Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 24

< October 23	October 25 >

October 24

Category:Belizean dramatists

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 rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Belizean dramatists and playwrights, convention of Category:Dramatists and playwrights by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename Sumahoy 03:25, 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:Hispanic Rappers

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. the wub "?!" 11:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least rename to Category:Hispanic rappers ... How should we define hispanic? This is really more of a list than a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a list, not a category. Sumahoy 03:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "hispanic" is too broad (and vague) of a term. The subcats of Category:Rappers by nationality are sufficient. --musicpvm 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was never much into rap, but it seems like chicano rap or Latin rap was a kind of subgenre. Like how Latin jazz is a subgenre of jazz. As there is no Category:Latin jazz I'm not sure this is a subgenre deserving a category or not and admittedly this isn't dealing with that. Still ethnicity might be more important in rap/hip-hop than in other genres of music.--T. Anthony 01:25, 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:2006 in ALMS

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 to Category:2006 in the American Le Mans Series. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2006 in ALMS to Category:2006 in American Le Mans Series

Rename, More logical naming scheme to use the full name and not the abbreviation. The359 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 2006 in the American Le Mans Series. David Kernow (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per...hmm...David Kernow, I guess. Recury 14:59, 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.

Category:U.S. State Attorneys General

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 09:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. State Attorneys General to Category:State Attorneys General in the United States

Rename, U.S. → United States. It doesn't really matter if the name becomes United States State Attorney Generals or whatever. As long as there is some consensus here. —Markles 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, suggested name consistent with other categories for state office holders, such as Category:State supreme court judges in the United States. Postdlf 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though should not the spelling be Category:State attorneys general in the United States? --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not: Attorney General. - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I still think Wikipedia capitalization policy suggests otherwise. Or we should rename all the judge categories. --Dhartung | Talk 09:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Honbicot 23:06, 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.

TV chefs

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

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, expansion of abbreviation. mattbr³⁰ 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Twittenham 10:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Articles about television. - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the standard for artciles. Article standards do not carry over to category names. We tend to shot on sight any abbreviations. Vegaswikian 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Wikipedia:Categorization#Category naming and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), categories are to follow article naming conventions. - jc37 11:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The full word is television, and there is no reason not to use it. Hawkestone 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Make television the standard term in categories in lieu of TV. Vegaswikian 18:17, 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.

WW2 South Pacific Campaign

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. the wub "?!" 11:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:World War II South Pacific Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete This category appears to be covered by categories for Category:World_War_II_Pacific_Campaign and for Category:Far_East_naval_theatre_of_World_War_II. There are no actual entries in this category. --Sm8900 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)19:50, 24 October 2006 .[reply]

I've added its also-empty subcategory to this, Category:World War II aerial operations and battles of the South Pacific Campaign, as it should have the same fate as its parent category. No vote. Postdlf 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. See my comments below at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:World_War_II_Pacific_Campaign. There were two allied commands/campaigns in the Pacific: the South West Pacific theatre of World War II (under MacArthur) and Pacific Ocean theater of World War II (Nimitz). The South Pacific theater/campaign as such was a sub-campaign of the Pacific Ocean Areas (Category:Pacific Ocean theater of World War II) and was separate from the South West Pacific Area (Category:South West Pacific theatre of World War II). Grant65 | Talk 08:09, 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:British television shows

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 and redirect. the wub "?!" 11:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:British television programmes, looks like a duplicate to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I ought to mention that "programme" is British English, so should be used for this British-related category. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per AnemoneProjectors and retain as a redirect Wimstead 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above and Wimstead. David Kernow (talk) 12:18, 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:Lists of webisodes

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.

Delete. This doesn't have much potential for growth. The single article in this cat should probably be merged with its main article (Pure Pwnage) anyways. --- RockMFR 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Internet television series. - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Internet television series.Osomec 23:29, 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:Webcast webisodic series

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.

Delete. Redundant - Category:Internet television series already exists (and this is a really really really awful name). --- RockMFR 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant ---Lasttan 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Internet television series. - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category is now empty, everything is now in Category:Internet television series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.246.212.74 (talk • contribs)

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.

Subcats of Category:Museum collections

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Collections of the Louvre to Category:Collection of the Louvre,

Category:Collections of the Musée d'Orsay to Category:Collection of the Musée d'Orsay

and ditto for the National Gallery, London, the National Museums of Scotland, the National Galleries of Scotland, the Rijksmuseum, the Science Museum (London), the Uffizi, the Vatican Museums, the Villa Giulia

After very lengthy discussion during this vote, it was decided that the singular "Collection" is preferable to the plural "Collections". The rationale in a nutshell: the singular case is better because the category is for articles such as Night Watch (painting) etc., as opposed to, say, Hope Entomological Collections. It is for objects that form the constituent parts of a collection, and not for "collections" per se; this confusion had arisen because of the plural. That last vote successfully implemented the change on Category:Collection of the British Museum; my hope is that it will now be implemented across the board.

NB: There may be an argument for keeping the plural in the case of "National Museums of Scotland", "National Galleries of Scotland", and "Vatican Museums"; in each of those cases we are talking not of a single museum, but several. The question is whether we consider that e.g. the Vatican Museums have a single collection dispersed across several museums (in which case, Rename) or that each of its museums constitutes a collection in itself (in which case, Keep). Please consider this when voting. [talk to the] HAM 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as an improvement, but still awkward. Alternative rename to Category:Objects in... (not all collections consist of works of art, which rules out that term, and artifacts/artefacts is best avoided as the UK and U.S. spellings are different). Sumahoy 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Objects" was suggested in the last vote, but I'm not keen on the phrasing. Jc37 is clearly being ironic, but he has a point: doesn't categorising e.g. The Night Watch as an "object in the Rijksmuseum" put it on a par with the bannisters, drinking fountains etc.? Perhaps you think "object" is the most neutral term, but, to use the example I gave in the previous vote, for me it would ring false to see Mona Lisa categorised as merely an "object in the Louvre". I prefer the phrasing "[part of the] collection" because it is completely non-specific about the nature of the actual things/objects/artefacts/artworks and thus avoids any qualitative judgement on them. [talk to the] HAM 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Opposing "objects", because I don't want the bannisters or drinking fountains listed : ) - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant as they don't have articles. Hawkestone 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename using "Collection of" <museum/gallery>, per nom. I presume that this includes loaned works, like by family trusts? - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Objects in... per Sumahoy. Hawkestone 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like both "Collections of" and "Collection of" are unsuitable; the former doesn't distinguish between the entire contents of an institution and any special(ist) "collections" within it, while the latter seems to make reference to rather than name the category (other categories' names seem to follow the pattern "Xs of/in/etc Y"). Agree that "Objects in..." may be too banal. Has "Works in..." been ruled out...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:32, 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:Adult Spin-offs

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. the wub "?!" 11:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Adult Spin-offs to Category:Adult spin-offs

Speedy rename, Replace capitalized S which shouldn't be there. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, but I think this is a better candidate for deletion. Whether a television series spin-off is "intended for a more mature audience" than its original seems to me to be a very subjective judgment, and to constitute original research. Not a very sensible category at all. Postdlf 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective. Tim! 11:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... Angel is more "mature" than Buffy? That's really subjective. Baywatch Nights more adult than the original? Suckier, perhaps, but hardly more mature. Admittedly, the Ren & Stimpy example is a clear case, but this entire cat is still far too subjective to continue. Anthony Hit me up... 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename bingo99 15:59 25 October 2006 [UTC]
Delete - according to who? - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this subjective category altogether. Doczilla 19:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV cat. If kept it should be renamed. Vegaswikian 18:22, 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:Wario characters

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wario characters into Category:Mario characters

Merge, only 5 pages; doesn't look like more will be added soon. Also, it's debatable whenever Waluigi is really a Wario character or not. (trogga) 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per norm. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla 19:44, 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:Animals in literature

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Animals in fiction, or Category:Fictional animals, depending on the outcome of related cfds. ProveIt ^(talk) 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, also merge all subcategories into the corresponding "in fiction" or "fictional" category (also depending on the outcome of related cfds). — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is a clear and easily applied category: animals that appear in works of written literature. The "Fictional animals" categories are too big and cover too many disparate sorts of fictions to be useful. This category is a step towards usefully subcategorizing it, and presumably meets the objections raised against an "animals in fiction" category. RandomCritic 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as far as I'm aware, the "_x_ in literature" is for works with _x_ in it, while "fictional _x_" or "_x_ in fiction" is for _x_ characters in those works. If that makes sense. However, the categories are currently not defined and don't make the distinction, so merge. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh, come on. The "Fictional animals" category already includes both works and characters. So because it fails to make useful distinctions now, you're going to oppose attempts at making distinctions now or in the future? Would you care to recommend a better distinction, or is any attempt to subdivide this huge, clunky, and generally unhelpful "Fictional animals" category to be categorically opposed? RandomCritic 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, and per comments in related CFD. Postdlf 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Animals in fiction would be a subcategory of Animals in literature, as not all literature is fiction, while Fictional animals are creatures such as unicorns etc. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:36, 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.

Animals in fiction

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All are duplicated categories. Category:Mongooses in fiction was already nominated, yesterday. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. These categories perform a necessary function which Category:Fictional animals does not. The latter category is overlarge and includes a large number of things which do not refer to animals: fictional monsters that are animal-like, human-animal hybrids, humans dressing in animal costumes, robot animals, and so on. It does not function as a category which includes only animals appearing in works of fiction instead of all these other things. Such a category is desirable if you are interested, for instance, in finding books or movies in which cats appear, and you do not want to have to sort through Catwoman and Catgirl and a host of other things which are vaguely like cats, but are not actually cats. The category page has further details on how the category is defined. RandomCritic 17:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And in general, the various Fictional (animal) categories are overbroad and could use further subcategorization, perhaps by medium: it includes material from comics, animation, live-action movies, literature, advertising, video games, mascot animals, all of which are "fictional" in the sense of not being real animals, but not all of which subsist in fiction. If the two categories are taken to be equivalent, then quite a lot of material doesn't belong in "Fictional animals". RandomCritic 17:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all, per nom. I think I understand the distinction these categories are trying to make, but at the same time I don't see it as an improvement for the user. Old Yeller is both a fictional dog and a dog in fiction. Does the user care about the disctintion? I don't think so. The point of categorization is to help the user quickly find what he is looking for, and this just doesn't help. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I appreciate the distinction RandomCritic wants to maintain, but I don't see how the current category division does that in an obvious manner ("fictional cats" is ambiguous enough to include "cats in fiction", though not the converse), and this might be something better maintained in a list form so that such subtleties can be explained in more than a few words. I also think that fictional animals that are depictions of actually existing species should be kept distinct from fictional animals that are fantasy species, but once again, I don't think the current category division has anything to do with that. Perhaps Category:Fictional animal species or Category:Fictional kinds of animals could be created as a subcategory? Postdlf 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per nom. RandomCritic's attempt to create two system will only confuse people. Wimstead 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_24#Category:Animals_in_literature. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all - there's no subjective way to say that some fictional animals are realistic and some aren't. For instance, the animals in We3 are highly realistic in their behaviour and exist in a nearly real-world context, but they're also cyborgs. The rabbits in Watership Down have no special traits and are basically realistic, but they have constructed social orders and an entirely made-up language. Classifying on the basis of verisimilitude is POV and confusing. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most, but change the name of "fictional panthers." Panther is a colloquial and not very specific term - it can refer to spotted and black leopards, black leopards only, black jaguars, cougars. Sort fictional leopards into a Category:Fictional leopards, and so forth. Switchercat ^talk_cont 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Panther and Black panther for info.- jc37 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. This is a bad plan. There should only be one category that the Big Bad Wolf could go into, and this plan creates two.--Mike Selinker 02:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually three: Category:Fictional wolves, Category:Wolves in fiction, Category:Wolves in literature. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The construction Fictional Xs seems inherently ambiguous; how does this name discriminate between "real or imagined Xs appearing in fiction" and "imagined Xs"...? Regards, David Kernow (talk)

Merge all per above. Yes, there's a difference, but it's too slight with way too much overlap to overcategorize the characters that way. Doczilla 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case, "Xs in fiction" seems a wider catch-all than "Fictional Xs", i.e. the former can include both real and imagined Xs whereas the latter reads as if it only addresses imagined Xs... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:09, 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.

Mongooses in fiction

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge duplicates per above Dugwiki 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not a duplicate category. This category deals with real mongooses appearing in fictional settings, while the "Fictional mongooses" category includes any mongoose-like anthropomorphic character of any variety. The distinction is comparable to that between Category:Planets in fiction which refers to known planets (Venus, Mars, etc.) used in fictional contexts, and Category:Fictional planets which refers to planets that are invented. RandomCritic 04:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Rikki-Tikki-Tavi is a fictional mongoose, not a mongoose in fiction.--Mike Selinker 05:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrue. Zangoose is an example of a fictional mongoose -- a kind of invented mongoose that doesn't exist. Rikki-Tikki-Tavi is a mongoose in fiction - a realistic mongoose in a realistic setting, not a super-powered mongoose or a robot mongoose or an elastic cartoon mongoose. Does that help you grasp the distinction? RandomCritic 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rikki-Tikki-Tavi is still fictional. Fictional means "not real," not "unrealistic." Otherwise a great deal of fiction with a degree of verisimilitude would be... not. And it isn't. If a real person had a real mongoose and someone wrote a fictional story about this mongoose, that would be a mongoose in fiction. If someone wrote a story about, say, Al Capone--who actually lived--that would be a "person in fiction." Merge --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still wrong. Elizabeth Bennet is a "human being in fiction", regardless of whether she exists or not; the point is that, within fiction, she represents a human being. Bilbo Baggins is not a "human being in fiction", because he's a hobbit, which is human-like but not a human being. At the moment, "Fictional mongooses" includes a lot of things that aren't mongooses. It helps to have a category that deals with creatures or characters that are trying to represent real mongooses. If you feel that the name is inappropriate, then you ought to suggest a different name -- not propose a merger, which gets rid of a helpful category. RandomCritic 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Er, no. She's a fictional human (or rather, Fictional English person)-- because she doesn't and never has existed. Separating "realistic" fictional animals from "unrealistic" ones might theoretically be useful, but would also be impossible for WP:NPOV and WP:OR reasons. Besides, Rikki-tiki-tavi talks, which doesn't seem all that realistic to me. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        RandomCritic, I understand your point and disagree with it.--Mike Selinker 02:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Dr.Who 08:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Category:Mongooses in literature. What's next? Category:Mongooses in film? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "in fiction" categories and articles usually deal with *real* (and not realistic) things used in a fictional environment... like say New York City in fiction. 70.51.11.121 05:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete 70.51.11.121 05:13, 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.

Theatres of World War II

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to bring into conformance with the usual WP:MILHIST naming convention for such categories. Kirill Lokshin 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are their proper names, e.g. Battle of the Atlantic is not called "Atlantic Theatre of World War II", this is a neologism. JW 11:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really a neologism if the US Navy uses it, I think. ;-) But I have no objections to changing it to Category:Battle of the Atlantic in World War II or something of the sort; my main point was that "World War II" needs to go to the end of the category name. Kirill Lokshin 13:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Category:World War II East Asian Theatre. Reason: we already have Category:Battles of the Second Sino-Japanese War and Category:World War II Southeast Asia Theatre. They cover everything that could be in an "East Asia" category. Grant65 | Talk 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm assuming you'd want to put things like Battle of Hong Kong under "Southeast Asia" then? (In any case, the correct replacement category would be Category:Second Sino-Japanese War itself, not its battle-only child. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't have a problem with only children if they really are unique ;-) As stated elsewhere on this page, I have created Category:Asia and the Pacific 1941-42, into which Hong Kong fits nicely. My logic is that the three main "western" Allied commands in Asia and the Pacific (SE Asia, SW Pacific and Pacific Ocean) were not created until mid-1942. Grant65 | Talk 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed names move "World War II" from the names' heads to their tails, but I guess that wouldn't be a drawback somewhere...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (tentatively). I agree with David Kernow. Maybe the renaming helps in one way, but it also means all these World War 2 categories would no longer appear together under W in the main list. For alphabetizing them when appearing as subcategories, we can always use the "category name |subcategory name to file under" format for that anyway.

That seems like a fairly strange reason; does anyone actually use Special:Allpages? I would have thought that conforming with normal naming conventions would be more important than trying to make some particular tool work better. Kirill Lokshin 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, maybe you're right. Not saying that I feel strongly about it one way or the other, just wanted to mention that. Thanks. --Sm8900 14:12, 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:World War II Pacific Campaign

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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World War II Pacific Campaign to Category:World War II North-Central Pacific Campaign

Rename, Misleading; sounds synonymous with Pacific Theatre; actually refers to specific campaigns, the North Pacific campaign and Central Pacific campaigns. --User:Sm8900 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that one campaign or two? (And, if two, would it be feasible to actually split them, or are they too closely entwined?) In any case, the correct name would be Category:North-Central Pacific campaign of World War II, in keeping with the normal capitalization conventions as well as the general naming conventions used by WP:MILHIST for campaign categories (c.f. Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War). Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just happened upon this discussion. I think Category:World War II Pacific Campaign (or "Category:Pacific theater of World War II" or whatever) should be preserved as a "super category". In terms of Allied commands, the "North-Central Pacific" was two sub-commands of the Pacific Ocean Areas (command). The South Pacific was not a single theater, it was divided between the Pacific Ocean Areas and South West Pacific Area (command). I have recently created Category:Pacific Ocean theater of World War II and Category:South West Pacific theatre of World War II to reflect the two major Allied commands in the Pacific (see Pacific_war#Theatres_of_the_Pacific_War.

For what it's worth, I have also created Category:Asia and the Pacific 1941-42 (since the abovementioned theatres did not come into being until mid-42) and Category:North Asia campaign, 1945 (for the Soviet-Japanese battles). Cheers. Grant65 | Talk 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, maybe it's worth withdrawing my proposal. I see now that there are a variety of subcategories. people seem to get the distinctions pretty well, and seem supportive of any constructive, well-intentioned effort to use them in the best, most helpful manner possible. So this category name is really not a big deal either way. Appreciate all of your helpful input, from all of you. Thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 18:29, 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:World War II operations and battles of the Pacific Theatre

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 --Kbdank71 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:World War II operations and battles of the Pacific Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - empty category (removed aerial operations subcategory, placed in ..ops and battles of Pacific Campaign). User:Sm8900 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that doesn't make any sense. The Pacific Theater included multiple campaigns (e.g. the Guadalcanal campaign). I think a reverse merge would be appropriate here. Kirill Lokshin 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're right,. I changed it, and put aerial operation in Category:World_War_II_Pacific_Theatre. Above category remains empty. Before, it only had aerial ops subcategory. thanks. --Sm8900 18:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree with Kirill, "theatre" is the more accurate term for all of the campaigns, and should be the parent cat for them. Neier 00:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, friends. My point is that nobody is using this category. It is empty. I have just upgraded "Ops and Battles of the Pacific Campaign," to link to the main Theatre page, as it has actually been used as the "Operations and Battles" page for the Pacific Theatre. You will see what i mean if you look over its contents. thanks. I would appreciate your help with this. This is intended to make these categories more helpful for all. thanks. --Sm8900 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we need to get rid of the naming discrepancy between the "Pacific Theatre" categories and the "Pacific Campaign" categories, if they mean the same thing. I would think that standardizing on "Theatre" would be more appropriate here, but maybe there's some terminological subtlety I'm missing. Kirill Lokshin 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Appreciate your helpful note. Actually, my main concern is not really any name discrepancy, but simply getting the information to the context it deserves, if it is in fact the context it was written/intended for.

So I'm not so concerned with the theatre/campaign discrepancy, as I am with simply making sure that those trying to build a theatre-wide category get to see their efforts rewarded with the proper role. However, I can also support any general leanings which may be expressed re actually clarifying the names usage in their right way. So i understand, without actually feeling strongly one way or the other. thanks very much. --Sm8900 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no strict distinction that I'm aware of, but it is true to say that a campaign can be a smaller event than a theatre, e.g. people often refer to the Kokoda Track Campaign but no one ever refers to it as the Kokoda Track Theatre. Grant65 | Talk 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.Yes, I'm opposing my own proposal. i just figured out a good way to use this category. We can use this category to collect all regional campaign subcategories which have this topic. View the category to see what i mean. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:18, 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:Land counties of Greater Poland

Category:Urban counties of Greater Poland

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Land counties of Greater Poland to Category:Land counties of Greater Poland Voivodeship

Category:Urban counties of Greater Poland to Category:Urban counties of Greater Poland Voivodeship

Rename [both], A [land/urban] county is a subunit of a voivodeship. The current name confuses the voivodeship with a historical region (Greater Poland). Appleseed (Talk) 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In looking over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland#The term "województwo", I wonder if the spelling should be addressed. - jc37 18:28, 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:Former Muslims

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 --Kbdank71 19:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An anon tried to delete this by blanking it, and was reverted by AntiVandalBot. They left a message on AntiVandalBot's talk page, and I think they have somewhat of a point. Following are some quotes from their message: "a page that held religiouly charged views of a violent nature", "I ... attempted to delete en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Former_Muslims but your bot has prevented that. I'm left with no choice but to report that wiki is allowing itself to host what could be a terrorist hit list." and their edit summary, "if i see this up agan , i'll forward it to homSec as a terrorist hit list" (sic on all of those) ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, I would love to see someone try to contact Homeland Security regarding a Wikipedia page under the assumption that it's a list of people whom editors want to murder. Second, I don't see the anon's point- if some of the info is not verifiable (i.e. it can't be shown via reliable sources that someone used to be a Muslim, but rejected that faith), then remove names from the list. Otherwise, I don't see how this isn't a perfectly viable (and interesting) category. -- Kicking222 03:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN this debate! It's hilarious! -- Chris chat edits essays 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for being a n00b, but what does BJAODN mean? Dugwiki 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It stands for Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --musicpvm 16:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they are all verifiableBakaman _Bakatalk 01:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kicking222. The anon seems to have been disturbed by the mildly heated talk page, which is more a debate about Islam (and somewhat about Christianity) than a discussion of how to improve the page/category. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would require citations/references (hence a list). - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia does not condone legal threats. Incidentally, the person who threatened to use homeland security is an SBC customer, mapping out to San Diego. --M @r ē ino 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seeing Enver Hoxha I wonder what criteria could be employed here. Being a former muslim was the 99th most important characteristic of him. The garbage on Talk page is equally worthless. This kind of "categories" is not feasible on WP until at least context information could be added for each item and secondary categories get implemented. Pavel Vozenilek 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The "context information could be added" very easily without upgrades to the WP software. Just edit the article and include biographical information about the circumstances under which the article subject committed apostasy. --M @r ē ino 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, and in the case of Salman Rushdie, his (former) religion plays a part in the article. By your reasoning, we should get rid of every skyscraper article and category because terrorists might use it to plan an attack. CloudNine 07:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you will put Category:People by former religion, and its subcats, up for deletion than I go delete for them all. Otherwise I go keep. I know this is hedging bets, but that's how I feel. I'd support them either all staying or all going, but I'm not strong in either direction. If I had to pick a preference I'd say I'd prefer they all go. However if this is the only one going to be nominated I'm for them all staying.--T. Anthony 07:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On security terms I strongly feel none of these cats should be used to "out" people. Names should only be in Category:Former Muslims if they identify as such and it is a useful tool for categorizing them. If this is done Wikipedia is not doing anything to them, just reporting the facts, and so no problem. As far as I know this is how the category is being used.--T. Anthony 07:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When there's a category of "People who converted to Islam" and List of converts to Islam, whats the problem with a Category of Former Muslims? INFACT, there ought to be a page for "List of people who left Islam". This has to be resolved immediately. ONU, please take out the notice ASAP. --Matt57 23:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The terrorist hit list aside (which is a serious issue), this should be kept. Arrow740 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only serious issue is security risks for people on this list. If they are publicly apostates, then they were aware of the dangers when they publicized their conversion. If they are secretive about their conversion, then the only way they can be on this list is as an unverifiable allegation. --Dgies 16:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments of Matt57 LaszloWalrus 06:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone please now take out the deletion notice from this category? And ONUnicorn, next time please dont take comments from anonymous users seriously. Use your own judgement.--Matt57 17:58, 3 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.

Marvel Comics films

Category:Nick Fury 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nick Fury films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
He only has one film. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and list films in the Nick Fury article It's a bad idea to create a seperate category for every Marvel character. If you did you'd end up with these films have 10 to 20 categories, one per character (all the avengers and villains and supporting characters). Simply include a list of the Nick Fury films (it looks like there are three) in the Nick Fury article in the Film section.Dugwiki 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only one Nick Fury film. It's absurd to call any film a "Nick Fury film" in which Nick Fury made an appearance, regardless of how small the role was. Postdlf 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/recat to Category:Films based on Marvel comics --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per HKM - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per HKM. Doczilla 19:47, 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:Captain America 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Captain America films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
He only has one film. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and list films in the character's article See cfd for Category:Nick Fury films above Dugwiki 15:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/recat to Category:Films based on Marvel comics --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per HKM - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per HKM. Doczilla 19:48, 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:Iron Man 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Iron Man films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
He only has one film and it's not even made yet. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and list films in the character's article See cfd for Category:Nick Fury films above Dugwiki 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/recat to Category:Films based on Marvel comics --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per HKM - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per HKM. Doczilla 19:48, 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:Avengers 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Avengers films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
They only have two films. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Just because the characters the films are based on are notable does not mean they should each have their own category. They should all be merged into their parent category.[reply]

Delete and list films in the character's article See cfd for Category:Nick Fury films above Dugwiki 15:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/recat to Category:Avengers and Category:Films based on Marvel comics --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per HKM - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per HKM. Doczilla 19:48, 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:Sport in Palestine

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 --Kbdank71 19:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sport in Palestine to Category:Palestinian sports per examples like Category:Palestinian politics and the rationale explained in [1] with Palestine being a confusing inappropriate term. Also sub sections Category:Football in Palestine to Category:Palestinian football and Category:Football venues in Palestine to Category:Palestinian football venues accordingly. Amoruso 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Sport in" is the standard form. So far as I know there are no distinctively "Palestinian" sports. Wimstead 23:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wimstead —Ashley Y 08:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. Besides, Wikipedia regards Palestine as a geographic location if not a country, and sports can (and as far as I know, commonly do) happen in geographic locations. Agenda-driven CfD anyhow based on proposer's prior record of removing any mention of "Palestine" as if it is an offensive word. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ramallite, this assertion makes no sense since the category doesn't include sports in Israel but only sports in the Palestinian National Authority. I think there's confusion here. I have no problem with renaming the category to "Sports in PNA" or "Sport in West Bank or Gaza" and so on. Please take note of this, it can be proposed again. Amoruso 11:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "sports in the Palestinian National Authority"? That's like saying "sports in the Histadrut". The PNA is not a geographical area, it is the title of a governmental body. What you do or do not have a problem with is not really important, Wikipedia is not under your command. We work by consensus and good faith, which is not really displayed in CfDs like this and others that are nothing more than "screw the Palestinians" statements. I'm getting fed up with this, but I'm outnumbered. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Remain civil. The PNA is indeed a geographical term too, it's been discussed before. More importantly it's a political term which is the important thing here, since we're not talking about sport in a region but sport of relevant to a specfic adminstered political entity. Amoruso 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Wimstead and Ramallite

Hawkestone 23:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for reasons listed above. CloudNine 07:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons listed above. --Soman 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I'm aware, there isn't (yet) a recogniz/sed state called Palestine, so perhaps Sport in the Palestinian territories most apt...? (If so, rename Football in Palestine to Football in the Palestinian territories, etc) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps indeed. But a change like you said needs to be made. Amoruso 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support any iteration of David Kernow's suggestion; this isn't about standard form, but about implying that there is some state called Palestine, which there is not. When such a state is created this will be fine, but as of now, Palestine refers to a historic/geographic region that consists of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel (at minimum). Most of the categories dealing with Palestinian topics are already in a neutral form. Let us describe what is, ie Palestinian Authority, and not what may one day be. I'm not sure how that could be taken for "screw the Palestinians," but lets all please cool down and assume good faith. Tewfik^Talk 04:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Whether or not it's a state is not really relevant as we have Category:Sport in the Faroe Islands, Category:Sport in the Cook Islands, and Category:Sport in New Caledonia. Although for accuracy it could perhaps be renamed Category:Sport in the Palestinian Authority. I see some find that unacceptable, but subcats in Category:Sports by country are already meaning nations or administrative regions rather than purely geographic terms. I assume this is why we have Category:Sport in the Federated States of Micronesia or Category:Sport in the Republic of Macedonia rather than Category:Sport in Micronesia or Category:Sport in Macedonia. Also part of why we don't have say Category:Sport in Borneo. Borneo is a geographic feature, an island, but not a single nation or administrative region.--T. Anthony 06:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if i understand then your position T. Anthony , you should have voted Support or Rename. I think we pretty much can have a consencus on rename. Amoruso 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sport in the X Authority" sounds odd to me, probably because there is the notion of an authority having an area of jurisdiction or the like, but the area itself is not called "the (X) authority"...? So,
Rename to Sport in the Palestinian territories per above. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a place called Palestine, and it is not relevant whether it is a state or not. Honbicot 23:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. – Elisson • T • C • 14:06, 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:Activists of Taiwan independence movement

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 09:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Activists of Taiwan independence movement to Category:Taiwan independence activists

Current category name is awkward. Rename. (And I'm opening to other names if someone can think of another relatively unawkward one. --Nlu (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Twittenham 10:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. CloudNine 07:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 12:53, 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:British capitals

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British capitals to Category:Capital cities in the United Kingdom

Rename, in line with the convention (though a mass renaming to "capital cities in" might be advisable). Honbicot 09:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment contains capitals which are not in the UK, so name would need to be Capital cities in the United Kingdom and British crown dependencies; or remove Douglas etc. Tim! 11:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and remove Douglas etc. Hawkestone 23:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/redirect to County towns of the United Kingdom or the like, per Capital...? :

"...Seats of government in major substate jurisdictions are often called "capitals", but this is typically the case only in countries with some degree of federalism ... For example, the seat of government in a state of the United States of America is usually called its "capital", but the main city in a region of England is usually not..."
— Capital article

These are the capital of the four constituent countries of the UK and three Crown Dependencies. This category has nothing to do with county towns. Honbicot 23:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course... Apologies; I must've been tired/distracted! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:British capital cities, as the least worst option. As already mentioned, the Isle of Man is not part of the UK. JW 09:45, 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.

Category:Human diseases

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Animal diseases already exists as a subcategory of diseases. --apers0n 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dr.Who 08:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NCurs e _work 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --WS 12:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom InvictaHOG 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. David Ruben ^Talk 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above -- Samir धर्म 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Uthbrian (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Diseases. - GilliamJF 01:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -AED 05:41, 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:Fefe Dobson

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fefe Dobson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A separate category for Fefe Dobson? There's no reason to believe that this is necessary, and the fact that the category only contains one article would appear to suggest that there is no reason to do it. --Nlu (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she is definitely not notable enough to deserve an eponymous category. --musicpvm 16:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:05, 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:Relatives of celebrities

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an inherent characteristic. And what is a celebrity? --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Define relative. Define celebrity. Ultimately, every human being is the relative of every other human being, even celebrities. Dr.Who 08:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are so many things wrong with this cat. --musicpvm 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:06, 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:Doctoral degree holders

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an excessively broad category, and I say that as a member of the category. Dr.Who 08:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 09:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A huge and not particularly useful category. What's next? People with cars? Gamaliel 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not online database. Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too broad. Timrollpickering 00:53, 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:PvdA

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 - will someone please nominate Category:VVD and Category:D66 per C mon? --RobertG ♬ talk 10:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PvdA to Category:Labour Party (Netherlands)

Rename, to conform to parent topic article title, Labour Party (Netherlands), to which PvdA is a redirect. The acronym is also likely confusing to most English speakers. Postdlf 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The current name will mean nothing to most non-Dutch people. Wilchett 03:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and do the same with every acronym everywhere. Paul 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and Wilchett. David Kernow (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although I would support renaming of the category, we need to be consistent and also rename the two other Dutch-party-related acronym-categories (category:VVD to category:People's Party fo Freedom and Democracy and category:D66 to category:Democrats 66. Furthermore this renaming must not create president for as Paul proposes to remove the acronym every where. If the acronym is explained somewhere in the text of an article, there is no need to replace it. C mon 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have a policy disfavoring acronyms in category names, but that has nothing to do with the use of acronyms in article text. Postdlf 23:44, 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:Arnim

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 09:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arnim to Category:Arnim family

Rename, for clarity. Sumahoy 01:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Hawkestone 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 13:07, 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:Free forum hosts

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 09:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free forum hosts to Category:Forum hosting

Rename. Two main changes- first, removal of "free" to allow the category to be used for all forum hosts (rather than splitting them up into free and non-free cats). Second, I would like "hosts" changed to "hosting" per the convention used within Category:Internet hosting and its subcats. --- RockMFR 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 23:30, 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:Latter Day Saint athletes

Category:Hindu athletes

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 both. the wub "?!" 13:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Latter Day Saint athletes to Category:Latter Day Saints sportspeople or for deletion. Category:Hindu athletes for deletion

Rename, Category:Athletes, where this category was when I found it, is for what Americans call track and field athletes, so this should be renamed to avoid confusion. It seems to be the only sportspeople by religion category, so I am guessing that others have been deleted, and if people want to delete this one too that is fine by me. Piccadilly 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior CFD of "Category:Sportspeople by religion" and all subcategories. We don't categorize athletes by religion. Postdlf 02:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_10#Category:Hindu_athletes and rename all others. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religion is not relevant here. If not deleted rename in line with standard usage in Wikipedia. Wilchett 03:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Postdlf. The logical parent category was already deleted, with the subcats, so there is consensus to not have these subcats. Hindu athletes was not a keep vote but rather a no consensus vote. Probably needs to also be nominated again so that all of these categories can receive the same treatment. These may neeed to be protected from recreation. Vegaswikian 06:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vegaswikian Wimstead 09:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior CFD. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hindu athletes got no concensus, I think, because it was nominated at about the same time as more debatable Hindu categories. In addition List of Latter Day Saints#Athletes can cover this better.--T. Anthony 18:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above referred to the LDS category. I concur with deleting the Hindu one as well, at least for now. If it is later decided to revive a "sportspeople by religion" category I'll reverse myself, but I don't see that happening.--T. Anthony 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have tagged Category:Hindu athletes so that it can be considered in this discussion. Vegaswikian 06:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as irrelevant to the main matter at hand. Muttiah Muralitharan is a great bowler because he has unusally flexible joints, not because he is a Hindu. Twittenham 10:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as irrelevant intersections. Hawkestone 23:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This repeats all over in different forms. Pavel Vozenilek 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete both per previous overall decision. Honbicot 23:11, 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:Collin County parks

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The five stub articles which were in here have now been merged into one article. As such, this is now redundant. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Stage Actresses

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Stage actors, by wikipedia policy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and yesterday's related cfds for actress categories. Dugwiki 15:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per yesterday's discussion. There is no specific policy on this. As there are already separate categories for female lawyers, scientists, film directors and others there is clearly a precedent for this, and there's no obvious reason to exclude acting. JW 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like those categories either, but at least in those cases the professions are typically male-dominated (though much less so with lawyers at present), such that being a woman in those professions is worthy of some note. That's certainly not true of acting, so there's absolutely no point to making that distinction. Postdlf 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if these get approved, then it might make sense to nominate the others so that they can be discussed. I would do them one at a time rather then as a group if someone decides to go ahead. Vegaswikian 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete per the previous discussion. - jc37 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Stage actresses; given the gender-neutrality of some first names, an actor/actress distinction seems useful. Whether or not it's possible and/or useful to distinguish between actors/actresses who only appear on stage and those who do not, I'm not sure...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how many actor categories we have; probably hundreds. Whatever the number currently is, differentiating actors by gender would double it. I just don't see that as useful. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggest being able to distinguish gender while browsing categories probably a more fundamental/useful categoriz/sation than many of the other hundreds... Regards, David (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gender neutral names...? I'd think that the article's text would note the subject's gender. Why would anyone need to pick out whether an entry in an actor category was male or female without having to read the article? Postdlf 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For convenience if broswing categories, i.e. without needing to visit articles whose names are gender-ambiguous...? Regards, David (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You just reworded my question. Why is that useful? Postdlf 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Postdlf 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Vegaswikian 05:54, 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.