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

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civil wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Propose renaming to Category:Civil wars and conflicts
• Nominator's rationale: To encompass both full-scale civil wars and smaller-scale civil conflicts -- of which there are already a number of subcategories and articles included in this parent category. This would also be in line with the proposed renaming of Category:African Civil Wars below. Cgingold 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how small a conflict? 70.55.201.4 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative oppose - it seems a lot fuzzier than the original category to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Civil war is the normal term. "Civil conflict" could have a huge variety of meanings - it could mean having a disagreement with your local council, for instance, which is not really the same thing. -- Necrothesp 08:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Well, it's true that "civil war" is the "normal term" for a full-scale civil war. However, there are already three subcategories (with a possible fourth for African conflicts), and also four articles, in Category:Civil wars that use the term "civil conflict" -- as well as quite a few articles that use neither term but also appear to deal with conflicts that don't qualify as full-scale civil wars. As things currently stand, most or all of these would need to be removed from this category if we were to apply the sort of standard that's discussed in the article Civil war.

As for the definitional issue, I honestly don't see that as being a serious concern. I mean, how many people are actually going to be silly enough to think that "a disagreement with your local council" equates to a "civil conflict"? Even if something of that sort were to happen on rare occasion, it's simple enough to remove them, just as we do with any improperly categorized article. Moreover, the Category page can state very clearly that a small-scale "civil disturbance" does not rise to the level of a "civil conflict". So I really don't think this category would attract a larger number of inaptly categorized articles than it does currently. Cgingold 13:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, the category is not tagged, which it should be. I suggested widening the African category below to this term, so matching the English one, but (perhaps perversely) I'm not so sure about doing this generally. The nature of these conflicts in Africa is rather different, and the dividing line harder to draw. In the case of England, we just have more detailed articles than for many other countries. Most of the sub-cats of this category cover specific wars, which is neat and easy to understand. If we widened the scope, many countries would need a "by country" sub-cat, & we would end up with rather too many small local riots I think - in Africa these just don't get articles so it isn't a problem. There is also category Category:Guerrilla wars, Category:Rebellion, and the daddy of them all Category:Conflict, and ones for riots etc. I think it might be better to collect all of these, for ease of navigation, into an extra "internal/civil conflicts" category, which included the more specific types. Though I suppose not all guerilla wars are civil. Johnbod 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is the term civil conflict can range quite far afield: were the racial conflicts in the US that defined the civil rights movement a conflict (watching the beatings it looks like a conflict to me); the Dirty War in Argentina, the various massacres and oppressions in many undemocatic places seem like conflicts but many never turn to full-fledged civil war, admittedly there will be a gray zone at the edges unless we well define what a civil war is and what it isn't: current times in Iraq? Iraq just at the end of the first Gulf War? The Shining Path-Peruvian government? The revolution that overthrew the Shah of Iran? The various standoffs in the Taiwan Strait? The Nazi-Reds street battles during the waning days of Weimar Germany? The current war in Aghanistan? The "troubles" in Northern Ireland? The Red Army Faction against the West German government? etc... Carlossuarez46 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My point is that "war" has a very specific meaning, whereas "conflict" does not. "Conflict", if it isn't used as a complete synonym for a war or battle (which usage would make "Civil wars and conflicts" a pointless name), means a disagreement. "Civil conflict" does not actually exist as a phrase according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which means it is both confusing and non-existent. In other words, we do not need to rename the category. -- Necrothesp 09:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've already explained the motivation for this proposal, but honestly, I can live with either name. Each name presents its own set of issues, but in both cases I think the problems they give rise to are relatively minor. I was primarily concerned that the naming of some of the subcats and articles might raise concerns in terms of not being properly aligned with the parent category. But if everybody can live with things as they are, that's fine with me.

Btw, I've now got the CFD notice properly posted -- sorry about the oversight. If this was a deletion proposal, I would withdraw it and start over; but given that deletion isn't being considered and the proposal is getting a goodly amount of attention, I don't think that's necessary. Cgingold 12:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is. If a conflict is serious enough, it will be placed in the Civil War category regardless of the article name. No name change is needed for this to happen. Hmains 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—see Category:Conflicts to see how wide the overlap would be. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 05:20 Z

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cold War armoured personnel carriers to Category: Armoured personnel carriers of the Cold War

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:38 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II armoured cars to Category: Armoured cars of World War II

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:38 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of World War II.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II self-propelled anti-aircraft to Category: Self-propelled anti-aircraft of World War II

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:38 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of World War II. "Anti-aircraft" is an adjective, not a noun, and its parent cat is Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons. As it stands, the name looks unfinished, as if the last word has been omitted by mistake. -- Necrothesp 09:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename, per Necrothesp. I wanted to remain consistent within this mass nomination, and with the speedy renaming of 46 other related categories at WP:CFDS. But since this one couldn't be speedied anyway, we may as well fix the name. —Michael Z. 2007-09-25 15:09 Z

• Rename, per Necrothesp. Changing my !vote, supporting better grammar. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons of World War II per Necrothesp. Vegaswikian 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II self-propelled artillery to Category: Self-propelled artillery of World War II

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:38 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II tank destroyers to Category: Tank destroyers of World War II

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:38 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II tankettes to Category: Tankettes of World War II

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:38 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II self-propelled guns to Category: Self-propelled guns of World War II

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:38 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Amire80 per user request. Bencherlite^Talk 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Can't find a WikiProject called "RealLife" or "Real Life". Seems to be a test. Rocket000 22:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the category and agree on deleting it. (It happened in an unsober moment, sorry ;) BillHicksRulez 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pirate rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A made-up genre. Too narrow. 2 members. Rocket000 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it doesn't look like it was made up by the category creator: 18,200 non-wikipedia ghits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure what belongs here but with only 2 members, deletion seems reasonable. The two articles in there seem to be using different cats, so I'm not sure how they are related. Maybe after Pirate rock is created. Vegaswikian 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Subjective. Not defined. 2 members. Rocket000 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague per other anti-X categories as vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - largely ambiguous. Does "anti" imply epistemological (lack of a better word) objections ("those Christians are wrong") or ideological ones ("they **insert-your-own-act-of-atrocity-here** for fun")? — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective, underpopulated hate magnet. Wryspy 06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the reasons already noted. I would have no problem in principle with a category for individuals who have committed anti-Christian hate crimes and/or are notable for publishing anti-Christian hate literature. But this category is far too broad and lacking in definition.

In addition, I think it's worth taking note of the contrast between the two articles that were added to the category by its creator, Shaft424. One of the individuals (Varg Vikernes) appears to be a certifiable hater of Christians or Christianity. But Simcha Jacobovici is just a filmmaker, with nothing in his article indicating that he is "anti-Christian" -- and yet, Shaft424 saw fit to add him to the category two full months before he created it. Very peculiar. In any event, his inclusion smacks of POV-pushing, and gives some indication of Shaft424's intent in creating this category. Cgingold 13:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all; above, and similar deleted categories in the past I think. Johnbod 13:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: World War I tanks to Category: Tanks of World War I

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:20 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: Inter-war tanks to Category: Tanks of the interwar period

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:20 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: World War II tanks to Category: Tanks of World War II

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:20 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: Cold War tanks to Category: Tanks of the Cold War

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:20 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category: Modern tanks to Category: Tanks of the post-Cold War period

Nominator's rationale: To conform with the parent category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era, as discussed and agreed in principal at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era.  —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:20 Z

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty, already merged. Kbdank71 14:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Already cleared out to Category:YouTube video producers. Rocket000 21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom to Category:YouTube video producers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:African civil wars per the non-rename of "Civil Wars" above. Kbdank71 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African Civil Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"African Civil Wars" does not exist as a unique concept; this is simply a category for civil wars that took/take place in African countries. It should be renamed to Category:African civil wars or Category:Civil wars in Africa. I am currently leaning toward the latter, as it seems a more accurate description of the category's purpose: Africa is a geographic entity in which civil wars can take place; it is not a single political entity and thus, technically, cannot itself experience civil wars. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

• Rename It might be best to follow the English category & go for Category:Civil conflicts in Africa as a great number of these are riots, coups & guerilla insurgencies etc that might reasonably not be called wars. Johnbod 21:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true: conflicts is certainly more encompassing and less ambiguous than "wars. I support renaming to your suggested target. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I think Johnbod is on the right track here, but I would go half a step further and rename to Category:Civil wars and conflicts in Africa, to encompass the range of such conflicts, many of which were full-scale civil wars. In line with this notion, I've already gone ahead and proposed renaming the parent category to Category:Civil wars and conflicts (see top of page). Cgingold 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Civil wars and conflicts in Africa per Cgingold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this Johnbod 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just want to encourage people to weigh in on my proposal for renaming Category:Civil wars at the top of this page. Cgingold 13:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:John Russell Pope to Category:John Russell Pope buildings

Nominator's rationale: Rename - category for buildings designed by Pope should be named per Category:Buildings and structures by architect. Otto4711 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, but the category should be added to other categories as well - American C19 architecture or whatever. Johnbod 21:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jackie Robinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: eponymous overcategorization. Gathering together articles of such higly tenuous connection to Robinson as the article for the number that happened to be his jersey number or a company for which he was a manager. The material here is extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized and doesn't warrant the category. Otto4711 19:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In the case of Jackie Robinson, this rule does not fit. Granted there is a bit too much with 42, but ehh. It warrants a category on the basis of increased usefuless of wikipedia and fits WP:IAR given his importance culturally.--Buridan 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was not expecting to support keeping this, but after looking through its contents I believe there's enough there to warrant a category. Although I agree that a couple of items ought to be removed, I just added another article that had been left out (Jackie Robinson Foundation). We're not obligated to delete every single eponymous category, they should be evaluated on a case by case basis. For me, this one passes muster. Cgingold 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:G.I.S. software companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Ending up not being able to categorize software companies by their 'category', many companies focused on multiple sectors. Cander0000 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose this could simply include companies whose activities include GIS software, but I see there is not a single member of the category for some reason. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 05:24 Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly a duplicate of Category:Primes, also titled incorrectly. The category Category:Transformers characters could also do with a serious pruning, it has far too many subcategories. JIP | Talk 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, or at least Merge into Category:Celebrities, the members should already be categorized according to why they are notable. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: looking at the two categories, it actually seems like their contents should be swapped. (And then Category:Celebrities should probably be deleted as too subjective.) Categories with a singular name (e.g. Category:Opera) should be used for articles about the topic, while categories with a plural name should be used for instances of the category (e.g. Category:Operas). In this case, it is almost precisely backwards. It has been suggested that the Celebrities category should be used for people who are "famous for being famous", but that strikes me as mildly pejorative and I firmly believe that there have to be better ways of classifying such people. Xtifr _tälk 21:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too broad - "fame" is already pretty much the standard for inclusion of people (WP:BIO). --Alksub 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete. Could be a speedy merge for plural. Vegaswikian 04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague, subjective, poorly named category. Wryspy 06:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then rename the other one so it reflects the subject. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 05:26 Z

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Keith, Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:People from Keith, Moray, to match Keith, Moray. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cateogry had only one entry so I was dubious about it, but I've checked on a few articles and added them to the category, so it looks to have a bit of value. AllyD 17:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Merge per nom. AllyD 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer should note that the above !voter is the nom, and thus that is not a separate opinion. Xtifr _tälk 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom is ProveIt, not AllyD, so it was a separate opinion. Bencherlite^Talk 23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, indeed so, sorry 'bout that. Xtifr _tälk 23:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Closer 14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Consistency between the lead article and its associated categories is almost always a good thing, and I certainly see no reason why it wouldn't be in this case. Xtifr _tälk 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency with main article. Bencherlite^Talk 23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency with main article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 14:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Polish Britons to Category:British people of Polish descent

Nominator's rationale: There appears to be no reason why there are two categories and people seem to have been assigned to one or the other pretty randomly. -- Necrothesp 11:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod 17:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both: the Polish Britons category is predominantly (and should be) those born in Poland whereas the ...of Polish descent category is a weaker one for "2nd gen" people. Possibly they should be renamed to encourage clear allocation by editors - and some reallocation may be needed - but I certainly don't think it would be good to dilute the specific position of say a Namier or a Kołakowski into the latter category. AllyD 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That's not what the description on the P-B cat says at all, although I see most members do match that criterion. Is this distinction maintainable through all these cats? Does that matter? Johnbod 18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. That's not what it says in the category description for Polish Britons, which appears to include anyone British with a vague connection to Poland and anyone Polish with a vague connection to Britain, and certainly includes British people with Polish heritage as well as people actually born in Poland. In addition, nobody has seen fit to link these two categories together at all, which they obviously should be if they're both going to stand. As it is at the moment there is absolutely no need for both of them without a major review of which category is for which class of people. -- Necrothesp 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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