Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 25

< October 24	October 26 >

October 25

Category:The 4400

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 keep. David Kernow (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The 4400 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It is generally a very bad idea to create unique categories for individual television shows and films. If most shows and films had an individual category, then prolific actors could end up with 30 or 40 or 50 categories or more in their article, one per show and film they participated in. The only exceptions should be very notable shows with a large number of otherwise unrelated articles other than simply cast lists and episode lists.

This category should be deleted and replaced by list articles that list links to individual actor and episode articles. Its subcategories that list actors and episodes, etc, do not need to be deleted; they simply need to be listed in the appropriate other existing subcategories (eg Category:Actors by television series) Dugwiki 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — What is it with you and lists and expressing your opiniosn through CfDs? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To reply, CFD is the appropriate forum for nominating categories for deletion and merger. Hope that answers your question. Dugwiki 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This can't be serious, I can't even come up with a useful argument for something this obvious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well, if it's that obvious, please feel free to give a counter-argument to my reasoning above. No need to get sarcastic if you disagree. Dugwiki 22:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's a reasonable enough category. SergeantBolt (t,c) 21:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peregrinefisher 21:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to head off one potential complaint, I realize that there are currently some other shows with their own categories. However, some of those too will probably need to be discussed in seperate future discussions. This unfortunately isn't a situation where an umbrella nomination of many television show categories would work, since different shows are slightly different and thus some might receive keep consensus while other get delete consensus. Short of an alternative systematic way to handle such debate, it's a matter of nominating one show at a time as they catch an editor's eye. (P.S. By the way, I'm a huge fan of the show, so please don't take this nomination to mean I dislike the program. I just don't think this category is a good idea.) Dugwiki 21:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable series and similar series also have categories. This is also the kind of pop-culture stuff that Wikipedia can do better at than encyclopedias. Encyclopedias usually have enough credentials/respectability they'd be uncomfortable with articles on Marco Pacella, Diefenbaker (wolf), or Balki Bartokomous. Wikipedia is freer, and slightly trashier, than that.--T. Anthony 05:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Chuq 00:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject The 4400 seem to be using it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Right or wrong the place has many categories for TV shows and the nominator has failed to show this one is not notable enough compared to the others. For example show how this is less worthy to exist than: Category:Earth: Final Conflict, Category:Perfect Strangers, or Category:Squidbillies.--T. Anthony 05:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful as an umbrella category. - jc37 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful for project. Badbilltucker 00:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per consensus; useful for organizing the articles related to the series. Shannernanner 05:58, 27 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:American fraudsters

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. David Kernow (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Name is POV, as those in the category are not neccessarily meant to be convicted persons. If there is better defined criteria then I can understand it, but I can't see how we can remove the POV from this one. Visorstuff 20:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just one of scores or hundreds of categories for criminals and it raises no concerns that the others don't raise. Hawkestone 22:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, should unconvicted people fit into the category, as is currently the case? -Visorstuff 00:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - requires cutations/references, which aren't possible in a category in this case. - jc37 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -GilliamJF 23:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous attempts to have crime related categories deleted have failed and there is no reason to single this one out for nomination. Crime is a major activity and it should be covered by the category system. Honbicot 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove inappropriate articles, as with any category for criminals. Calsicol 17:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Old hat. We have criminal-categories and they aren't going to go away. Osomec 23:21, 29 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:Republic of Singapore Navy bases

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) 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Republic of Singapore Navy bases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No point having only two members in this category for the long forseeable future. Category has been depopulated, moved to Category:Camps and bases of the Singapore Armed Forces. Rifleman 82 17:47, 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:Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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) 00:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecuador Guayaquil South Mission DesertSky85451 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the Church has just under 350 missions globally, [1] the individual mission pages, such as the one remaining in the category, are in the Unremarkable speedy deletion category. If there were many pages on the individual missions, the category would make sense. ~ Bwagstaff 18:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No use for this. Prolog 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - articles about individual missions had been deleted on VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason at this point to have a category without corresponding articles. -Visorstuff 23:52, 26 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:Memorization shooters

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) 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, and this classification could become POV -Zappernapper 05:40, 28 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:Star Fox members

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) 00:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per previous discussion. - jc37 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Doczilla 02:24, 27 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:Death by heart disease

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 category already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease, looks like a duplicate to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. - jc37 18:47, 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:Human-animal conflict

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 to Pest control. David Kernow (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Human-animal conflict into Category:Pest control

Merge to the new category Pest control. All articles in Human-animal conflict category relate to pest control anyway. GilliamJF 14:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a title like "Human-animal conflict" makes me wonder why there's nothing on alligators and moose. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. (Sounded like some new reality show : ) - jc37 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Looking the list shows that it's clearly about pest control. Doczilla 19:50, 26 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:Peerage by surname

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) 00:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category seems to have been created to hold Category:Howard (see below). It is a bad idea because even though the Howards have probably been granted more titles than any other British family not all members of the family have been peers, so I have moved Category:Howard to Category:English families. More generally dividing the peerage by surname makes no sense. There have been unrelated ennobled families with the same surname, and on the other hand quite often the consecutive (and related) holders of same peerage have had different surnames, due to the aristocratic habit of using double and treble-barrelled surnames. Looking at things from a broader perspective, people are not usually categorised by surname, except in family categories (and some of those contain relations with different surnames). Olborne 13:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I see the idea here, but it would be unworkable as noted. --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 02:24, 27 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:Howard

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Howard to Category:Howard family (English aristocracy)

Rename, The Howard family is one of the leading dynasties of the English aristocracy, and several branches of it have been powerful and influential over the last 600 years. There are many articles that should be added besides the current 5. The name should be changed to exclude articles about people called Howard X or other things called Howard and since Howard is a very common surname it is perhaps best to disambiguate at this stage in the hope that doing so will prevent articles about members of other Howard families being added. Olborne 13:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The current name is too vague. Someone may put Howard the Duck in this category. George J. Bendo 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Doczilla 02:23, 27 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:Vampire Slayers

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 per nom. (Comment: I guess that by the time someone reached this category they'd be more rather than less likelt to know/infer to what "Buffyverse" refers.) David Kernow (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vampire Slayers to Category:Slayers (Buffyverse)

Rename, in line with main article. Was originally up for speedy renaming for capitalisation, but apparently the category is not intended for any old vampire slayers, and "Slayer" is a proper noun in this usage. Disclosure: I am not a Buffy expert :-) RobertG ♬ talk 08:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I see that we even have a Wikiproject by the name, I am concerned that "Buffyverse" is a neologism from blogs and such, and as such would not be appropriate for naming. Further information would be helpful : ) - jc37 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree. The term "Buffyverse" seems to be in wide use on Wikipedia as the main article shows, but Category:Slayers (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) sounds a lot more encyclopedic to me. That would of course mean that all the similar articles and categories need to be renamed consistently. I must also point out that I too am not a Buffy expert. Prolog 21:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. David Kernow (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what do we do now? : ) - jc37 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'Buffyverse' maybe a relatively new word, which has only been growing in use over the last 9 years or so. However it does have 440,000 hits on google, is used by the creators of the series, is printed in published works and used by the media, (e.g. the CNN article, ""Slang-age in the Buffyverse"). Perhaps more importantly using something like Category:Slayers (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) would be inaccurate, because that would imply slayers from the TV show Buffy. 'Buffyverse' actually incorporates the entire fictional universe which not only includes Buffy, but also Angel (TV series), Tales of the Vampires, Fray.. and other related stories which take place in the same fictional 'Buffyverse' (but are not necessarily directly part of Buffy the Vampire Slayer). That is why Buffyverse has become the accurate naming convention on Wikipedia for disambiguation when it comes to these topics. For example the character Spike, appears in Buffy, Angel, and "Tales of the Vampires".. and might even potentially feature in his own film if studios allow creator Joss Whedon to have his way (the title is unknown). Calling the article 'Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)' would be highly inaccurate, the character features in a wide fictional universe called the Buffyverse, not just a television show called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". It would be like naming the 'Wolverine' article, 'Wolverine (Uncanny X-Men)', when in fact the character has featured in lots of different X-Men comics, not just Uncanny X-Men.- Paxomen 23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being the glutton for punishment that I am, I just went through a number (I won't say how many, sigh) of those on that google link you listed above. Ignoring the varied fan pages (commentary, blogs, fan lists on amazon, and such), and wikipedia's own listings (and it's various mirrors), I have a few links that you might find interesting.
These links show fairly clearly that the term is a neologism:

[2]
[3]

This link directly opposes the idea that "buffyverse" includes all the shows:

[4]

And I found numerous sites which listed whedonverse or jossverse as alternative terms.
The only link I could find that came close was:

[5]

Since this would be an actual publication. Though, it wouldn't be the first time that an internet reporter used a neologism : )
All-in-all, I think we should drop the term "Buffyverse", as a neologism. We shouldn't be contributing to the spread of a term. - jc37 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am something of a fan of the Buffyverse, and even named my wiki-username after it. Jc37 is right that "Buffyverse" is not a word which has an objective meaning in the way that say "Chair" does. But then neither do many words, definitions are often a point of debate amongst academics, who might disagree over the precise meanings of for instance "addiction". But Wikipedia does not need to shy away. I can tell you that Buffyverse not only features in the texts of over a dozen published books on my shelf, but even in the title of a book due out in December: The Physics of the Buffyverse. Off the top of my head I know it was regularly used at high traffic web sites such as aintitcool.com E!Online, TVGuide... It is occasionally used to describe only fiction from Buffy, but most often it is used to potentially describe a much bigger fiction including Angel, other materials, and any future spinoffs (e.g. references to "Buffyverse movies" "Buffy TV movies".. even though the character Buffy would not be in any such movies any time soon - they would revolve around characters such as Giles, Faith, Spike..) I'm speaking from years of experience - all this is explained at the Buffyverse article which also explains alternate terms. "Whedonverse" & "Jossverse" are no use here because they also include Firefly/Serenity.. as well as Buffy/Angel.. which are not compatible in the same fictional universe only compatible in that they are related by their creation by Joss Whedon. I'd agree with Jc37 that "Buffyverse" is in some ways not a perfect term, but there is no better alternative available to us here. We're only fooling ourselves if we start disambiguating the article to "Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)", when really this concept is used in a much bigger fictional universe. -- Buffyverse 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with most of that response was that it's WP:OR. And considering that you moved the WikiProject to it's current name [6] (and I couldn't find any talk page discussion about it), and even your first edit was to change "Whedonverse" to "Buffyverse" [7], I would have been inclined to still disagree.

However, the link to The Physics of the Buffyverse, which is published by Penguin Books, is enough of a start, I think, in conjunction with the rest to consider this possibly usable, even if it's still somewhat "murky" (further references would be helpful). - Thank you for the "further information" I requested above : ) - jc37 06:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Category:Slayers (Buffyverse) per, um, Buffyverse and in defense of fictional "universes" everywhere...Pegship 05:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and recategorize - Vampire slayers should include all those in both fictional works and history (e.g. Abraham Van Helsing). the (Buffyverse) should be a subcategory if need be. as far as whether buffyverse should be allowed, while it's true it's a technical neologism as someone said, it's been being used for nine years... how long does something need to be used before it has an accepted definition? the goal here is to create an encyclopedia, and it needs to be as clear as possible, any other grouping woud be misleading and confusing. an alternative is to use (television), the buffyverse already has a heavily used template -Zappernapper 05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming this to be more inclusive, adding additional contents, and then removing the current contents to a new sub-category is equivalent in effect to renaming this category, and creating a new parent category, except for the key detail of avoiding the effort of the "recategorising" part. Alai 04:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and per the existing (and parent) category, Category:Buffyverse. Alai 04:38, 30 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.

Two categories using the word "trivia"

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 :

Category:United States Presidential trivia: Created Lists relating to the United States presidency for lists, upmerged other articles;
Category:United States county name etymology trivia lists: Upmerged to parent Category:U.S. county name etymologies.

David Kernow (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Presidential trivia to Category:United States Presidential miscellany
Category:United States county name etymology trivia lists to Category:United States county name miscellany

Suggest these categories use the word "miscellany" rather than "trivia" as the latter suggests "trivial"; presumably anything consensus determines to be "trivial" is unencyclopedic, i.e. to be omitted...? (Although the word "etymology" lost in the latter, suggest context is sufficient to imply this topic.) David Kernow (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both as nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miscellany is just a posher term for trivia. Miscellaneous articles are best left in a parent category unless there is somewhere more specific to which they can be allocated. Alternative proposals:
- Merge Category:United States Presidential trivia into Category:Presidency of the United States. Most of the contents (and perhaps some other items) could then be placed in a new category called Category:Presidency of the United States-related lists.
- Merge Category:United States county name etymology trivia lists into Category:United States county name etymology, then move the by state lists into a subcategory called category:United States county name etymology by state and leave the non-state lists in the main category. Twittenham 10:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Category:United States Presidential trivia to Category:United States presidential history. One person's trivia is another person's history. - jc37 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:United States county name etymology trivia lists, per Twittenham - jc37 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments. Any sensible merge will do. Osomec 23:22, 29 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:Silicon Valley people

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 speedy delete — created by banned user. AnnH ♫ 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Silicon Valley, per usual convention. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That would be highly misleading as only a tiny fraction of Silicon Valley people are "from" Silicon Valley. There must be "from" categories for the relevant cities and counties, but this category is a complementary one that groups people who share a common work-related attribute. Twittenham 10:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the from terminology is about residency, not nativity. Strangely, there isn't a people from for Santa Clara County, California. I know what you mean though, most of the people I know moved here from somewhere else; I've lived in Silicon Valley for more than 20 years and still don't claim to be from it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but perhaps as Category:People of companies based in Silicon Valley? I don't object to the nom, and don't object to "People from" applying to significant residency, although many editors seem to interpret it as nativity alone and remove residency-based cats. --Dhartung | Talk 09:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People associated with Silicon Valley...? David Kernow (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People of companies based in Silicon Valley. Seems to be the most precise name, based on category inclusion, though Category:People from San Jose, California would need to be removed. I also think that this category should only have sub-categories as members. - jc37 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename for reasons stated above -Visorstuff 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I got some interesting e-mail this morning. Aparently the category was created by a banned user and has now been removed, rendering the discussion moot. I still think there ought to be a Category:People from Silicon Valley at some point. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:51, 27 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:Ailurophiles

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. David Kernow (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Twittenham 10:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - jc37 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strongly disagree-do not delete-as I created the category, I did not know there was previously a Category:Cat lovers, so that argument is false. Also, with many of the biographies listed, it is indeed a defining characteristic, as per their own articles. Chris 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good faith recreation, but it's not really a notable characteristic and it's hard to determine who is and who isn't an ailurophile, ailurophobe, dog lover, dog hater etc. Prolog 21:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 22:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) (It is not as entertaining as the previous category had happened.)[reply]
- comment you're kidding. "entertaining"? come on. Chris 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Calsicol 18:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many of the individuals listed, such as Cleveland Amory, Lillian Jackson Braun, Rita Mae Brown, and Jim Davis (cartoonist) are at least partially, and often primarily, known because of their connections to cats. I myself have reservations about some of them, (Masahiro Chono comes to mind), and believe that the category could benefit from having a rather more limiting set of criteria for inclusion, but believe that wikipedia does benefit by having a category which mentions those people who have particularly strong ties to cats. Badbilltucker 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any hobby-related or personal interest-related category will be overused as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, so trying to create a more limiting set of criteria for inclusion is a waste of time. Honbicot 23:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the people in this category indeed have their ailurophility notable enough to have it discussed in their articles, discounting the nomination. this defining characteristic is similar to how steve jobs is located in the autodidacts category... theoretically everyone is self taught to a point so anyone could potentially be included... we also caegorize people based on their political affiliation... isn't this interest related? the preceding arguement for deletion is a flawed one, i'm not wholly set on this viewpoint, perhaps someone can bring up why "cat lovers" was deleted, other than its poor name? -Zappernapper 05:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

simply put, if it's an important enough characteristic to be mentioned in a biography article, it's appropriate to have a category for it. If there were a few people who were famous because of their blue-eyes it would make sense for them to be in a People Notable for Their Eye Color category. the guidlines only discourage creating categories out of trivial content, reading a few of the articles included in this category it seems that their love of cats was indeed integral to their notability -Zappernapper 09:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is being defended by comparision with Category:Autodidacts there is something wrong with it, as I have been thinking of nominating that because it is full of inappropriate entries. (It's not uncommon to see someone in Category:Xian autodidacts and Category:Name of prestigious university alumni). Categories that require users to exercise restraint based on detailed criteria and to leave out some people who match the category name don't work, because too many users don't leave out those people. Calsicol 17:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment because people aren't using it properly isn't enough of a reason to say it's not allowed to be a category, by the same token articles about fiction should be excluded from the wiki. Is there some project that deals with keeping categorization appropriate? I work in a couple fiction-specific wikigroups and often times having a whole project that leaves notes on people's talk pages and monitoring a group of articles is often enough to keep things reasonable. -Zappernapper 09:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes, and autodidacts is indeed an important category. I'm reading the main article on Abe Lincoln... now I'm interested in other notable people who were successful because of their independent learning and what they made of themselves. the fact that someone as uninterested in biographical info as i am, knows lincoln would be in that category should tell you how important it was to who he became. sorry, bout all the comments, late night, nothin better to do! -Zappernapper 09:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the category maintenance page. Monitoring by a small group might work on a specialist Wiki, but Wikipedia is far too vast for that. Someone might offer to monitor a particular category, but how long will they keep it up, and what happens when they stop? I agree with Calsicol that we should take the precaution of deleting categories that are likely to be misused, because that is the only method of control that is viable. Of course, this only applies to categories that are less than essential. Osomec 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation. Osomec 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this category is now being counted as within the scope of WikiProject Cats, as it deals with cat owners and several individuals mentioned on the page List of historical cats and, potentially, other pages as well. On that basis, I would like to reassert my earlier statement in favor of keeping this category. Badbilltucker 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a persons interests often create a bond between a cirlce of notable persons. Being able to find others with someting such as this in common is often of both great public interest as well as valuable to researchers. Doc ♬ talk 01:43, 1 November 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:People of Nigerian heritage

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People of Nigerian descent, convention of Category:People by ethnic or national descent. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. See also Category:People of Ghanaian heritage. Punkmorten 07:58, 27 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:Montclair 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 rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Montclair State University alumni, to match Montclair State University. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - University categories should use the same name form as the institution and article. Timrollpickering 00:40, 26 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:Indian Film Family

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Indian film families, naming conventions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Sumahoy 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Honbicot 23:05, 27 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.