Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 18

< October 17	October 19 >

October 18

Category:Dead fictional characters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 Added {{deletedcategory}}, since it's a recreation; a bot will depopulate it. >Radiant< 09:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dead fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a renamed version of the protected deleted Category:Deceased fictional characters, which was deleted twice already, (9 June 2006 and 6 September 2006) so this category should probably be deleted too. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as {{deletedcategory}} -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Wryspy 07:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mark as {{deletedcategory}} per above. David Kernow (talk) 08:53, 19 October 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:Electric Light Orchestra singles

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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. David Kernow (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electric Light Orchestra singles to Category:Electric Light Orchestra songs

Rename, per CfR 9 June 2006. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention. --musicpvm 07:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I am the creator of this section and I do not mind renaming it as already mentioned --The Equaliser 20:54, 22 October 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:Teen idols

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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) 12:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 19:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the associated list and article need sources more than they need a category. And of course this will never be uncontroversial. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjective and controversial. Not suited to the categorisation tool. Hiding Talk 20:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like the sex symbols, too vague and not good for categories. Anthony Hit me up... 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePOV category. NetK 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined concept. Merchbow 12:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, extremely POV. --musicpvm 07:09, 21 October 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.

Military Units

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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. (I will probably do the some moves with AWB, and hope that others can help out. Nishkid64 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per consensus at WP:MILHIST.~~There's a lot of these, so bear with me. I can only do so many at a time.~~ All up now, thanks Kirill. Carom 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the new guidelines and naming convention, as well as the full discussion. Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom and project discussion/guidelines. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and discussions support. --Xiliquiern 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. Consistency is the key with categories, as it eases navigation. Glad to see a consensus on such a large number of cats. Anthony Hit me up... 20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom and previous discussion at naming convention, as well as the full discussion.--Oldwildbill 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has WP:MILHIST decided that "conflict" and "war" are interchangeable or the like...? Thanks for any pointers, David Kernow (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, we're using "war" for the category names, as it's by far the more commonly used term; the (rather pedantic) distinction between the two terms isn't really sufficient to justify a separate category tree (similarly to how the "by country" categories typically contain a few that aren't technically countries). Kirill Lokshin 12:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; thanks for rationale summary. Have now supported complete rename below. Regards, David (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename. >Radiant< 09:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom and project discussion/guidelines. --Dryzen 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per WP:MILHIST consensus and above. David Kernow (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better terms that just 'military units of X' Buckshot06 08:03, 20 October 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:Hymn writers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 (but seeing as not all hymns are christian, I'll make it a supercat) --Kbdank71 14:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Christian hymnwriters, duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are all hymns (written by) Christian(s)...? Unsure, David Kernow (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge; go by profession first. >Radiant< 09:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't think of any religion besides Christian that uses the word "hymn". — Preceding unsigned comment added by jc37 (talk • contribs)
Merge - per nom. - jc37 09:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, are all hymnwriters Christians...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:05, 23 October 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:Marvel Super Hero actors

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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) 12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Animedude 19:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Marvel superhero actors. "Superhero" is typically one word, not two; and certainly not capitalized for each word. Anthony Hit me up... 20:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wonder Man is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Over-categorisation. Hiding Talk 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NetK 22:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -Sean Curtin 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't just overcategorization, it's a vague, undefined category. Does every single person who ever appeared in a movie starring a Marvel superhero qualify? The Batman actors category had hundreds of people, only a handful of whom played a superhero. Finally, actors should not wind up in a new category for every single role they ever play. Wryspy 07:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. >Radiant< 09:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Listify - I agree with Wryspy's point that you shouldn't create a new category for every film production company an actor works for. It would create too many categories per article. However, this might be useful or interesting for some readers as a list, and a list could also include information about which movie and which role an actor played in a Marvel film. Dugwiki 15:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wryspy. Postdlf 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Landolitan 13:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performers by performance - jc37 09:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There is no need to listify this. RobJ1981 04:40, 23 October 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:DC Superhero actors

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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) 12:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DC Superhero actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Less precise variations on a theme seen in Category:Superman actors and Category:Batman actors. All the same reasons apply for their deletion, most notably that it's not a defining characteristic for the actors, especially those with notable careers or in minor parts. CovenantD 16:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as supercat to those categories which should also be kept. Tim! 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Only delete if all subcats deleted first~~ As Tim points out, if some of the subcats are kept, then this is a useful parent category under which to collect them. If all the subcategories are deleted, though, then I'm pretty neutral on whether or not to keep the parent category. Dugwiki 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are no subcats to either Comic book company Super Hero actors categories. CovenantD 00:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete and Listify Since there are no subcats, per the Marvel actors discussion above I'd recommend deleting and listifying.Dugwiki 15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to DC superhero actors. See my response to the similar Marvel category above. Anthony Hit me up... 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. -Sean Curtin 04:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't just overcategorization, it's a vague, undefined category. Does every single person who ever appeared in a movie starring a DC superhero qualify? The Batman actors category had hundreds of people, only a handful of whom played a superhero. Finally, actors should not wind up in a new category for every single role they ever play. Wryspy 07:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. >Radiant< 09:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this an example of WP:DDV in action? Tim! 16:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wryspy. Postdlf 20:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wryspy. Hiding Talk 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Landolitan 13:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performers by performance - jc37 09:38, 22 October 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 Arkansans

Category:Fictional characters from Arkansas

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both to Category:Fictional people from Arkansas, convention of Category:Fictional Americans by place. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-fiction Arkansan, I agree. Rename both. "Arkansan" is undefined. Wryspy 07:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both I'm even uncomfortable with the word "Arkansan" as it can too easily lead to that atrocious mispronunciation.--T. Anthony 16:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - are Luke and Blubber Bear people? "Characters" is more accurate (and more in line with other "Fictional characters by..." cats). (Merge for sure though.) --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Fictional Arkansans to Category:Fictional characters from Arkansas, per HKM. - jc37 09:38, 22 October 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:Golf courses by state

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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. David Kernow (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United States, duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:10, 18 October 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:Toho Kaiju who never fought godzilla

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 mark with {{deletedcategory}} as recreation. David Kernow (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least rename to Category:Toho Kaiju who never fought Godzilla. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one article in category, and it sounds like a bad idea in general to sort characters by who hasn't done something. Probably better done as a footnote in the article itself and maybe the Godzilla article. Dugwiki 15:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not worthy of a category, unencyclopedic. Anthony Hit me up... 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I think this is a recreation...? David Kernow (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, see September 29 discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, am closing and marking category as {{deletedcategory}}. Thanks for confirmation, David (talk) 00:35, 20 October 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:Washington University alumni

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Washington University in St. Louis alumni. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Washington University redirects to Washington University in St. Louis.-choster 19:02, 19 October 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 characters with the power to manipulate energy

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Plans for this category appear to have fallen through, with its last rename it lost all its worth by becoming too vague. Combined with the loss of the Green Lanterns category, it would simply transform itself into a "Green Lantern and Green Lantern pastiches" category with a view characters whose powers are ill defined (like Ling-Ling) and the odd magician. Maybe someone can create a force field category another time. Either way this one really should go. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cloachland 12:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Description is too vague. Dugwiki 15:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vague, overly broad, trivial and categorising by power type is going to really overload some character's pages. Hiding Talk 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Define "energy". Define "manipulate".Wryspy 08:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Postdlf 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Energy" is just too vague, as we've consistantly seen. - jc37 09:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could rename it to "Fictional characters with the power to project exotic energy", for characters like Cyclops, Firestar, Carol Danvers, Bishop, or the Invisible Woman, whose "energy powers" don't easily fall into the categories of light, electricity, magnetism, or heat. NeoCoronis 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Exotic"? Would that include Havok and various Green Lanterns? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:56, 24 October 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:Cemeteries in Georgia

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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. Nishkid64 03:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cemeteries in Georgia to Category:Cemeteries in Georgia (U.S. state)

Rename. Rename to standard for the US state disambig. Also to have categories with Georgia being renamed to Georgia (U.S. state) to become a speedy criteria. Vegaswikian 07:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Consistency. -Will Beback 07:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, and support speedy criteria for Georgia. Anthony Hit me up... 20:17, 18 October 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:Exploration of Antarctica

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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/merge arctic, keep antarctic --Kbdank71 14:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exploration of Antarctica to Category:Antarctic exploration Category:Arctic exploration to Category:Exploration of the Arctic

Rename, to complement category:Arctic exploration (or vice versa). Peta 05:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename Arctic exploration to follow Exploration of Antarctica and Exploration of Australia...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current version sounds better and matches some of the other comparitives you might have chosen. If you were trying to imply this is the single exception to a rule, you were obviously relying on other people not to bother to check. Merchbow 12:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Arctic exploration to Exploration of the Arctic. Vegaswikian 03:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and rename Arctic exploration to Exploration of the Arctic. I will tag it. Piccadilly 19:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now tagged and added above. Piccadilly 19:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Category:Arctic exploration to Category:Exploration of the Arctic. Category:Exploration of Antarctica - no change. Following the "Exploration of the" standard. - jc37 09:38, 22 October 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.

Additional DC Comics Groups

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 --Kbdank71 14:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories fall under the same criteria as the recently deleted "DC Comics group members". Hence, these categories also fall under the same criteria for deletion, with a comprehensive list replacing it upon deletion.

Speedy delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_9#DC_Comics_group_members. Doczilla 07:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, we're getting into supporting characters now? Then I've dozens more categories to nominate and when we're done there won't be a single category left that indicates hero, villain or supporting. Then we get rid of the Powers and that should leave the comics articles all uncategorized and we can start all over again.... CovenantD 15:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are team related and consistent with the previous successful cfd relating to DC team categorization. How precisely does "powers" categorization relate to this, I'm pondering? NetK 22:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify per nom and previous discussion Consistent with the result of the previous cfd discussion. Also, to my knowledge, nobody has recommended removing subcategories to distinguish heros, villains or supporting in general, or removing powers. So the above reply appears to be hyperbole. Dugwiki 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge #1 and #4 with Category:DC Comics supervillains and Category:DC Comics superheroes. Keep and Listify #2. Strong keep #3 as parent category for related articles (eg, TV show, list of villains, list of heroes, items, comic series, etc. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion / listify. >Radiant< 09:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cause if we delete every DC category group category it'll be left to nothing. Brian Boru is awesome 02:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly because we did the others and this will at the least force us to get our heads together and come up with the best way of doing this before we implement it. So delete, with no prejudice against recreation if we can get a consensus at WP:COMIC on how we are going to hammer this one out. Hiding Talk 09:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unlike the "mainstream" teams, the LSH-related characters are uniquely isolated. The typical arguement of character "over-categorisation", doesn't apply. In this case, categorisation is useful. Consider these as if it's not a team, but an era, or even a comics' classification (the same way we have Superman supporting characters, or Batman supporting characters.) - jc37 09:38, 22 October 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.

"People known in connection..."

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "known in connection" with "associated": More succinct. David Kernow (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People known in connection with a lawsuit to Category:People associated with one or more lawsuits

Category:People known in connection with identity politics to Category:People associated with identity politics

Category:People known in connection with religion or philosophy to Category:People associated with religion or philosophy

Category:People known in connection with sports and hobbies to Category:People associated with sports and hobbies

Rename all as nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. Anthony Hit me up... 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all —Ashley Y 07:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the last two categories, and Delete the first two. - jc37 09:38, 22 October 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:Settlers of the National Capital Region of Canada

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 --Kbdank71 13:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Settlers of the National Capital Region of Canada to Category:Category:Settlers of the Ottawa Valley

Rename, This category was recently renamed, but the previous CfR discussion did not quite reach a consensus that "National Capital Region of Canada" was appropriate. Both Kingston, Ontario and Quebec City can lay claim to being Canada's capital in the past, and the Quebec area is in fact still called the "National Capital." All the settlement happened before it was made the capital (in 1857). NCR is a recent name for the area, only used since the 1980s. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First, I disagree that the name of the category has to reflect a geographical name that existed at the time that the settlers arrived. Various names were used at various times, and it is not clear to me that all the settlers would have even used the name "Ottawa Valley". We should use the name that most clearly identifies the area in question today for Wikipedia users. If we're bound by historic names, then Category:Settlers of Canada should be renamed (which would be absurd), because a number of those settlers settled in areas that were not considered Canada at that time.
Second, I'm not sure why you suggest that the National Capital Region is a recent term from the 1980s. Yes, the Mulroney government enacted a new National Capital Act in 1985, but a prior National Capital Act (which defined the National Capital Region) existed since 1958. And for decades before that, the Federal Commission Act governed the National Capital District, which is an almost identical term, although NCR was a term also in use at that time. In any event, all of this is completely irrelevant, because we should be looking to use the clearest term in use today.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, Ottawa Valley is an inadequate name for the category. Technically, the valley may extend on both sides of the river, but it is commonly used to refer to areas only on the Ontario side, and often used to refer to areas outside of urban Ottawa. The term is, therefore, inexact in use and is almost certain to mislead some users. For example, it would seem odd to see Philemon Wright, perhaps one of the most important settlers in the area, in an Ottawa Valley category, since Hull is rarely thought of as being in the Ottawa Valley.
Finally, Quebec City is often referred to as the Capitale-Nationale, but never as the National Capital of Canada, so it is puzzling as to where confusion might arise. As to the historic fact that Kingston and Quebec City briefly served as Canadian capital (not to mention Montreal), I doubt that they were referred to as the "national" capital at that time. In any event, no confusion would arise since a person from the 1850s is unlikely to be using Wikipedia. More to the point, a quick check of the Kingston, Ontario, Quebec City and National Capital Region (Canada) articles reveals no current confusion as to what is the National Capital of Canada, so a Wikipedia user today is extremely unlikely to believe that the category in question pertains to Kingston or Quebec City. Skeezix1000 12:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support NCR is a very bad name. 132.205.44.134 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Skeezix1000 12:51, 25 October 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:Panic! at the Disco

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 --Kbdank71 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Panic! at the Disco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - There is no need for a PatD category There are so few articles, all of which are linked to both on the main article and the template (which I don't have a problem with). This is completely superfluous. -Porlob 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's generally a bad idea to create unique categories for specific people unless there are a LOT of otherwise unrelated articles involved. Imagine having 400 million categories, one for every musician, actor, lawyer, doctor and so on. All the articles associated with Panic are presumably already linked in the main article for interested readers. Dugwiki 15:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad idea. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 17:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Every band with an albums and songs subcategory should have a category. It's part of the defacto navigation system for musicians. --kingboyk 18:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply A parent category is not actually needed in these cases. Simply include the categories "Albums by X" and "Songs by X" in the musician's main article. The main article becomes the hub readers can use to navigate the album and song categories for that musician. There is no need to create an additional unique category named after that musician to house them. Dugwiki 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per kingboyk Merchbow 12:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per kingboyk. This category is doing its job in the hierarchal system as the parent to the subcats. We could delete practically every category under the logic that you can get to articles via links in other articles. I don't know the band's work, but why is Panic! at the Disco prone to attracting AFds and CFDs...? The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - jc37 09:38, 22 October 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:Athletes who have maliciously stepped on other athletes during competition

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 deleted. David Kernow (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably impossible to listify with NPOV. David Kernow (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not make into a list either. I mean how can we determine whether it was malicious, simply reckless, or accidental?--T. Anthony 06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Oh, good grief. Doczilla 07:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cloachland 12:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dugwiki 15:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and laughable. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, as was the only article in the category. Whole thing seemed to be an attack and should have been zapped on sight! --kingboyk 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Apparently already deleted and ready for closure : ) - jc37 09:38, 22 October 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:Natural monuments of South Korea

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 --Kbdank71 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural monuments of South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete This has been created, doubtless with good intentions, to contain a single article, but that article was already in Category:Valleys and I have transferred it to Category:Valleys of South Korea. Category:Natural monuments does not exist and given its vague nature I do not think that setting it up would enhance the category system. Hawkestone 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merchbow 12:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Category system is not a tree, and I don't see why the article in question can't exist in two separate categories. - jc37 09:38, 22 October 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.