Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 2

< December 1	December 3 >

December 2

Category:Cities and towns in New Zealand → Category:Cities, towns and communities in New Zealand

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. the wub "?!" 10:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This cat contains places down to the size of a handful of buildings, so the more inclusive title is better. Not easy to split, due to various changes in definition of what qualifies as a town or city in New Zealand (see List of cities in New Zealand for more on that). Grutness...wha? 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support change, we had a similar issue with Hungarian cities a while ago. (just a question: does the word "community" not include cities and towns? i.e. is it a smaller settlement, like, a village?) – Alensha ^talk 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- mmm. yes it does, but if you describe a place as a community in NZ, it's usually implied that you're talking about small farming settlements, fishing villages, or the like. If a better term can be found it might be useful, though. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Brian | (Talk) 23:48, 4 December 2006 (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 sadists

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is both difficult to agree on and probably unnecessary. Many additions to this category (such as, at one time, nearly every villain in Dragon Ball) are purely matters of opinion and speculation. How far should this go? Does Yosemite Sam belong? JRP 22:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The definition alone shows that whoever created this category had the wrong idea. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, impossibly vague; could potentially refer to almost every fictional villain and many anti-heroes. -Sean Curtin 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless you send all these fictional characters to a psychiatrist to confirm their condition. Danny Lilithborne 23:43, 3 December 2006 (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:Hindu women

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, presumably roughly half of all Hindus are women, and there's no good reason to divide people in general by religion&gender. Mairi 22:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Wimstead 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Greg Grahame 18:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Dugwiki 18:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put Category:Muslim women up for Cfd as well.Baka man 23:21, 9 December 2006 (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:Reality television series in Singapore

Category:Documentary television series in the United States

Category:Children's television series in the United States

Category:Travel television series in the United States

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. David Kernow (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reality television series in Singapore to Category:Singaporean reality television series

Category:Documentary television series in the United States to Category:American documentary television series

Category:Children's television series in the United States to Category:American childrens' television series

Category:Travel television series in the United States to Category:American travel television series

Rename [all] - TV shows by country. Otto4711 2 December 2006 (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.

Category:Women of Pakistan

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is very well established that we don't categorize by nationality and gender. Sumahoy 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wimstead 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Greg Grahame 18:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (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:1980s comedy TV shows in the United States

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1980s comedy TV shows in the United States to Category:1980s American comedy television series

Rename - Another in the TV series by country mode. Otto4711 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one is too specific. --musicpvm 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! 09:58, 3 December 2006 (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:More protagonists

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 all. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video game protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Nameless protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Animation protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Manga and anime protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all as nom. Going by titles and articles alone, as the categories have no definition,—a particularly damning flaw—this looks like your standard case of overly broad categorization. Much like category:protagonists and category:film protagonists, these protagonist subcategories don't seem to consider the fact that almost every story has a protagonist. Multiply that by virually all animation or video games and it just gets ridiculous. "Anime and manga" would be a large majority of fiction in all of Japan; "nameless" is just has a bunch of films. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if some users think they have a clear cut definition of "protagonist" there is nothing to stop other people adding articles to these categories on the basis of a very different definition. Sumahoy 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. "Protagonist" is too vague a concept to be applied as a category. -Sean Curtin 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on Computer and video game protagonists. Every video game has a protagonist, but not every video game protagonist is significant enough to have their own wiki article (at least one that can survive without getting deleted after a month or so). Those that are culturally significant enough to have their own article (Mario, Duke Nukem, that guy from Halo) should have a page where they're organized together. Joylock 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use "character" cats instead. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Janitor (Scrubs) is not a protagonist. Rever e ndG 03:14, 10 December 2006 (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:IPods

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. — CharlotteWebb 02:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IPods to Category:IPod

Rename; this category contains articles and sub-categories that aren't about the iPod product itself, so using the official product name "iPod" instead makes more sense. -/- Warren 20:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I was thinking about nominating this the other day. --musicpvm 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but, although I know that tech restrictions prevent the article from being called "iPod" is there some reason why the category shouldn't have the correct capitalization, Category:iPod?
- Categories have the same technical restrictions. --68.40.157.163 01:10, 3 December 2006 (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.

US Army officers by rank

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 all. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already being misused with Douglas MacArthur in two categories, one of which you have to go through to get to the other. Perhaps there is a value here but the retirement rank is usually irrelevant to the rank related to someone's notability. Dhartung | Talk 20:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Previous discussions have decided that we should only have categories for generals and officers. There is no point having categories that simply track a soldier's promotion record. Sumahoy 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that all of these categories would be very difficult to maintain. What value is there is knowing that at some point in a General's career he/she was a first lieutenant? Mufka 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just don't see the point to this, particularly if it's being used to categorise every rank an officer ever held. Of course MacArthur and Patton were once lieutenants and majors on their way to general officer rank. So what? Only categorising final rank would make more sense, but even then it seems like a bit too much detail to be necessary. I say delete all except Category:United States Army officers and Category:United States Army generals, the only two that actually have much significance. -- Necrothesp 21:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as nominator. I would just like to point out that Mufka added other categories to this nomination. I endorse the additions (I figured they might be there but they were not included in the parent cat). For transparency's sake, however, I recommend that editors point out when they are modifying a nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, overcat, and many people have held multiple ranks during their career. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (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:Lists of Olympic medalists

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. David Kernow (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Olympic medalists into Category:Olympic medalists by sport

Merge, In cleaning up Category:Lists of sportspeople, I came across these two similar categories. If I had kept going with my cleanup, they would be nearly identical. Spiffy sperry 20:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a category of lists, whereas Category:Olympic medalists by sport should also contain individual articles, even if it doesn't yet. Sumahoy 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was me that started cleaning up Category:Lists of sportspeople not Spiffy sperry. This is an essential subsection of that category. Nathanian 21:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a common category that help reduce clutter in the main category. Category:Olympic medalists could use some cleanup to move those articles to one of the more specific cats. Vegaswikian 20:13, 4 December 2006 (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:Archbishops of Armagh

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archbishops of Armagh to Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Armagh

Rename, as there is also a Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh. Mairi 19:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. -- Necrothesp 21:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Wimstead 00:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:45, 5 December 2006 (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:Gang of Four

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. David Kernow (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is clearly a superfluous category; we don't need a category for just four people and there is already a category for "Cultural Revolution people", which fulfills this function.--Niohe 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as both superfluous and ambiguous, given that it's also a band name. Admittedly the latter has a "(band)" dabber, but why make things any harder than they need to be? Grutness...wha? 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment maybe there should be a 'people of the Cultural Revolution' category as a place to put the 'important' people involved with it--as a subcategory of the 'Cultural Revolution' category. Hmains 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best way to find out which people were "important" in the Cultural Revolution is to read the article as a category cannot provide any reasons or context. Greg Grahame 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dugwiki 18:16, 4 December 2006 (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:Johnson family

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 already implemented as move to Johnson family (Passions). David Kernow (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Johnson family to Category:Johnson family (Passion)

Rename because of Category:Johnson family (Lyndon) and make Category:Johnson family a dis-ambiguation category. Georgia guy 18:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but am unsure about Category disambiguaion suggestion. TonyTheTiger 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After Rename Move to Category:Fictional families. TonyTheTiger 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move seems to have already occured to appropriate sub category of the category above. TonyTheTiger 14:49, 3 December 2006 (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:South African civil honors

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South African civil honors to Category:Civil decorations of South Africa

Rename, Firstly Honors is US spelling, South Africa uses UK spelling. The proposed rename brings the SA category into line with what has become the consensus of category name for this type of medal - cf. the equivalent categories for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, France, Germany (amongst others). Xdamr^talk 18:22, 2 December 2006 (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.

Muslim scholars

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 relisting here. David Kernow (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sunni Muslim scholars to Category:Sunni scholars

Category:Sunni Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Sunni Islamic scholars

Category:Shi'a Muslim scholars to Category:Shi'a scholars

Category:Shi'a Muslim Islamic scholars to Category:Shi'a Islamic scholars

Rename, The use of "Muslim" is redundant and not needed. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Seems reasonable. Sunni and Shi'a are fairly specific. -- Necrothesp 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While Sunni and Shi'a are currently well-understood in the West and identified as "Muslim", in part because of the current problems in the Middle East, I don't believe that the average English-speaker would identify, for example, Ibadi as Muslim. There is no "Ibadi Muslim scholars" category currently, but I still believe that the extra identifying word in the category name is descriptive and necessary. JRP 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would consider it less of an understood reasoning and more for simplicity. If someone does not know what Shi'a is, they can look it up but the categories are already subcats of Category:Muslim scholars with a diagram on each category's page. The only way it would be needed is if there are two identical Shi'a categories and they needed distinguishing. -- CobraWiki ^{(jabber|stuff)} 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i was about to support, but considering the above... --Striver 00:31, 3 December 2006 (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:Villages in Hungary

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 redirect to Cities, towns and villages in Hungary. David Kernow (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be deleted because it was already agreed that all cities, towns and villages will go to the category Category:Cities, towns and villages in Hungary because of local legal terminology, etc. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Cities in Hungary and several edits like this. This category included only one stub, Ádánd, which was moved to the correct category.

delete per my nom. – Alensha ^talk 17:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, I agree with Alensha. K. Lástocska 18:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep as redirect or it will be back at some point. Sumahoy 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's ever created again, it's going to be eligible for a {{db-repost}}, so there's not much of a problem there. K issL 12:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep as redirect as people who don't know about the Hungarian situation may search for this category. Greg Grahame 18:40, 3 December 2006 (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:Johnson and Johnson family

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 Johnson family (Robert W.). David Kernow (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Johnson and Johnson family to Category:to be determined by consensus

Proposed names (others may be added)

Category:Johnson family (Robert W.)

Category:Johnson family (Johnson & Johnson)

Rename, I propose that this category be named in a way that both disambiguates it properly from Category:Johnson family (Lyndon), Category:Johnson family (Rafer) and the proposed Category:Johnson family (Samuel C.) (see below) as well as disambiguates it in a way that it remains recognizable. TonyTheTiger 16:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the Robert W. name because it would follow the convention of the extant and proposed Samuel C. categories. TonyTheTiger 16:37, 2 December 2006 (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:S. C. Johnson family

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:S. C. Johnson family to Category:Johnson family (Samuel C.)

Rename, This will disambiguate from Category:Johnson family (Lyndon), Category:Johnson family (Rafer) and the proposed renaming of the Johnson and Johnson family (above). TonyTheTiger 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how is the current name not disambiguated from those two categories? Mairi 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clearly disambiguated, but a quick look at Category:American_families shows that the standard naming convention is as proposed. I.E., alll but 2 or 3 entries are titled Surname family. There is no J. F. Kennedy family for example. TonyTheTiger 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the family in question better known as the 'Johnson family' or the 'S. C. Johnson family'? If it's the former, then the proposed disambiguation makes sense, if it's the latter, I don't see any reason to change the category name. Mairi 20:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are better known as the 'Johnson Family'. See Johnson Family Enterprises. Johnson Family Enterprises and Johnson Family Foundation are both names of major business entities. TonyTheTiger 22:37, 2 December 2006 (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:Churches in Windsor

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. David Kernow (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category has no members and had just one (I moved St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Windsor prior to realizing the CFD policy existed). Have not found any other articles that fit the category. PKT 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too limited a category and in any case badly named, since Windsor, Ontario is not the only Windsor in the world and not the first that everybody (including the 60 million people in the UK) would think of. Category:Churches in Ontario would be a better category if subcats of Category:Churches in Canada (apart from those already existing for the major cities) are needed. -- Necrothesp 17:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 00:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There were other churches in this category, but they were all sent to AFD and deleted as non notable; the one remaining had a vague claim to notability. --Brianyoumans 17:06, 3 December 2006 (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:Actor-sportspeople

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. David Kernow (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a variation on the recently deleted category:Athlete actors. The initial rationale for deleting that was "People who have had more than one career are likely to suffer from category clutter already without the addition of extra categories that link those careers." and several further reasons for deletion were put forward. Hawkestone 16:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion. Sumahoy 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dugwiki 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a meaningful intersection. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (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 entertainers

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 Tim! 12:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople has been deleted several times and is now marked as a permanently deleted category (see further down today's discussions), this can go the same way. Someone has populated this industriously, but in the great majority of cases I have looked at there is no evidence in the article that there was a crucial link between the individual's religion and his or her career. Hawkestone 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why do we need to know the religion of entertainers? Is it relevant to their profession? In most cases, very definitely not. -- Necrothesp 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take a look at this page: List_of_Jewish_American_Entertainers. Now I realize a category isn't the same as a page (seems like that would be splitting hairs). At the very least the content should be merged into List_of_Catholic_American_entertainers. Endless blue 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No lists and categories are not the same thing at all. Wimstead 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but Category:Jewish American actors might be similar. It seems like this was partly created to keep Category:Roman Catholics from becoming unmanageable.--T. Anthony 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Listify per Endless blue. My only question would be the naming of the list. Should it be List of Catholic American entertainers or List of American Roman Catholic entertainers? Vegaswikian 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not listify because it is POV to claim that religion is significant to these entertainers' careers. Wimstead 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't POV when they actually do religious entertainment or use their celebrity to speak on issues concerning the faith. For example James Caviezel or Danny Thomas.--T. Anthony 01:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we delete and do not listify, to be consistent, we must also delete Category:Jewish American actors and List_of_Jewish_American_Entertainers. So, Wimstead and Necrothesp, would you agree? My view is that users of an information source often want to access information based on a variety of organizations and heirarchies, be they alphabetical, geographic or, in this case religious. Wimstead and Necrothesp and may prefer to not access information in that way, but other users of Wikipedia, including the author of this category, may seem to disagree. In the absence of a clear consensus on what to do about this or Category:Jewish American actors, this category sould be Kept or Listified. Endless blue 06:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness Jewish is also an ethnicity and ethnicity-based categories are more acceptable. (Why? I'm not sure why) I should've maybe used Category:Hasidic entertainers as that's more directly about a form of Judaism. (Unless Hasidic is also an ethnicity, is it?) Also Category:Mormon actors might be vaguely analogous.--T. Anthony 08:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Who_is_a_Jew? and common knowledge, it is definitely also a religion so therefore categories like Category:Jewish American actors must be considered religious and ethnic categories, thus permitting the inclusion of List of Catholic American entertainers on that basis. However, I think that's beside the point. I don't see opposition to religious categorization by the community at large and in fact many people find it a useful way to organize information. The principle argument put forth by users like Wimstead and Necrothesp is that we "shouldn't" do it that way (for some unstated reason). My response is two-fold:

1. I don't think its up to us to force people to query information one way or another, and if there are enough people and enough content to create these categories, I say lets let editors organize information in the way the public finds useful. Further, I can't think of a reason why its okay to sort entertainers by ethnicity but not religion either.

2. Consistency is important here. If we adopt a principle, it should applied across all information. If the community at large agrees with Wimstead and Necrothesp, then we must also remove all other religious categories and also ethnic ones (until someone can tell me a good reason why organizing content based on race is better than based on religion).

Endless blue 15:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends whether their ethnicity or religion is influential in their work. This is simply not the case with most entertainers who happen to be Roman Catholics. With many Jewish entertainers, particular those connected with music, their relgion/ethnicity/whatever you want to call it is influential in their work, since there are particularly Jewish styles of music. Unless Roman Catholic entertainers sing religious songs or tell religious jokes (not just occasionally but most of the time) then their religion is not relevant to their profession.

Comment I understand your point, but that is a very fine and frankly wobbly distinction. If one was prone to generalizing about Jewish entertainers in that way, one could also generalize that Roman Catholic entertainers draw from some wellspring of childhood guilt that provides fodder for a certain "type" of humor.... well you know what I'm getting at. I just don't see it, and I don't think that categorization is useful merely because its informative about the connections between the items categorized. Its also a useful way for users to find information based on however they make connections in their mind. Perhaps some users might be doing a paper on Catholics in hollywood, in which case this type of organization would be immensely helpful. Endless blue 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is overcategorisation. If the category was restricted to those for whom their religion was relevant to their work then I'd say keep it. But this category has just been used for every entertainer who just happens to be or have been a Roman Catholic; I suspect this is not greatly relevant to many of them, let alone Wikipedia users. -- Necrothesp 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think in many cases of actors being Jewish is not necessarily more significant than being Catholic. Also in the past I have tried to limit Category:Roman Catholic musicians to musicians whose Catholicism is relevant, although this seems to have largely been undone, and I worked on tightening Category:Catholic comedians.--T. Anthony 03:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per T. Anthony this distinctions is really very tenuous and seems, no offense, like we're scraping the bottom of the pan to justify the inconsistency. I could describe (and invent) lots of ways that Catholics have a common heritage and culture, make off-color remakrs about the influence that Sunday school may have... we're getting into an area where its just speculations, so I say keep all of these categories or delete all of them. Endless blue 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't call it Sunday school. It's CCD and was generally on Wednesday where I lived. Otherwise I'd say good job.--T. Anthony 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The link between these people is too tenuous for this category to justify its place on the list of categories at the bottom of an article. Greg Grahame 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could make the same argument about Category:Atheist_mathematicians. This position is just not consistent with the way things have been done with categories. Endless blue 20:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you or someone else be putting up Category:Hasidic entertainers then? Because as far as I can tell "Hasidic" really is just a religious position not an ethnicity.--T. Anthony 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I've proposed deletion of Category:Jewish American actors which would be consistent. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_3#Category:Jewish_American_actors and feel free to add you thoughts there. Endless blue 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't consistent, or even close to being so, because that is both a national category and an ethnic category but this is neither. Osomec 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that I don't think that distinction is important give the existence of Atheist Mathematicians, I'm not convinced your distinction is even accurate. See Who_is_a_jew and discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_3#Category:Jewish_American_actors (I don't want to repeat myself :-) ). Endless blue 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep As with Category:Atheist mathematicians above, the problem is that this category's parent Category:People by religion and occupation currently has no defined restrictions on which occupations are acceptable. Note that this parent had a cfd on Septemeber 21st with "no consensus" to delete. Unless and until that parent category is either deleted or restricted in some objective way, it follows as a technicality that basically any combination of religion and occupation are acceptable subcategories for it. Dugwiki 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a court of law so there should be no "procedural" keeps. Good categories should be kept and bad categories should be deleted, pure and simple. The idea that all "Roman Catholic entertainers" have something encyclopedic in common seems spurious to me. Osomec 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- By "procedural keep" I'm simply indicating that while I'm dubious of the value of the religion/occupation category scheme, there are certain policies and procedures that should be followed in deleting categories to keep things consistent. The parent category as written is currently considered by default to be "ok" in Wikipedia, so going by that standard this subcategory likewise should be acceptable. To argue that this category is unaccetable because the pairing is unlikely but simultaneously have the parent category marked as acceptable despite the exact same issues isn't consistent. Thus if you want to delete this category, you should first address the overlying issue that it is the definition of the parent category that is allowing it.Dugwiki 22:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a meaningful intersection. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or massively redefine as including only those entertainers whose Catholicism is documented as playing a key role in their work. The same shoud be applied to all categories of this nature; but if we get this one now, that's a step in the right direction. -- Visviva 14:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be for that I think. I'm trying to remove it from articles that don't mention the word "Catholic" or Catholic schools anywhere. It almost seems like this has been randomly added to Irish, Italian, or Mexican names.--T. Anthony 14:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visviva's proposal is not viable. If articles match the name name of a category they can and will be added to it. Hawkestone 23:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been removing names when the article doesn't even mention them being Catholic. In several cases this seems to have been added to people who were non-Ulster Irish or Italian, but not religiously specified. (I know there are Methodists in the Republic of Ireland and there are Protestant Italians)--T. Anthony 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dugwiki; the category isn't a big deal one way or the other, but the parent cat should be subcatted, so delete both or neither. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:34, 10 December 2006 (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:Police

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 upmerge. the wub "?!" 19:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, with this category being created and deleted. Category:Law enforcement covers police without the necessity of having a subcat of Police. Most articles will fall into both categories, so there is no earthly reason to have both. This just confuses the categorisation. Necrothesp 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Although "Law enforcement" is a broader topic than just "Police", I don't see any point to the category. It seems to be populated by articles that happen to have the word 'Police' in them. Police forces are linked via Category:Law enforcement by country. - PKT 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge is a better option - changing my vote. --PKT 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Category:Law enforcement had, as I recall, close to 200 articles in it with two subcats about police when I decided to try and organize the parent category some. Given that number of articles, creating a sub category for police related topics seems to be a reasonable way to organize the parent category. Not every article with the word police was moved from Category:Law enforcement since it is not clear at this time that all of them belong in that subcat. It is totally acceptable to have a subcat where there is only one parent. So saying we only need one because of this is not correct. Vegaswikian 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But the point is that almost every article under law enforcement has relevance to the police. The majority of law enforcement agencies are police agencies or would be defined as police agencies under one system or another, and almost all general law enforcement topics have relevance to the police. I simply see no point whatsoever to another level of categorisation. What does it gain us? -- Necrothesp 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Law enforcement is a process that is executed by police offices as well as others. Is there a better way to organize the overflow of articles here? As long as everything with relevance to law enforcement is contained in an organized way within the parent cat is there a problem? Vegaswikian 01:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you embark on this then you must logically also embark on a huge recategorisation of the the Law enforcement by country cats. I don't see the point. To most police = law enforcement. I also don't think there's a particular overflow problem - this is a much smaller category than many others. -- Necrothesp 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge and delete as redundant. -Sean Curtin 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy) as recreated Deleted as a recreated previously deleted category. Unless something significant has changed, categories should remain deleted once cfd determines that result. Dugwiki 18:33, 4 December 2006 (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.

Treaties

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, to standardise the subcategories of Category:Treaties by country. Tim! 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I suggest doing the same with common subcategory (country's peace treaties into peace treaties of country), too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Tim!. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, though we need to address the issue of defunct countries (e.g., Soviet vs. Russian or Viking vs. Swedish where appropriate). Endless blue 06:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting question, for example are there Soviet era treaties to which Russia succeeds? One way might be to create a subcategory of "Treaties by country", "Treaties by former country", and place "Treaties of the Soviet Union" and similar there, and if necessary also categorise the treaty article under "Treaties of Russia" etc. Tim! 10:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think so. To my way of thinking we are just sorting them to enable readers to navigate them, not providing a commentary on each country's current obligation, so the relevant entity is the one that signed the treaty. Greg Grahame 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, do we not care about historical treaties? e.g., treaties of Austria-Hungary? Endless blue 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 18:45, 3 December 2006 (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.

American television series by decade

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 a relisting here. David Kernow (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2000s TV shows in the United States to Category:2000s American television series

Category:1990s TV shows in the United States to Category:1990s American television series

Category:1980s TV shows in the United States to Category:1980s American television series

Category:1970s TV shows in the United States to Category:1970s American television series

Category:1960s TV shows in the United States to Category:1960s American television series

Category:1950s TV shows in the United States to Category:1950s American television series

Category:1940s TV shows in the United States to Category:1940s American television series

Category:1930s TV shows in the United States to Category:1930s American television series
Rename, Expand the abbreviation, change "shows" to "series" in line with parent cat and bring name in line with the subcats of Category:Television series by country. Otto4711 15:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --musicpvm 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - You are actually changing the meaning of the categories. They are not for American TV series, they are for TV series shown in the US, as the title suggests. If you are going to change the name you will have to prune the categories to remove TV shows from other countries, eg the 1960s category contains British series like The Saint, The Avengers and The Prisoner. JW 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are supposed to be based on the country of origin. Shows originating outside the US belong in the category for their own country of origin. Otto4711 13:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not how the category was desiged. The description has always been: "This is a listing of television shows aired in the United States during the 19*0s". By renaming the categories in the way suggested, you are not just orgazing them by country, you are completely changing the meaning of the category. – CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )}

Suggestion. Instead, rename the categories to Category:2000s American-aired television series and so on down the line per decade. This will both organize the categories by country and keep the original purpose of the category in tact. – CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 19:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those of you opposing this nom are misinterpreting the intent of the categories. I find it impossible to believe that the creators of the categories intended for shows syndicated from other countries to be included in these categories, and if they did then they were wrong in so doing. It makes absolutely no sense from a categorization standpoint to categorize a program that originated in another country an a TV show "in the United States" and it also makes no sense to include a show in one of these categories based on when it aired here in syndication. Consider a show like Monty Python's Flying Circus. It started up in syndication in the US in 1974 and has aired somewhere in the country ever since. Does it really seem beneficial to categorize that program as a TV show in the United States in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and, presumably, beyond? Conversely, you have a show like Baywatch that aired in dozens of countries in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s and will presumably continue to air in reruns. Even limiting it to a first-run timeframe, should Baywatch be categorized under each of the dozens of nations where it aired as a TV show of that nation and decade? You'd end up with potentially hundreds of categories. A local station in my area ran Space: 1999 episodes on New Years Eve 1999. Should Space: 1999 be listed under the 1990s US TV shows category? Clearly, the only categorization scheme that makes any sense is that of country of origin. Renaming accomplishes that. If the category description needs to be edited to clarify that, then edit the description. The idea that because a TV show aired in a particular country it should be included in a category of TV shows for that country is wrong and makes the categories worse than useless. Otto4711 06:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree. I don't object to a rename so long as the category is pruned to reflect the change. JW 12:53, 18 December 2006 (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:Playboy Cyber Girl of the Month

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - parent cat Category:Playboy Cyber Girls was recently deleted (and recreated and is up for deletion again). Cat is no more notable than the parent. Otto4711 14:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - on one hand, this category serves as the online analogue to Category:Playmate of the month, which I think is a notable category related to a notable article Playmate. On the other hand in my extensive debates for successful undeletion of Playboy Online, Playboy Cyber Club, Playboy Cyber Girl, and Cyber Girl of the Year, which are all now operating under new managment with anti-crufting clearly delineated on the talk pages. On the other hand, In my AfU arguments I had taken the stance that the line on notability should be drawn between Cyber Girl of the Week & Cyber Girl of the Month as non notable and Cyber Girl of the Year as notable consistent with most major annual awards. My primary example was the 4 major sports that have article pages for annual player of the year type MVP awards but do not have pages for Player of the Month awards for the most part (half of baseballs Player of the Month awards are listed and no other sport has such an article). I do not necessarily believe that category notability standards and article standards are the same, but will stand neutral for consistency. TonyTheTiger 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not sufficiently notable. Sumahoy 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not sufficiently notable. In fact am more notable. check this out peeps (my OBJECTIVE intepretation - sike):
- http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Playboy+Cybergirl+of+the+Month%22+OR+%22Playboy+Cyber+girl+of+the+Month%22 833 hits
- http://www.google.com/search?q=kmarinas86+OR+kmar86 165,000 hits (198x more notable!!!!!!)
Listify & delete. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (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:Playboy Cyber Girl of the Year

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Parent Category:Playboy Cyber Girls was recently deleted (and recreated and is now up for deletion again) This isn't any more notable than the parent cat. Otto4711 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my recent AfU noted in the discussion above. The basic argument was not to do a blanket delete for all pages Playboy. Some are more notable than others and they should be considered separately. As stated above, In my AfU arguments (which actually prevailed) I had taken the stance that the line on notability should be drawn between Cyber Girl of the Week & Cyber Girl of the Month as non notable and Cyber Girl of the Year as notable consistent with most major annual awards. My primary example was the 4 major sports that have article pages for annual player of the year type MVP awards but do not have pages for Player of the Month awards for the most part (the field player half of baseballs Player of the Month awards are listed, but pitcher awards are not and no other sport has such an article). I do not necessarily believe that category notability standards and article standards are the same, but will oppose deletion for consistency.

delete Not sufficiently notable. There are far too many categories on articles about baseball players (Hank Aaron is or was the most categorized person), so I am not going to accept anything connected with those articles as a precedent. Sumahoy 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was just an example. The year precedent carries throughout Americana to things like Man of the Year awards, Humanitarian Awards, etc. TonyTheTiger 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify & delete. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (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:Obsolete Products

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 deleted by Mike Rosoft. Whisp e ring 18:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Discontinued Microsoft software, current name is misleading, it says it is for obsolete Microsoft products only. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete as nominated. The name is generic, and the only entries are ~~MS operating systems~~ already listed in the Category:Discontinued Microsoft software. — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 17:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Updated 17:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as pointless; all pages in the category are already in Category:Discontinued Microsoft software. - Mike Rosoft 17:38, 3 December 2006 (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:Forbes 2000

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Forbes 2000 to Category:Forbes Global 2000 rename.--Xuain 13:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a published list. The list changes every year, and that has upkeep issues, unless we make it a per year thing. Also the list is probably copyrighted. If kept, it should be renamed as suggested. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~What about Category:S&P 500? It has the same issues. Shawnc 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete per ProveIt Hawkestone 15:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The suggestion was to rename it, not delete it. I agree there are upkeep issues, and the copyright issue is valid although probably not relevant since Forbes wouldn't mind more exposure. Let Xuain take responsibility for upkeep. Endless blue 18:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The upkeep issues make this category too untrustworthy for use. Also, we shouldn't breach copyrights on the speculative grounds that the copyright owner might not mind. Sumahoy 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dugwiki 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are Category:Fortune 1000 and Category:S&P 500 which have the same issues as well. Keep unless those are to be deleted as well. Shawnc 21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, esp. the copyvio issue. I will be nom. Category:Fortune 1000 and Category:S&P 500 for deletion becasue of the same copyvio issues and for consistency. 68.173.35.116 17:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia:Overcategorization also states "Some particularly well-known and unique lists such as the Forbes 400 may constitute exceptions, although creating categories for them risks violating the publisher's copyright." The question is, do any of these categories including Forbes 400 consitute exceptions, or should they all be deleted? Shawnc 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMHO, Forbes 400 meets the "well known and unique" exception, but I don't think there is any way around the copyvio issue. 68.173.35.116 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I should add that in finance, the S&P500 (or simply "the S&P") is a notable index and is considered a near-synonym of the broad stock market. It has 8.5m hits vs. 0.26m for Forbes 400. I believe the S&P should receive priority over Forbes 400. If there is any index that should be left alone, I think it should be the S&P500. Shawnc 23:29, 12 December 2006 (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:Roald Dahl films

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

The result of the debate was merge by redirect with Films based on Roald Dahl works per below. David Kernow (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roald Dahl films - Was recently deleted. (See this CfD discussion.) - jc37 13:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion. - jc37 13:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Films based on Roald Dahl works per November 17th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge (speedy) Recreated category Dugwiki 18:42, 4 December 2006 (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:Playboy Cyber Girls

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, recreation of CFD'd category. Postdlf 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Playboy Cyber Girls - Was just recently deleted. (See this CfD discussion.) - jc37 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion. - jc37 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreated content. Otto4711 14:15, 2 December 2006 (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.

Go (board game) categories

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. David Kernow (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename as main page name at Go (board game). Wwryin 11:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the players categories. Unlikely to create confusion. The Asian board game is the primary use of the term when associated with the word "players". Neutral on the others. -- Necrothesp 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see someone getting confused about whether these categories should include articles about Go online (which they should, I don't see the point in making a distinction.) I don't see this being such a win as to be worth doing. --Brianyoumans 20:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 04:46, 6 December 2006 (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:Synthesiser modules

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. David Kernow (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Synthesiser modules to Category:Synthesizer modules

Rename, it's a problem about Synthesizer (American) / Synthesiser (English) spelling, and most other materials in Wikipedia (see Category:Synthesizers and lots of its children categories) seem to use American one. It's better to use a single spelling to reduce confusion of our readers. GreyCat 10:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - Wikipedia's standard guideline is to keep national spellings as they were used by the originator, except where there is a particular reason for a subject to use one over the other. I don't see any good reason not to follow this guideline here. 87.75.164.118 11:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err... sorry, that was me. Must have got logged out for some reason. JulesH 11:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JulesH. Imposing "consistency" is a Trojan horse for imposing American English. The thing Wikipedia should be consistent about is showing that it is not written in a single variety of English. Hawkestone 15:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The vast majority of articles related to synthesizers or synthesisers in Wikipedia use the American spelling. The community should decide on one spelling or the other, but having it one way in some articles and another way in others will lead to confusion and reduce the effectiveness of Wikipedia's search tools. Furthermore, most early Synthesizer development was in the United States by folks like Raymond_Kurzweil and Robert_Moog, so based on that fact as well I'd argue that the earliest spelling of this term was the American one, and that should be the standard. Endless blue 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Recury 20:21, 4 December 2006 (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:Porn stars by ethnicity

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. David Kernow (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:10, 2 December 2006 (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.

Reality television series categories

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the subcats of Category:Reality television series by country are named "Category:Fooian reality television series" while others are named "Category:Reality television series in Foo". "Category:Fooian reality television series" is consistent with other television cats such as the subcats of Category:Television series by country. --musicpvm 06:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The proposal reflects the convention for "cultural" categories. Hawkestone 15:49, 2 December 2006 (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:Vertebrate clades

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 by redirection to Chordates. David Kernow (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vertebrate clades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Category is so inlusive as to be virtually useless, currently includes only a tiny fraction of possible articles. Redundant with Category:Chordates[1]. Dinoguy2 02:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. -- Visviva 10:11, 9 December 2006 (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:Wilco singles

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 both per below and convention. David Kernow (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wilco songs, per June 9th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per previous discussions. --musicpvm 06:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per. (I created this category and dont have any object) Frédérick Lacasse 12:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename pre previous discussions. While we're here, let's also rename the one below. ×Meegs 08:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kingdom Come (band) singles to Category:Kingdom Come (band) songs

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:Catholic boxers

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. David Kernow (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussions of July 25th, August 25th, and September 5th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as creation of already deleted categories. Royalbroil^T : C 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an irrelevant intersection. Hawkestone 15:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Roman Catholic sportpeople below.Endless blue 18:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irrelevant and trivial. I follow boxing quite closely but I have never given a moment's thought to the religous views of boxers. Wimstead 00:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary intersection. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (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 Catholics sportpeoples

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. David Kernow (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of previously banned Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople, see discussions of July 25th, August 25th, and September 5th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as creation of already deleted categories. The category name is very wrong too. Royalbroil^T : C 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but also to as per discussion above (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_2#Category:Roman_Catholic_entertainers) related to the existence of similar pages/categories in Wikipedia. Lets not discriminate. Endless blue 18:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Where on earth does "discrimination" come into it? We should just be truing to make correct decisions. Wimstead 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople to correct spelling, maintain consistency. Endless blue 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That category has been deleted and protected to prevent recreation (they still seem to show up as blue links in the circumstance). Wimstead 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have voted twice. Please merge your two votes or strike through one of them. Wimstead 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So have you Endless blue 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per previous discussion. Wimstead 00:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete.--DrBat 14:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Greg Grahame 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Category:Roman Catholics sportpeoples and Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople with protection from recreation. A person's faith and their sporting profession are not connected, no matter how many times they "thank god" for the win. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep As with Category:Atheist mathematicians above, the problem is that this category's parent Category:People by religion and occupation currently has no defined restrictions on which occupations are acceptable. Note that this parent had a cfd on Septemeber 21st with "no consensus" to delete. Unless and until that parent category is either deleted or restricted in some objective way, it follows as a technicality that basically any combination of religion and occupation are acceptable subcategories for it. By the way, this is inconsistent with the previous deletion debates, but note that the parent category was nominated for deletion after the other debates and no consensus was reached. It's quite possible that a new discussion on the parent category would result in either deletion or appropriate restrictions that will help solve this problem. Dugwiki 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:People by religion and occupation does in fact have restrictions, namely those outlined in Wikipedia:Categorization. Specifically, "If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?" and "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" are suggested as ways of gauging the appropriateness of a category. Those aren't hard and fast criteria, which is why the existance of categories like this is discussed. But that's also why we are't likely to find Category:Satanist curators, even tho atleast one article would go in it. Mairi 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and suggest using {{db-repost}} instead of cfd when the nominator wishes for speedy deletion based on recreation. Mairi 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. I wasn't sure it it was ok to use it for categories. Next time, I will do just that. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation. The minor spelling difference should not change the previous result. Vegaswikian 20:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of Dugwiki's purported issue. The thing I have an issue with is his attempt to invent a new reason for keeping bad categories. All bad categories should be deleted on their own (lack of) merits, regardless of what related categories may exist. Osomec 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I posted in the discussion above, the problem is the parent category. The parent category, which is currently accepted by Wikipedia, does allow occupation and religion pairings for subcategories, apparently without limit. And the debate that led to the original deletion of this category occured prior to the cfd debate regarding the parent category. So you have here an inconsistent policy regarding these categories. On the one hand, the parent, which currently allows for unlimited job/religion pairings as subcategories, is considered ok in Wiki. But on the other hand, you are simultaneously arguing that "bad" categories like this one should be deleted. That creates an inconsistency in how to handle job/religion categories.

- There are only two ways to keep how we handle categories consistent on this issue. One is to delete or modify the parent category to make it more restrictive, allowing us to within that context delete some job/religion pairings. The other way is to leave the parent category alone and allow unrestricted pairings. You can't logically simultaneously leave the parent alone and delete job/religion pairings that fit that scheme. Dugwiki 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - By the way, I find myself here in the odd position of defending a category that I otherwise don't like based on consistency in categorization. My own preference would be to restrict the parent category so that it specifically says that pairings are only considered valid when the religious beliefs of the person notably affect the way they handle their profession. If that restriction is placed on the parent category, then I'd definitely recomend deleting this subcategory. Dugwiki 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary intersection. (Radiant) 12:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or possibly weak keep. In the past I'd have voted delete without thinking, but I take the recreation of this several times slightly different. Apparently there is an interest in this for some odd reason. I'm Catholic and do not have this interest, but then again I'm not interested in sports in general. Also there are athletes like Les Costello and the Flying Fathers whose religion is certainly a part of their notability as athletes. A list can be made to require explanation of why their religion is relevant.--T. Anthony 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of an arbitary intersection. Piccadilly 15:51, 7 December 2006 (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:Geometry Proofs

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. David Kernow (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to Category:Geometry proofs, already covered by Mathematical proof. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Mathematical proofs. The category name is too specific in this case. "Geometry proofs" would be a great subcategorization that could be recreated later if the math category gets too large. Royalbroil^T : C 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Category:Mathematical proofs are already covered by Category:Proofs. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I struck my earlier comments. A portion of the nomination is worded poorly. I think you mean it is already covered in Category:Proofs, not Mathematical proof. I think that Category:Geometry Proofs should be weak deleted since it is empty. I added the weak portion because I don't have a good feel for if there will be a bunch of articles that warrant keeping the category. It should be renamed Category:Geometry proofs if kept. I have left a message on the talk pages of the creators of Category:Proofs and Category:Article proofs asking for their valuable input. The parent category should be renamed Category:Mathematical proofs to lessen its ambiguity. Royalbroil^T : C 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if for no other reason than it fails to define what a geometric proof is. The lesson of modern math is that geometry is algebra and algebra, geometry, so I see no difference between the style of proofs for these two areas. I suspect the creator meant "compass and ruler constructions". But since the cat is empty, perhaps the creator was simply confused. linas 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty and redundant with Category:Proofs -- Visviva 10:13, 9 December 2006 (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.