Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 23

< August 22	August 24 >

August 23

Category:African actors in Hollywood

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 page.

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see below. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Categorise by nationality, not continent. Osomec 08:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Split into nationalities.Dugwiki 16:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Nathan Mercer 10:09, 25 August 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 page.

Category:African 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 page.

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or else create Category:Actors by continent. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Categorise by nationality, not continent. Osomec 08:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as Category:African actors in Hollywood above. Dugwiki 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with item above. Nathan Mercer 10:10, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Fictional Italian-Americans on the Simpsons

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Simpsons characters --Kbdank71 15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overenthusiastic categorization. Plus, they left out the meatball chef. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Simpsons characters --Vossanova ^o< 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's getting far too granular. Merge per Vossanova. Bearcat 00:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Overcatgorisation. Osomec 09:04, 24 August 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 page.

Category:Fields Medal

Category:Abel Prize

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete both --Kbdank71 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [Category:Fields Medal], Category:Fields Medalists can be elsewhere, and this isn't likely to grow.--Lkjhgfdsa 22:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Category:Abel laureates exists and is much less populated. Then why FM can't exist? It is likely to grow - because it was not awarded for the last time. And I believe, that category's growth is not essential for it to exist. Cmapm 22:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC) As Abel Prize is nominated too, I'm changing my vote to delete for both categories. Cmapm 23:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; unnecessary subcategoriz/sation. David Kernow 23:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep medalist categories; delete medal categories - I have no problem with Category:Fields Medalists and Category:Abel laureates. They are extemely presitigous scientific awards; the Fields Medal in particular is at least the equivalent of winning a Nobel Prize (since there is no Nobel Prize in mathematics). However, I don't see the need for either Category:Fields Medal or Category:Abel Prize, since they have no articles other than the medalists themselves. Therefore keep the medalist categories and delete the medal categories. Dugwiki 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dugwiki. ThuranX 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean "Keep medalist categories; delete medal categories"...? Regards, David Kernow 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fields Medalists & ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Abel laureates; Delete- ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Fields Medal & ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Abel Prize..--cjllw | TALK 13:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the winner categories, delete the medal/prize categories. — Dale Arnett 07:15, 26 August 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 page.

Category:Government of Washington, D.C.

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 page.

The result of the debate was category redirect --Kbdank71 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Government of the District of Columbia. See discussions of May 17th and August 9th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just curious, is this just being automatically brought up again because of the non-consensus results of the previous two discussions? I'm not sure what would have happened since the May 17th or August 9th threads above that would change the results. (Personally, I'm pretty neutral on this category so it doesn't really matter to me which way the discussion goes. I'm just curious about why it was renominated.) Dugwiki 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought it up because, once again, it showed up on the uncategorized categories list (#51). I think this is either the 2nd or 3rd time, I've lost track. And since it apparently cannot be killed, I thought I'd see if we could make it a redirect. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ProveIt immediately above. David Kernow 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The city of Washington did not in the past cover the entirety of the District of Columbia. This category was depopulated before the nomination here. — Instantnood 23:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose that we solve this by creating a Category:Historical government of Washington, D.C. ... but only once someone creates a body of articles to put in that cat. There aren't any now. --M@rēino 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are such articles already - e.g. before the merger the city had its own mayor (who, of course, had no power over the other entities in the district). — Insta ntnood 13:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per any rational rationale. SchmuckyTheCat 06:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as the government of Washington, D.C. Only the District of Columbia has a government, not its components. Therefore, redirect. --M @r ē ino 19:55, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Hong Kong-related computer software

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hong Kong-related computer software into Category:Science and technology in Hong Kong

Merge, only two articles within, and AFAIK no other software by country/region categories exist. Vossanova ^o< 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to be merged. The two items are related to Chinese language, not to Hongkong. Pavel Vozenilek 21:35, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Wikipedian Star Wars edits Organization

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to category:WikiProject Star Wars members --Kbdank71 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is a Wiki project for Star Wars. There doesn't need to be a seperate category for it as well. RobJ1981 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:WikiProject Star Wars members.--Mike Selinker 03:31, 25 August 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 page.

Category:American revolutionaries

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category is partially folks from the category "People of the American Revolution" and its sub-categories, and partially folks from many other time periods. They do not belong lumped together Desertsky85451 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a subcategory of Category:Revolutionaries by nationality and is fundamentally different from category:People of the American Revolution, which includes people on all sides of that dispute. Choalbaton 21:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think that due to the fact that they were all americans and all radicals that Nat Turner, Eugene V. Debs, Benedict Arnold and Benjamin Franklin belong in this lump category? That is a flimsy argument. Desertsky85451 22:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Choalbaton solid and well made argument. There is no basis for singling out this category. You should either nominate all national categories of revolutionaries or none (and I'm pretty certain you would be wasting your time nominating all of them). Osomec 09:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your awesome logic, when I have got a spare moment, I think I'm going to go and create a category for "American sports people", and add folks ranging from Jessie Owens to Hines Ward and Nancy Kerrigan. Then I'll go and do the same for sports figures from every country!!! Thanks for the suggestion, Osomec! I'm always looking for ways to improve wikipedia Desertsky85451 16:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:American sportspeople and category:Sportspeople by nationality and try not to be such a smart alec when you don't have the facts. Nathan Mercer 10:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "People of the American Revolution" is articles about people who specifically were involved in the battle for US independence from Britain. "American revolutionaries" is a nationalized subcategory of "Revolutionaries" and is a list of Americans who advocated revolution against the current government. Despite having similar sounding names, they represent quite different sets of people and both appear to be valid categories in my opinion. Dugwiki 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- fyi, I added an extra sentence to the category description to try and hopefully make that distinction clearer. Dugwiki 16:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Nathan Mercer 10:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe subcategoriz/sation by century or the like useful...? David Kernow 01:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. LarryQ 04:19, 2 September 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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete 2, rename the rest, per nom. kingboyk 17:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian user pages

I'd rename:

and I'd delete:

I guess I find it hard to feel too sorry for Talrias.--Mike Selinker 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as proposed and delete the two articles proposed for deletion. No offense, Talrias, but your user page really isn't all that great. :-) --Cswrye 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as proposed and delete the two articles proposed for deletion, I also agree. Herostratus 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've actioned Category:Wikipedians Wished a Happy First Edit Day from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee. I wish to nominate it for deletion so the easiest way was to rename it first (since this is an old debate). --kingboyk 10:01, 1 September 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 page.

Category:Polish Academy Awards winners

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or create Category:Academy Awards winners by ethnicity. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a category that probably doesn't need to be divied up by ethnicity. --Cswrye 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it shouldn't be subcategorized by ethnicity. --musicpvm 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a national category not an ethnic category. Choalbaton 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Category:Academy Awards winners by nationality is an improvement. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure many Poles would like to know which of their countrymen have won an Oscar. Nathan Mercer 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify as a compromise. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a good category Kowalmistrz 20:46, 1 September 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 page.

Category:Hapas

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 page.

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category has a history of previous deletions. Arual 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As American bloodlines get more and more intermingled it becomes less and less worth following. They are just Americans to me. Choalbaton 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is perfectly valid for people who are properly identified as such; a lot of the problem with it that I've noted in the past has had to do with using it as a catchall term for any person with mixed Asian and Caucasian heritage regardless of whether or not they actually belonged in a specifically Hawaiian cultural context. I'm pretty neutral; I have no objection to categorization by multiethnicity as long as the right terms are used. Bearcat 00:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Hapa people exist and are identified in their articles as such. This category is a means to illustrate the actual persons who are hapas so that discussion on hapas has substance. Thanks Hmains 04:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ethnic categories are out of control. They are used sloppily (and always will be) and don't merit the category clutter they create. Osomec 09:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds far too vague. It is ~~hard~~ impossible to believe that all people with mixed Asian and Caucasian bloodlines share a common culture. Nathan Mercer 10:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's just as valid as categorizing someone who's uniracial, such as the cat for ethnic Chinese people. --M @r ē ino 19:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No it isn't and in any case we should categorise by nationality, not by race. Hawkestone 21:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Osomec. --Pjacobi 12:32, 29 August 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 page.

Category:Mestizo

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 page.

The result of the debate was found renamed --Kbdank71 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mestizo to Category:Mestizos

Rename, mistakenly added to categories for deletion instead of renaming. Arual 17:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. It qualifies as speedy if you are just changing to plural form. I've updated the tags. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per ProveIt. CSD C2, I believe? Luna Santin 18:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per nom. --Cswrye 19:17, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Groove Adventure Rave 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Rave Master characters, to match Rave Master. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- Jade Keira 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article. Luna Santin 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is I have several articles whose titles reference "Groove Adventure Rave". If the category title is to be changed, then the articles' titles should also reflect that change. Marikina 11:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Its known by both names, I'm just trying to match the main article, Rave Master. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. Marikina

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 page.

French Open

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:French Open (tennis) by year --Kbdank71 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French Opens by year (tennis) to Category:French Open events by year

Category:French Opens to Category:French Opens by year

Rename, Clarify difference between the two categories Tim! 17:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for specificity, in spite of my initial confusion. :) Merging would seem to clutter things up and reduce ease of browsing. Definitely rename -- I'm trying to think of a more obvious way to distinguish between the two categories, but until/unless somebody does, these will work well. Luna Santin 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This does not increase specificity but rather reduces it. There is a French Open in golf, and there are probably French Opens in many several sports. Imo the thing to do is to merge these two into Category:French Opens by year (tennis) and create a subcategory for each year that has more than one article. This will also facilitate placement of the articles in Category:Sports by year. Choalbaton 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Choalbaton to Category:French Open (tennis) by year. David Kernow 23:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Choalbaton to Category:French Open (tennis) by year. Osomec 09:08, 24 August 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 page.

Category:French presidential election candidate, 2007

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French presidential election candidate, 2007 to Category:Candidates for the French presidential election, 2007

Rename, Candidate should be plural and I think this version reads more clearly. Tim! 17:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Tim!; I believe the comma between "...election" and the year is standard...? David Kernow 23:15, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Short History of Northern Ireland

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verify and convert to article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Northern Ireland. Looks like an article created in category space. If nothing to merge, then delete. Possible WP:BITE concern, editor's first contrib and looks to be good faith, if unsourced. I've given them a welcome; if somebody can figure out a good way to let them know about this before I do, feel free. Luna Santin 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fork article rather than a category. Choalbaton 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Choalbaton and give creator MerlineErbe friendly invite to examine History of Northern Ireland. David Kernow 23:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Osomec 09:09, 24 August 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 page.

Category:Fictional bugs, and insects

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, distribute between Category:Bug Pokémon, Category:Fictional arthropods, Category:Fictional insects. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all are already in Category:Bug Pokémon which is a subcat of Category:Fictional insects. --musicpvm 18:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per --musicpvm Osomec 09:09, 24 August 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 page.

Category:Novels by Sebastian Faulks

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sebastian Faulks novels, convention of Category:Novels by author. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:15, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Leet speakers

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:User 1337. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I like that it's a "language." (By the way, that category:Wikipedians by language is terrifying. At some point we will have to decide whether to leave it as is or make some monstrously large changes.)--Mike Selinker 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. By the way, I've looked at Category:Wikipedians by language as well. I'd like for it to change eventually, but that will be quite a task, and quite honestly, not one that I think I want to tackle. --Cswrye 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:39, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia related skills and knowledge to category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia skills

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just making it briefer.--Mike Selinker 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Pointless, self-congratulatory and POV. Adds no value. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a bit harsh, BlackJack. It could be a resource: If I want to create a user box but don't know how, I can ask one of these guys. So that's value.--Mike Selinker 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I think that this is a legitimate category that could be useful. --Cswrye 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - "Wikipedia-related skill" is a bit too vague - what's a Wikipedia-related skill? Does typing count? Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:39, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Creative wikipedians

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only two users have selected into this category. I don't much like what it says about others, sort of like category:User intelligent.--Mike Selinker 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete POV and no value whatsoever. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of usefulness aside, it does have a hint of elitism about it. -- Jade Keira 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 09:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the inventor of the category, I don't think it contains any hint of elitism at all. It's just intended as a means of identifying wikipedians with similar interests and personalities, neither more nor less. To me, the word "creative" is defined as being inclined to produce creative works, not as being capable of it. Zerrakhi 10:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a little surprised I'm voting this way since I tend to be a deletionist when it comes to Wikipedian categories, but I think that this category is okay. This is a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians by skill, and I think that most of us recognize that some people have a talent for creativity, just like some people are better artists, musicians, and so on. I don't think that saying someone lacks creative skills is as derogatory as saying that the person lacks intelligence, and as Zerrakhi said, there wasn't an intention of elitism about it. Maybe as a compromise, we could rename it Category:Wikipedians with creative skills. —Cswrye 14:38, 24 August 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 page.

Category:Music of Belize

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Belizean music. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom although I prefer "Music of Belize" as a title (it has a nice ring to it). --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and would support a gang rename of Category:Music by nationality members. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and the rename of Category:Music by nationality is fine too. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:16, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Most awesome pages ever

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 page.

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Awesum is subjective. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Not only subjective but also childish in this context. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Generally useless vanity category. --Cswrye 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ugh. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Jade Keira 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedy. Bearcat 00:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Pure catcruft. — Dale Arnett 19:51, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Happy Days 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Happy Days characters do not have pages, so this category seems useless and should be deleted. - Triviaa 17:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and move to WP:CfD. -- Kicking222 11:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 articles is sufficient. Osomec 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much expansion possibility. I expect a Leather Tuscadero article any day now.--Mike Selinker 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They all deserve pages. Except Chachi. And Al, who's just a cheap imitation of Arnold. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not that uncommon for television series to have a category specificly for their characters. And just because there are only two articles currently doesn't mean there's not room for expansion. Dugwiki 20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the show was a hit, I don't think this category needs to exist. Other than the regular cast (and some of the regular guest stars: Laverne+Shirley, etc), there isn't that many characters to populate the category. RobJ1981 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a victim of Recentism. There's fancruft character pages for dozens and dozens of current TV shows that just won't die, so it would be unfair to delete this until we can delete the recent stuff, too. --M @r ē ino 19:58, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Honey liqueurs and spirits

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 page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 14:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Mead. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge other way around I think Category:Mead should be merged into this one. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok ... I've tagged the Mead category as well. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I support merging both into Category:Honey liqueurs and spirits, as it will cover both. Not all honey liquors are meads/melomels, etc.~~ -- nae'blis 16:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Both appear to be different items. Category:Mead needs to be kept since it is basically similar to wine in many aspects, but made from honey. Category:Honey liqueurs and spirits are products flavored with honey. I guess you could say that Category:Mead could be a sub cat of Category:Honey liqueurs and spirits, but I'm not sure that would be accurate. In any case, they should not be merged. Vegaswikian 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Vegaswikian, mead is not a liqueur nor is it spirits, and neither of those are mead. Mead is a primary fermentation with honey as a major component, not a distillation with or without flavouring. I doubt that Category:Honey liqueurs and spirits has merit as a category, but don't feel strongly enough about it to suggest deletion. Webaware 23:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean you would recommend keeping both categories? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reckon that Category:Mead should remain, as there is scope to expand the many varieties of mead into individual articles. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about keeping Category:Honey liqueurs and spirits, although I don't see it as valuable. Definitely, however, mead is not a liqueur, nor is it spirits, just as wine and cider aren't. Webaware 08:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. I think I understand. Mead is a wine, and by definition not a liqueur or spirit. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:38, 24 August 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 page.

Category:Conspiracy theorists

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous cfd: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_23 (result: no consensus)

Please compare:

Advancing conspiracy theories is not a profession, and (at leat in itself) not a crime. It may even be a rather peripheral aspect of a person.

Pjacobi 11:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pjacobi 11:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it will lead to POV inclusions --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Used predominantly as "commentary by categorization" (perhaps to do an end-run around NPOV and WP:V rules). Also, this category is in stark conflict with the recently tightened policy in WP:LIVING (for those categorized persons currently living, which looks like most of them right now). LotLE×talk 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with updated category description - I took the liberty of expanding the category definition to hopefully remove most or all subjectivity within this category. Specifically, to be included in Category:Conspiracy theorists an article must describe a person who actively defends one of the Conspiracy theories listed in Category:Conspiracy theories. In other words, for every specific conspiracy theory article listed under that category on Wikipedia, a person who verifiably actively defends that theory is defined as a conspiracy theorist for purposes of category inclusion. That should make it straightforward to objectively determine whether or not someone belongs in the category; just cross-check the Conspiracy theories category against beliefs mentioned in the article. Any thoughts? Dugwiki 21:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up comment - One thing the above suggestion will mean is that we should also make a pass through the articles in the category to remove people who don't fall under the narrower definition. Some of the articles may be about people who espouse fairly esoteric or unique theories that aren't notable enough for an article, or who are just generally paranoid. Those people's articles should be removed under the new narrow definition. Dugwiki 21:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Dugwiki! While your efforts try and perhaps would be able to achieve objectivity, they don't address the the "Is this a good job for a category?" problem. In theory you can transform every fact in an article into a category assignment but is that a good idea? Inmy not so humble opinion, categories or for forming article hierarchies, giving some organisation for out 1.3M articles, and as a navigation tool. Not for experiments in knowledge representation. In addition there is still a WP:BLP problem with your approachm, which I can explain if requested. --Pjacobi 06:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me answer the first concern about utility by saying that yes, I think in this case it would be a useful subcategory of Conspiracy theories. It is functionally very similar to the reason you have Category:Physicists as a subcategory of Category:Physics. Namely, it allows you to group articles by the type of object being described (eg. people versus places versus physical objects versus ideas). So if someone wanted to look up a person who studies physics, they can go to the people-related subcategory of Physics. In the same manner, if you wanted to find someone who studies conspiracy theories, you can go to the people-related subcategory of Conspiracy theories. Therefore from an organizational standpoint it is consistent with similar categories and generally a pretty navigational tool.
    - Now it is possible to argue that the parent category of Conspiracy theories is biased. But since I think that argument already took place and the consensus was apparently to keep the category, I am working under the assumption that Category:Conspiracy theories remains a valid, accepted Wiki category. So with that assumption in mind, it is fairly simple to divide out the articles about people who study those theories without introducing further bias into the result. If the parent category were ever deleted, then obviously the theorist subcategory likewise should be deleted too.
    - Hope that clears up my reasoning a bit, but if you think I'm overlooking something please feel free to post it here. Dugwiki 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is too open to abuse. It is not enough to hope that it won't be abused when it is a near certainty that it will be. Wikipedia needs to protect itself from its inherent weaknesses, moreso than a professionally edited encyclopedia. Osomec 09:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous arguments. Nathan Mercer 10:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- very useful category to keep track of what people make a living from these kinds of theories. Morton devonshire 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an informative category, and a well-defined term used by academics and journalists. Some people's only reason for inclusion in Wikipedia is their consiracy theory. There's no reason to not to say so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I stand beoynd my argument from the last CfD. Pavel Vozenilek 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not mince words here...some folks are what they are.--MONGO 22:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete violates WP:LIVING. There are conpiracy theoris, but no conspiracy thesorists, just as there is pseudosciens, but no pseudoscientists. --Striver 18:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Striver. Dionyseus 06:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously some people are conspiracy theorists, they make a living talking about conspiracy theories. Some just are known for being conspiracy theorists. If you are known for frequently, theorizing of conspiracies ... your a conspiracy theorist. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, conspiracy theories exist and some peoples' main notability is being a conspiracy theorist. Informative category. Wikipedia is not censored to protect readers who get offended when a spade is called a spade. Weregerbil 09:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with POV inclusions concerns and category in conflict with policy in WP:LIVING. Those who question the Bush Admin or other authority on wikipedia are automatically shackled with this term as part of an effort to deride them. Overall, it decreases the validity of wikipedia since it increases obvious bias. bov 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems its a term or so says CNN [1] [2] I am sure you can find this tag plenty of places, some of the people on this list do lecture on their conspiracy theories and make money off books and papers they have published regarding them as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:42, 30 August 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 page.

Category:Livejournal users

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Wikipedian category. Instead, it's a new category that's the same type as the "celebrities with MySpace accounts" categories we've been obliterating. So I'd delete it, and maybe turn it into a list.--Mike Selinker 11:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-choster 15:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too trivial for a category. --Cswrye 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of usefulness. -- Jade Keira 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial; there's already a list (although I'd probably vote to delete that, too, if somebody AFD'd it). Bearcat 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too trivial and transitory to listify. Osomec 09:12, 24 August 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 page.

Category:Transportation games

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Transport infrastructure computer and video games --Kbdank71 14:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transportation games to Category:Transportation infrastructure computer games

Rename, Firstly to confirm they are computer games and not board games. Secondly, this specific genre is about transport networks and not simulations of individual vehicles. 'network' would a nicer word but may be confused with computer networks. Alternatively 'Transport infrastructure ...' Marasmusine 08:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Transport infrastructure computer and video games (etc) to match Category:Computer and video games or upmerge into Category:City building games (which in turn may need to be renamed for conventions, heh). Luna Santin 09:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to category:Transport simulator computer and video games. "Simulator" (or "sim") is a common enough term in this genre, but infrastructure is not. (That said, I also support the change as nominated.)--Mike Selinker 11:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Transport infrastructure computer and video games per Luna Santin. AIUI "Simulator" is probably not apropriate for this category as train sims and flight sims, etc are about controling individual vehicles rather than networks. Thryduulf 12:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with existing title and the concept is explained on the category page. The suggested alternatives are going to tie everyone in knots. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "transport infrastructure" isn't quite ideal, so I can see where you're coming from, even if I'd rather still have it (or something better) to be more specific. Either way, would you be willing to concede "computer and video games," since that's really a pretty strong naming convention? Luna Santin 19:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also compare Category:Railroad games, which is exclusively board games (except for the CVG cat which I subcatted), and you'll see why there might be confusion. Marasmusine 06:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Marasmusine, I reckon "Computer and video" ought to appear somewhere in the name as otherwise board games etc based on transportation are eligible for inclusion. Regards, David Kernow 13:23, 24 August 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 page.

Category:Unreleased films

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Category:Upcoming films. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "upcoming films" implies completion, where this is, I think, more intended for films which will never be released. Granted, I'm a bit wierded out by the notability concerns of that conclusion. If we do keep, I might suggest a merge one way or the other with Category:Unfinished films. Luna Santin 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Unfinished films as per Luna Santin. The process of filmmaking surely includes release just as project development must include implementation. If the release/implementation stage is not achieved, the project/film is incomplete and so "unfinished". --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently The Fantastic Four (film) is complete, but shevled anyway. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Unfinished" and "unreleased" aren't necessarily the same thing. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, "unfinished" and "unreleased" aren't identical. The Fantastic Four (film) is a good example of a finished film that the studio opted not to release to the public. Dugwiki 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per distinctions discussed above. David Kernow 23:37, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Ancient historians

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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. Appears to have been tagged on February 2, no discussion on that day, listing for discussion. Vegaswikian 06:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unsure, but if this really only has two members, it might be better to recategorize the articles in Category:Historians by field of study as appropriate. Thoughts? Luna Santin 09:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into category:Historians of antiquity. The term "ancient historians" is a little misleading: does it mean ancient history authorities; does it mean Herodotus and Thucydides; does it mean historians who are old!? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I saw "ancient historians" and thought of Pliny the Younger instead of contemporary scholars. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BlackJack. I missed that one trying to look for a merge candidate, nice. :) Luna Santin 19:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BlackJack. The "ancient historians" name is too indistinct and could cause confusion. -- Jade Keira 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Historians of antiquity per BlackJack. David Kernow 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Historians of antiquity per BlackJack. Osomec 09:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do per BlackJack. This is so obvious that it shoudn't get here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:39, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Atlanta rap artists

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. Appears to have been tagged on July 9, no discussion on that day, listing for discussion. Vegaswikian 06:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless trivial category which is any case spelled wrong as the "c" has been missed off yet again. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not necessary to further categorize rappers by every city. --musicpvm 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Atlanta is well known as a hub of rap and hip-hop culture, making it a notable location to categorize rappers by. (Also, voting to delete because you don't like hip-hop is [] lame.) -HX 22:24, 29 August 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 page.

Category:Kentucky colonels

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. Appears to have been tagged on July 15, no discussion on that day, listing for discussion. Vegaswikian 06:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what this category is, exactly. But a category of people named Kentucky colonel (an honorary designation) would probably be acceptable. --W.marsh 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at all of the articles and there is no mention of Kentucky colonels that I could find in the articles. So without any idea what this category is for, I'd vote delete. It appears to be a category of random entries now. There is a group called THE HONORABLE ORDER OF KENTUCKY COLONELS, if these individuals are members of this group, then I still lean delete since we would need a way to verify membership and would membership be notable? Maybe. Vegaswikian 05:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an honor bestowed by the governor of Kentucky, and the KY SoS even mentions and links to the Honorable Order, leading me to believe that the Order's website is authoritative with respect to membership. -choster 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I read it, they are appointed fund raisers and ambasadors for Kentucky. So I'm not sure that 2,300 appointments, I think I saw that number somewhere, by the governor of Kentucky is that notable. They also have a role at the Kentucky Derby. And the fact that the membership list is not apparenly public raises the issue of WP:V. Vegaswikian 06:12, 26 August 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 page.

Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies of Turkey

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 page.

Speedy Delete. Found a nomination from August 15, no discussion section for that date. Same user created and requested deletion. Vegaswikian 06:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G7, {{db-author}}. Luna Santin 09:52, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Wikipedian Burners to Category:Burner Wikipedians

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing this Burning Man category to match most others in category:Wikipedians by subculture.--Mike Selinker 05:26, 23 August 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 page.

Wikipedians by organization

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Minor update post-closing: A member of the PROD patrol created a new version of category:Wikipedians in the PROD patrol with a lowercase "p". This isn't what's agreed to here, but my version was incorrect and theirs is correct. So I amended the nomination just before it was to be renamed.--Mike Selinker 09:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one format here: “Wikipedians in X.” I intentionally made the Peace Corps category more inclusive. I decided not to add the subcategories of the CVU until I saw where this was headed.--Mike Selinker 04:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support, pending discussion. In general, I like the idea of naming consistency among most or all categories. I'll point out a few of these I have minor seconds thoughts about: category:Wikipedians in the Featured Article Drive team, drop "team"? Or does that make it unclear? It seems a minor deviation from "Wikipedians in X," but maybe that's just me. Same might go for category:Wikipedians in the WikiWikiWeb community. category:Wikipedians in the Association Internationale des Etudiants en Sciences Economiques et Commerciales might be an acronym worth contracting, as taboo as I know it is. :p Um, can't think of anything else, for now, but thought somebody should start this discussion rolling. Thanks for bringing it to the table. Luna Santin 10:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You hit upon some I was unsure about, Luna. Based on your comment, I fixed Feature Article Drive, withdrew WikiWikiWeb (and moved it to category:Wikipedians by website instead), and left AIESEC as nominated for now.--Mike Selinker 11:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would rename AIESEC category into "Wikipedians in AIESEC", if at all. The organization's compendium says the acronym is not in effect anymore because there are students from other study backgrounds (besides economics) as well.--Sky Walker 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - A good point, and one I should have noticed when Luna brought it up. I've fixed that one.--Mike Selinker 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all--BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. --Cswrye 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all (with AIESEC alteration) per nomination. -- Naraht 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. These are consistent and sensible renaming proposals. Mango juice^talk 19:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I created the Alpha Phi Alpha category and support renaming this cat and other fraternity/sorority categories. Ccson 19:38, 30 August 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 page.

Category:A.C. Siena

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, category for an Italian football team. Only article in the category is the football team. Bigdottawa 04:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, And its players are there too. Plenty of precedent for this.--Mike Selinker 05:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As Mike says, there is precedent. To delete this would set a dangerous counter-precedent. All articles about the club's history, grounds, players, officials, famous matches, etc. could go into the category. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are probably articles about some of the club's managers too, and if there aren't there will be some time soon. Choalbaton 21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous comments. Even if the players and managers are put into categories such as Category:A.C. Siena players and Category:A.C. Siena managers, this needs to be kept as a parent category. — Dale Arnett 04:42, 25 August 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 page.

(AHL) team categories

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename In the case of the Utah Grizzlies, no other franchises which were merged into the AHL from the IHL carry the (AHL) designation in the categories of their current incarnations. (see Category:Grand Rapids Griffins (IHL) players vs. Category:Grand Rapids Griffins players) This change should be made simply for continuity reasons. As far as the Moncton Hawks situation goes, I have no idea why there is an (AHL) designation in its category names. Apparently, there have been other teams in history named the Moncton Hawks, but the others were all low-level senior league teams in the 1940s and 50s which are not mentioned anywhere I can find on Wikipedia. In fact, the main page Moncton Hawks redirects to Moncton Hawks (AHL). It's just unnecessary, and should be changed. Skudrafan1 04:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- JamesTeterenko 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. BoojiBoy 14:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per nom. There is no need for the designation unless there is another team with the same name, including one in a different sport. Was one of the earlier Moncton Hawks clubs a predecessor of the current one? Quite often a club is reformed under an original name or it merges with another and then reverts back to the original name. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:30, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Ellen (TV series) guest stars

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a noteworthy facet of these actors' careers, as far as I can tell. Could easily be covered at List of Ellen episodes, as the show is completed and the list will not change. -- nae'blis 03:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "x guest stars" categories are rarely a good idea. Recury 13:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above users' comments. Osomec 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Best way to present this info would be direct link to IMDb which usually has an episode and guests list per TV series. Pointless to have it as a category. No added value at all. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'd also be in favour of killing the entire lot of similar categories by television show. Bearcat 00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it; but I've actually been convinced by the arguments above. Sure, delete it. Yonmei 13:51, 24 August 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 page.

Category:Australian orchids

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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian orchids to Category:Orchids of Australia

Rename, all other Australian flora and fauna subcats are X of Australia. Peta 03:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 21:53, 26 August 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 page.

Category:Luxembourgian duchesses

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Runcorn 20:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category was populated with Grand Duchesses of Luxembourg, who are not just Duchesses. Since the Grand Duchesses in question were already categorized under another applicable Luxembourg royal category, there is no need to maintain or rename this category. Instead it should just be deleted. Charles 02:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete as it seems to be duplication thus far and has no potential in its own right. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:48, 23 August 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 page.