plaques was deleted and listified.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the list of actors so that the category could be deleted. I am not a subject matter expert which is why I put right in the article that the attention of a subject matter expert was required. Regardless, the existence of that article in a poor form has no bearing on whether this category should exist. Otto4711 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per other similar categories. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no legitimate danger of overcategorization here. However, if deleted, please listify with a properly wikilinked list (unlike the shoddy List of Doctor Who actors). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the list sucks so bad. It's been up for a day. I'll try to make sure any future lists I make are perfect in form and function before posting them next time. Otto4711 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify Same as category above. -- SamuelWantman 09:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after being listified. Over categorization. Vegaswikian 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 16:58, 15 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 keep. --Xdamr^talk 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. greenrd 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Was emptied on 1 March. Now being repopulated. Honbicot 12:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good category. Reason for nomination no longer applies. AshbyJnr 01:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and further populate. Build a better WP by a little research. Hmains 02:47, 14 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: convert to list. >Radiant< 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in line with all the many similar deletions of categories by profession. There is already a list article and this is overcategorization. Otto4711 20:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there may be a list article, but few of the relevant bios point to it. Nor do the relevant bios appear to be suffering from an excessive number of categories. Therefore this category would appear to be useful, and the proposed reason for deletion appears spurious and over zealous. Jheald 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list has the needed information. Do not categorize people by every different job they ever had. Doczilla 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See my comments for Category:Doctor Who novelists. Those comments apply to this category as well. Additionally, I have to agree that this level of categorization is insane. (I expect Category:Doctor Who key grips next.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if List of Doctor Who actors is an example of what people promoting deleting this category would prefer in its steadTim! 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See list of blue plaques for a better example of how a category can be turned into a list. (The page was started when a category for people with blue plaques was deleted and listified.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the list of actors so that the category could be deleted. I am not a subject matter expert which is why I put right in the article that the attention of a subject matter expert was required. Regardless, the existence of that article in a poor form has no bearing on whether this category should exist. Otto4711 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per other similar categories. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per convention not to categorise by every job a person has held. --Xdamr^talk 15:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jheald, but I feel less strongly about this than the other Doctor Who categories recently nominated, since a good list does exist. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the people wanting to keep this category should explain why it should be treated differently from every other sort of category of people by project. Consensus has been to delete categories for actors, directors, producers, writers and miscellaneous "crew" so why exactly should story editors for Doctor Who be an exception to that? Otto4711 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking for myself, I don't agree with the consensus that people by project is overcategorization, so I don't feel the need to explain why this example of people by project is any different from other categories which I personally feel should have been kept. I recognize that a general consensus about "people by project" seems to have been reached, but I'm not yet completely reconciled to it, and will continue to speak up for categories which I feel are useful navigational tools. And remember, consensus can change. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after being listified. Over categorization. Vegaswikian 00:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 06:39, 16 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 Delete it was replaced by Category:Le Mans Union Club 72. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. greenrd 20:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it's obsolete. Note you can just tag these as ((db-catempty)). -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:46, 11 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this category appears to have been created to make a non-NPOV political point, or something. It is pointless to have a category which lists all non-illegal organisations in the two countries, and it is silly and potentially libelous and/or potentially non-NPOV to then point out that "oh, by the way, these are operating legally but may be viewed as terrorist organisations by some governments". Overall, a trainwreck. greenrd 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most organizations in Ireland and Britain are legal anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 09:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV point-scoring. — coel acan — 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a proper basis for categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Retain (for as long as 32 County Sovereignty Movement is included in the Category:Designated terrorist organizations). I created the category and would contest the view that this was POV-motivated. I am a Wikpedian of many years standing and am an academic. The creation of the category was an attempt to counter the insistence of User:Weggie in including this organisation in the Category:Designated terrorist organizations. As I have outlined in the article's talk page, the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, which I should add is a group that I detest, is categorised by the US State Dept as a terrorist organisation. Yet, the group operates openly in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Its leaders are well known, it publishes a newspaper, has postal addresses and telephone numbers. While the US categorisation is a fact, the inclusion in the Category:Legal organisations in Ireland and Britain serves to highlight that this (the US) view is of no significance in the territories where this organisation operates. The Category:Designated terrorist organizations does not represent a world view, places the views and designations of one government above two sovereign states, and is the problem here.--Damac 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Designated terrorist organizations does have its own problems, but these are not at issue here. This discussion is about a category for legal organizations. Such a category is not viable for all the reasons already mentioned. --rimshots^talk 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vast majority of organisations are legal. Wimstead 12:39, 14 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; CSD C1 empty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. greenrd 19:52, 10 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 keep. --Xdamr^talk 17:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. greenrd 19:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete empty categorizy that violates category rules. We don't categorize by name. Removing my vote. I will not support a deletion based on a vandal's gutting of a category. Doczilla 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of by-family categories, including dozens for Poland alone. It may have been emptied by a vandal. Honbicot 12:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now repopulated. Honbicot 12:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user User:HonbicotRaveenS 16:33, 13 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 10:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not clear whether the category is meant to solely include Lovecraft characters. If it is, then it is poorly-named and of questionable value. If it is not, it is too vague and of questionable value. Overall, of questionable value. greenrd 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vague and excessively broad category. Doczilla 06:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This sort of explicit categorization derives mostly from Chaosium's games rather than Lovecraft's work anyway, so a renaming would still be misleading. — coel acan — 01:42, 12 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:Football in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus into Category:Football in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. greenrd 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the actual category is Category:Football in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. TRNCFootball 14:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, typo. --rimshots^talk 13:34, 15 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 10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks objective criteria for inclusion. greenrd 18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection, This category is very relevant, though I realize the objective criteria for inclusion have not been specified. This will soon follow.bionicplatypus 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As best as I can tell, the category seems to be making a subjective judgment about whether specific films have "meaning" or "value". This type of subjectivity is not useful for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. Honbicot 12:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too subjective to form a proper basis for categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 03:00, 12 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:2006 elections in Scotland into Category:2006 elections in the United Kingdom and Category:2006 in Scotland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2006 elections in Scotland to Category:2006 elections in the United Kingdom

Merge, category contains only two articles, and is unlikely to have any more; it is the sub-category-by-year of Category:Elections in Scotland. (Note that if agreed, the upmerger should be to both Category:2006 elections in the United Kingdom and Category:2006 in Scotland). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Xdamr^talk 03:05, 12 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 10:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See the debate on Category:Ailurophiles at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4#Category:Ailurophiles. This is a category about either fictional characters who own cats or fictional characters who like cats. We probably should not categorize fictional characters this way. To some degree, it invokes original research, and determining which characters "likes" cats may be subjective. If used to indicate fictional cat owners, then I am uncertain as to whether it still is at all useful. In any case, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia, not distinguishing feature. The term gets used too broadly. Doczilla 18:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless category. Khoi khoi 22:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. Honbicot 12:38, 11 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 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Comic relief to Category:Comic relief characters

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to attempt to disambiguate this category from the British charity organisation Comic Relief, and for consistency with the naming patterns in the parent category. greenrd 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We do not categorize characters using terms like "comic relief". The terms usually have point-of-view or original research problems. Dr. Submillimeter 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr S as POV category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 18:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated content, see January 23 discussion. Otto4711 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation. --Xdamr^talk 03:01, 12 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 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Australian television presenters, everyone will retire eventually, if they live long enough. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Also, presenting careers tend to come and go. Presenters don't necessarily retire at a fixed point like doctors or teachers. They present a show when they can get a contract. Honbicot 12:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and per precedent against using these sort of qualifiers. --Xdamr^talk 03:03, 12 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty, and this was a proposed name of the Culver Military Academy, but not its actual name[2]. Category:Culver_Military_Academy_alumni also exists, so this one is a duplicate. greenrd 15:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as empty duplicate --rimshots^talk 17:38, 17 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Cities in Minnesota, convention of Category:Cities in the United States by state. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as duplicate category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:08, 10 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 10:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Juvenile songs, per discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. clear duplicative category. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:10, 10 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 10:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Empty. greenrd 14:55, 10 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Categorising articles by source just creates clutter and impedes navigation to more relevant categories. Haddiscoe 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vague, incorrectly capitalized clutter. Doczilla 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wilchett 15:54, 12 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 both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After merging of several articles, no longer useful for categorization. —M_C_Y_1008 (^talk/_contribs) 12:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete also check this entry to vote for the Hoenn one. TheBlazikenMaster 22:22, 11 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category is inherently POV, and potentially confusing — don't all notable footballers have two feet?

I understand what the author is aiming for, but this category can only possibly cause arguments as to which players are truely skilled with both feet, and which are not.

aLii 10:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. aLii 11:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of adding the above two categories to the nomination. While many players favor one foot over the other and left-footed players are overwhelmingly deployed on the left side of the field, it is not anything that's set in stone and highly POV and OR. Ytny (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Matthew_hk t c 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is impossible to objectively qualify who is and who isn't two-footed. Qwghlm 12:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category seeks to replace shades of grey with black and white distinctions. Haddiscoe 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, original research in most cases. Can we also delete Category:Right-footed football (soccer) players and Category:Left-footed football (soccer) players while we're at it? Ytny (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, POV, etc. This is not like being a Switch hitter because in baseball one has to declare which side he is batting from in each at bat. Many players score goals with both feet and the extent to which players are ambidexterous is debatable from what I understand about soccer. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons above, and simply because I can't see why this would even be useful Cunners 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense. Doczilla 06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. It's category cruft. Painfully irrelevant. — coel acan — 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense over-categorisation The Rambling Man 11:34, 12 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 keep so long as the articles exist. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete. Like many films: this is character cruft that can be in a list instead. Monsters Inc is one film (plus a short spinoff film that has some of the characters). From what I've read on the character articles: it's nothing of importance that can't be described on a list page instead. As a note: the list page shouldn't be every character, just the main ones (listed in this cat) along with possibly a few others. This fancruft needs massive cleaning on Wikipedia, hopefully this is the start of many categories becoming lists. Just because a film is popular and/or well known: doesn't mean all these characters articles must exist. RobJ1981 10:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Organizing fictional characters based on the movie/TV show/book/etc that they appear in is usually very sensible. This is one of the few useful ways to organize fictional characters. Moreover, it is part of a useful categorization hierarchy. (If putting Mike Wazowski in Category:Monsters, Inc. characters is not useful, then where should he be placed?) Dr. Submillimeter 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I meant above is: listify the articles in the cat to something such as "List of Monsters Inc. characters", then delete the category. There is alot of fancruft going on with film characters. Monsters Inc was one movie (with a spinoff short film): each character article isn't much, and can be explained better in a list page for all of them. Short articles for each character is just cruft that wont be expanded much. RobJ1981 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This sounds more like an issue with the individual articles and not the category itself. The debate on whether or not the articles should be merged into a single list article should take place on the articles' pages. The debate on this page is about whether or not to keep the category page. As long as the articles exist, the category should also exist to organize the articles. Dr. Submillimeter 09:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful way to contain these articles into a single category. If you get the articles merged, then the category can go away. But while the articles exist, the category should stay.--Mike Selinker 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the characters merit individual articles, it's appropriate to categorize them in this way. If they don't, the pages can be merged into a list of characters and the category deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 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: delete. >Radiant< 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I don't know what current practice is regarding this kind of category, but I find it distasteful to categorise economists by their religion. I would vote for deletion of this category. --woggly 07:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We should not categorize economists by religious belief (Jewish, Roman Catholic, atheist, Presbyterian, etc) unless someone can justify that religion has a reasonable impact on how people study economics. If Jewish people have suffered from discrimination in economics, then an article on the subject would be able to say more about the subject than a mere category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, We should not create Occupation by religion categories unless the religion is relevant to the occupation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irrelevant intersection, unless someone can come up with good evidence that Jewishness was a defining factor in these economists approach to their work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. For those who think this is "distasteful", I have a nasty surprise: take a look at Category:Jews by occupation. Since, according to nomination's rationale, those should all be deleted, including Category:Jews by occupation, this discussion really belongs there - hence my "procedural keep" vote. BTW: "Jewish" in this context means "belonging to Jewish people"; it does not designate religion. Almost all intersections of nationality/ethnicity and occupation are "irrelevant": should we delete Category:French economists too just because "Frenchness" is not a defining factor for these economists? GregorB 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GregorB. Jews by occupation, is encyclopedic and not distasteful. Should we get rid of that Jews by occupation category? If so, should we get rid of journalists, and novelists, and musicians? I believe this is a useful category. Part Deux 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think you can state unequivocaly that Jews by occupation is "not distasteful". I find it distasteful, and I don't find it consistently encyclopedic. There are differences between some of these occupations: there is such a thing as Jewish music, there is such a think as Jewish literature, therefore classifying musicians and authors as Jewish makes more sens - there is a strong cultural component to their work, and being Jewish is part of their culture. Category:Jewish mathematicians is a whole different story, and I now see that this category was also fairly recently nominated for deletion, with a no consensus outcome. I would definitely vote to delete several of these "Jewish... " categories. Thanks Doczilla for pointing out the actual stated Wikipolicy on this (see below). It's not a clear-cut matter - all occupations have some cultural component - but it looks to me like deleting the Jewish economists and Jewish mathematicians categories would accord with existing policy. --woggly 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jews are an ethnicity as well.Baka man 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However both Category:Economists by ethnicity and Category:Economists by religion are non-notable intersections. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. It also happens to be incorrectly capitalized. Doczilla 06:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no more reason to categorise economists by ethnicity than by religion. Honbicot 12:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen no argument that there's any "Jewish way to do economics" so this is an irrelevant intersection. — coel acan — 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation. --Xdamr^talk 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.RaveenS 16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an irrelevant intersection. Wilchett 03:09, 20 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 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: interesting. Guidelines would support a rename, but this nom is getting rather messy with several suggested names and no apparent consensus. Would suggest relisting with a clear proposal, or an RFC on the subject. >Radiant< 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ASEAN Heritage Sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Heritage sites in Southeast Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Heritage sites are primarily based on geography so its useless to classify them thru a political organization.
Category:ASEAN events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ASEAN laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ASEAN members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ASEAN meetings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations meetings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ASEAN events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Secretaries General of ASEAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretaries General (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- So who knows what ASEAN means?
Category:Sports events of ASEAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Southeast Asian sports events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Some of these aren't ASEAN-exclusive; Timor-Leste, a non-ASEAN member participates on some of them.--Howard the Duck 10:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor is a candidate member that would join iin about five years.--23prootie 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Timor-Leste would still be excluded today, "Southeast Asia" is better here, since the ASEAN doesn't control sports events. --Howard the Duck 01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a "de facto" member in international organizations, either you're a member or not. I'd still vote delete since ASEAN doesn't control these, just as the EU not controlling the European Football Championship. --Howard the Duck 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have a point... but I would still Keep the category since the ASEAN ParaGames and the ASEAN Football Championship have associated themselves with the bloc by explicitly branding themselves "ASEAN".--23prootie 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is they're not a part of the ASEAN period. --Howard the Duck 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - --Howard the Duck 10:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I populated it already, and if your wondering about the name, I named it to make it appear like a solar system, where the planets occupy the neighborhood of the sun but aren't fully integrated with it. What I'm saying is that these groups work under the ASEAN system but some are not fully dependent on it.--23prootie 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you populated this already, I'll withdraw this part of the nomination. --Howard the Duck 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So who knows what ASEAN means? Given that Indonesia is a member, and also given its important in the surrounding region, from Japan through Australia and into the South Pacific, probably about as many people as know what, say, NATO means. But I take your point - a rename makes sense. Grutness...wha? 22:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Rename to the more grammatically corect examples below:

Category:ASEAN events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Events of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ASEAN laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Laws of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ASEAN members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ASEAN meetings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Meetings of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:ASEAN events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Events of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Secretaries General of ASEAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Secretaries General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Do we have precedents for these? I'd rather go with <org> <name> than <name> of the <org>... --Howard the Duck 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ambiguity is what i'm trying to avoid with using the abbreviations. Anyway, the Secrataries General i got from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Political_office-holders, the rest I 'm not really sure, the European Union use your formula but using that on ASEAN really sounds awkward, I mean Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Gosh that's annoying!--23prootie 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's more annoying is that there are different naming conventions; although since the Sec-Gen has a standard (like what you've said), I'll withdraw that part, I'll continue my suggestion for other places. --Howard the Duck 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason why I am pushing for the acronym since using it would eliminate ambiguities surrounding the article "the". Anyway, Category:CARICOM uses your formula for members, but its an acronym so it still sounds ok, while Category:World Trade Organization uses the extended for in the main category but uses the acronym on subcategories. Category:Commonwealth of Nations, on the otherhand, uses my formula for its members. Basically what I'm saying is that there is no definite convention on these so its kinda our choice. I'll stick to the acronym. What's yours? --23prootie 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are categories, ergo, it should be straight to be point and easy to understand. ASEAN isn't that fairly well known and a person will think, "what an ASEAN?" so the full name should be used unless it doesn't mean anything (like NBC) or it's of another language (like FIA). As for subarticles, acronyms are OK (List of members of the ASEAN, 1987 NBA season, and so forth). --Howard the Duck 04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get your rationale on using acronyms for subarticles but not on subcategories. I mean people are still gonna ask the same question when they look at the subarticles so why the double standards? If the acronym is used for titles then why not for subcategories? Anyway, the main category is Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations so by just looking at the bottom of the page, they would prabaly know what it means. Also you haven't answered my question, would you rather have awkward sounding subcategories like Category:Association of Southeast Asian Notions members or, for me, better sounding ones like Category:Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations? Like I said before, I prefer the latter if were not gonna pick acronyms.--23prootie 01:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Awkward-sounding" is your POV, I have yet to see a naming convention for this in the specific subject, so I'd still use that, actually its used on other categories, like Category:National Basketball Association awards (take note it's not Category:NBA awards. There are already countless category names which were originally acronyms but were then spelled out (one is Category:UAAP which became Category:University Athletics Association of the Philippines; Category:NCAA Philippines which became Category:National Collegiate Athletic Association (Philippines)), and so on. --Howard the Duck 02:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you have yet give an awkward sounding example. As far as I'm concerned, all of those examples sounds fine. Besides, I think grammar should have some weight on naming. Anyway, ASEAN is official, see here. --23prootie 03:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so are the acronyms "UAAP", "NBA" and "WWE", they're all official. As I've told you before, it's your POV that it's awkward-sounding, but unless you'd read Wikipedia aloud, it wouldn't make a difference. The name Association of Southeast Asian Nations members doesn't register as wrong grammar in MS-Word, and since you'd want it shorter, isn't it that "Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations" is longer than "Association of Southeast Asian Nations members"? Either way your arguments won't work, on me at least. --Howard the Duck 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does make a difference, considering there are things such as spoken articles. Anyway, if you prefer using Association of Southeast Asian Nations members thene why don't you rename List of members of the ASEAN into List of Association of Southeast Asian Nations members or List of ASEAN members. I mean as you've said its not wrong grammar.--23prootie 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No difference, we are talking about categories, not articles, unless you propose a "Spoken Categories Wikiproject". Categories and articles are different, the standards used on articles may be of no use for categories and vice versa. (ex: It's pretty stupid to add a table of contents on the category page, unless it's the alphabetical kind.) Acronyms are OK for subarticles, but for categories, unless they're of another language or the acronym doesn't mean anything, we'd spell out the whole name. Someone from Romania when they see Category:ASEAN might remark: "What the heck is ASEAN?" If it was Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations there'd be less ambiguity

(FYI, this is the only time where I've encountered opposition of renaming categories that are acronyms, all others passed unopposed, LOL.) --Howard the Duck 08:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally against spelling out acronynyms (and I was actually ready to concede a few days ago) but if your gonna use the full name pleas use the best name for the category. It's not as if the category "members of xx org." has never been used I mean just look above. so if your willing to compromise, I'm willing to compromise.--23prootie

There's nothing to compromise about, as I've said neither my or your suggestion is grammatically wrong; so I'd rather go with me format. --Howard the Duck 14:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What format? As far as i can tell its basically anything goes. Anyway, my suggestion still sounds better than yours but you don't care so i'll jus stop here, for now at least. --23prootie 11:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's your POV that yours is better. grammatically speaking, they're the same. If you'd want it shorter, you'd agree with my format. Can you cite anything that it is grammatically wrong? --Howard the Duck 11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep or delete for Category:ASEAN Heritage Sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) since the list is based on the websiteASEAN's Greatest Parks. --23prootie 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you going to replace it with Category:ASEAN's Greatest Parks? --Howard the Duck 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you?--23prootie 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know I really don't know what to do with that category I tried to speedy rename it to the synthesized version Category:Heritage parks of ASEAN but a lot of people didn't get it so what are your suggestions. I say delete because 'm sick and tired of this.--23prootie 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand your sentiments, I screw up in naming categories too, but is it really important to have a separate ASEAN subcategory for Category:Heritage parks? --Howard the Duck 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not really sure, I didn.t make that category, but I guess its not really important so you could delete it if you like.--23prootie 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as ASEAN, as it is fairly well known, and concise. 132.205.44.134 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as possible, categories shouldn't be acronyms as long as the acronyms don't mean a thing. --Howard the Duck 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the ASEAN heritage park is a program of the ASEAN, distinct from the UNESCO world heritage list. The two should not be mixed up with each other, which would happen by naming the category to something like Heritage parks of Southeast Asia. Naming the category "Greatest parks" would make it even more likely that parks not parts of this program will get put into this category, because someone though it is a "great park". But maybe the name "ASEAN Heritage Park" instead of "Heritage Site" would be better, as it is the correct name of the program. andy 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you've said it, i'd rather rename it to Category:Heritage parks of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. As much as possible, categories shouldn't be named as acronyms. --Howard the Duck 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, except for event and sports which I abstain. ASEAN is unambiguous and is actually more well-known than its full name. Using the full form would be too awkward for category. --Vsion 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I'd take that "ASEAN" is umambigious, the full name would be better since it'll set a bad precedent. Can you allow Category:EU ("EU" IMHO is more popular than "European Union")? --Howard the Duck 08:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But outlawing all acronyms is also a bad precedent. --23prootie 11:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a good precedent; imagine a Belorussian reading about the Ateneo de Manila University and he encounters Category:UAAP, image the consequences. You know that the the Pope is Catholic but not all of the people know that fact. Also, take note that I'm not proposing to "outlaw" all acronyms. --Howard the Duck 11:59, 18 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 by-year (i.e. all) subcategories into Category:Fellows of the Econometric Society. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this category is divided into numerous subcategories, by year of election to the society. I believe the purpose would be better served if only the parent category existed. Year of election could be tracked in a list. --woggly 07:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all subcategories into Category:Fellows of the Econometric Society - The subdivision by year is unneeded. Dr. Submillimeter 08:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all subcategories into Category:Fellows of the Econometric Society. If someone needs the year information I'd suggest putting this information as a sortable table into the main article which is only a stub. Vegaswikian 09:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all It is as likely to be useful to navigate from a member elected in 1842 to one elected in 1843 as to another member elected in 1842. Haddiscoe 12:49, 10 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 speedy deleted by User:Vegaswikian. Part Deux 21:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty, has been replaced by a list. greenrd 04:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as empty and as an irrelevant intersection even if someone populates it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 10 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 without prejudice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Empty - only contains the text Joseph de Maistre. This guy was French, not Italian, so he doesn't belong in this category! greenrd 04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as empty, without prejudice to recreation. Part Deux 21:34, 10 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no such thing as a historically Italian-American college, Googling the phrase "historically italian american college" yielded four results: three from Wikipedia and one mirror. Additions to this category would be purely POV. — MusicMaker 03:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doczilla 08:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Alphageekpa 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as POV judgement. --Xdamr^talk 03:02, 12 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:International Law professors into Category:International_law_scholars. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Except in special cases (e.g. Category:Oxford Professorships) we do not have separate categories for professors. greenrd 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps, but is there any reason why we shouldn't start? --Xdamr^talk 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, there is! The term "professor" has very different meanings on opposite sides of the Atlantic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Ok then, Merge per convention. --Xdamr^talk 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, per convention for scholars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge both and rename to Category:International law scholars. There is no WP requirement to have underscores in category names and no reason to have them. Hmains 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no need to rename, if you take a look at the category you will see that there are no underscores. That is just the way it was typed.

Xdamr^talk 13:26, 14 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 Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, will be orphaned per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 03:27, 10 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has been turned into a list. greenrd 02:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:34, 15 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, already merged into Category:Dyskobolia players. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. greenrd 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty cat. Doczilla 08:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 10 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. >Radiant< 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a micro-micro-category - too specific. greenrd 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Guantanamo witnesses - Both the nominated category and the parent category contain two articles altogether. This subcategory with an excessively long name is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Guantanamo witnesses per Dr S. No need to subdivide witnesses by their availability for particular parts of the legal process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, one name category for a one name, uncategorized parent category. This information couldn't be included in the articles? Neonblak 00:55, 11 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 speedy delete by Vegaswikian. — coel acan — 01:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty and appears to be a typo - the "see" link goes to the category with the apparently correct spelling. greenrd 01:14, 10 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 Category:Graduates of Western New England College to Category:Western New England College alumni. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Graduates of Western New England College to Category:Western New England College alumni

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to be consistent with the predominant naming style in its parent category, Alumni by university or college in the United States. greenrd 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistent style. — coel acan — 01:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:54, 10 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 09:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Graffiti and unauthorised signage Image to Category:Images of graffiti and unauthorised signage

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, grammatical fix. greenrd 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Nom makes sense to me. — coel acan — 01:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The name Category:Graffiti and unauthorised signage images would be a mouthful. Wodup 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename sensible. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:18, 10 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. Vegaswikian 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games cleanup to Category:Video game cleanup

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Having "games" plural here is seems grammatically unsound to me. Only ((gamecleanup)) and ((future game)) feed this category as far as I know. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. Wodup 03:48, 10 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 speedy delete by Vegaswikian. — coel acan — 01:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Empty. greenrd 00:56, 10 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 speedy delete by Vegaswikian. — coel acan — 01:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Empty. greenrd 00:41, 10 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.

March 10

Category:Mohiner Ghoraguli concerts

Category:Metric conversion

Category:Military formations

Category:Members and associates of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

Category:Members of St John Ambulance in Australia

Category:Marginocephalians

Category:Marist Brother schools

Category:Swedish ships

Category:Massacres in Belarusia

Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora

Category:Manx

Category:Locomondo

Category:Natives of Dumfries, Scotland

Category:Kiefer Sutherland

Category:Requests for unblock-auto

Category:Requests for username changes when blocked

Category:Local Youth Groups

Category:Literature of Karnataka

Category:List of Media Artists

Category:List of Major Electronic Companies

Category:Doctor Who people

Category:Doctor Who novelists

Category:Doctor Who composers

Category:Libraries by city

Category:Doctor Who story editors

Category:Le Mans UC72

Category:Legal organisations in Ireland and Britain

Category:Lego Star Wars

Category:Kalinowski family

Category:Investigators

Category:Football in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Category:Film as Literature

Category:2006 elections in Scotland

Category:Fictional ailurophiles

Category:Comic relief

Category:Retired Australian television presenters

Category:Culver Military Institute alumni

Category:Minnesota Cities

Category:Juvenile singles

Category:Battles of Second Sino-Japanese War

Category:Background Notes

Pokémon locations by region

Category:Two-footed football (soccer) players

Category:Monsters, Inc. characters

Category:Jewish Economists

ASEAN-related categories

Category:Fellows of the Econometric Society elected in [...]

Category:Jewish inventors

Category:Italian Counterrevolutionaries

Category:Historically Italian-American colleges

Category:International Law professors

Category:Australian banknotes

Category:Hiragana and katakana place names

Category:Groclin players

Category:Witness requested by a Guantanamo detainee who was deemed not to be reasonably available

Category:Ghanian people

Category:Graduates of Western New England College

Category:Graffiti and unauthorised signage Image

Category:Video games cleanup

Category:George Enescu

Category:Gambling variants