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

The result of the debate was deleted. the wub "?!" 11:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this even means. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, patent nonsense.♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• At a guess, it's for actors who first appeared in films released in 2004, but it's a pretty ridiculous name (I instantly thought it was for one of James Bond's fellow agents), and I'm not entirely sure that it's useful arranging actors in that way. Either delete or rename to Category: 2004 film acting debuts. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. David Kernow 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can explain what this category means. --Cswrye 05:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—have no idea what this refers to. --TallulahBelle 02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename [all to] use the People from Foo format. ProveIt ^(talk) 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC), amended 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom for consistency. --musicpvm 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all three per nom. Two of the redirects look OK too, though they each have a trivial number of G-hits in English. But Zhongshanese also looks like a recognised ethnic emigrant group and so I'd be cautious about redirecting Z-people to a residence cat. The same thing will come up again with a number of the other Chinese people cats if we work through the whole lot.--Mereda 10:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood; have amended accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow 14:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistency. --Cswrye 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Osomec 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all Nomination is incorrectly applied. The names of these Categories say nothing about nationality, and they include people whose residency is not the places in question, so the residency rule on naming Categories do not apply here. These templates are ancestry templates. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, perhaps new categories with names explicitly referring to ancestry required...?  Regards, David Kernow 15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the renaming happens (and I've voted for it) then articles should be moved manually so that each new category only contains residents in the normal way. A separate issue is whether we ought to support categorization of ancestry by city (and maybe recycle the original category names), but I don't see good general arguments for doing that. Norms for describing ethnicity or emigration groups work better at a higher level than individual cities of origin (like Tamil emigration from India to South Africa), even though Zhongshanese people could admittedly be argued as an exception (see Chinatown etc). What I really don't see is why historic migration inside a country, say residents of Hong Kong who have (or claim) ancestral family links to Panyun, would be a good basis for a category. Am I missing something? --Mereda 14:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a common cultural norm for Chinese people to know where their 鄉下 is. (Xiangxia, in this case, translated to ancestral home or ancestral village). For a lot of Cantonese people, that means cities like Taishan, Zhongshan, Xinhui, Kaiping, etc etc. Even for a lot of Overseas Chinese people in western countries, they'd know where their Xiangxia is, because there's a history of Overseas Chinese grouping themselves together with people from the same city or with the same surname. This is why categories by ancestral cities are notable. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete; found empty --Kbdank71 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional villainess' to Category:Fictional villainesses

• Rename, correct plural form. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or rename per nom. David Kernow 00:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC), expanded 15:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to correct plural form. Merge to Category:Fictional villains. --Cswrye 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE to Category:Fictional villains 132.205.93.19 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Fictional villains. Most categories for real or fictional people aren't divided by gender except where specifically appropriate. -Sean Curtin 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Sean Curtin. I already removed the category from many of the characters because they are already in subcategories of the villains category. --Chris Griswold 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Sean Curtin --Newt ΨΦ 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - LA @ 05:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nonfiction television series to Category:Non-fiction television series

• Rename, Conformity with other non-fiction genre categories. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to conform to standard. --Cswrye 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (merge has been completed). the wub "?!" 11:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Congenital genetic disorders into Category:Genetic disorders

• Merge, There should really be one main category: Genetic disorders. The small number of other genetic disorders that are not present at birth could be in a subcategory Category:Acquired genetic disorders. apers0n 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the merger is complete (see Category talk:Genetic disorders) for further discussion. --apers0n 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as Apers0n... NCurse _work 06:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the merger has already happened. --Cswrye 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is too specific and does not follow musician category naming conventions. --musicpvm 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Joe 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olborne 23:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV category clutter. --musicpvm 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Requires POV to determine membership. It's also too local, since the USA is just about the only country I know of where the conservatives have a reputation as proudly anti-ecological science, making the question of whether a politician "believes" a metastudy relevant or even a plausible question. --M@rēino 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; POV notwithstanding, it seems overly specific. David Kernow 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both above. Mike Christie 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should actually be speedied. What an unconventionally long category. That did it for me. Aaрон Кинни (t) 08:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV, unnecessary detail for a category, and just an all-around bad idea. --Cswrye 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above reasons. Osomec 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more POV pushing by categorization. KleenupKrew 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Audio book narrators ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - , I question whether this category is useful. It is currently a subcat of Category:Voice actors. But audio book narration is only sometimes done by professional voice actors. Sometimes it is done by authors or celebrities who would not be considered voice actors. MakeRocketGoNow 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a valid type of performance. In time, there could be other types of narrator categories eg. television narrators. I see no reason to delete this category. Tim! 21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but add a note to the category that inclusion is based only on whether the narration work is a notable feature of that person's career, and not just a one-off side gig by someone who's really, say, an actor. --M@rēino 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can see how this could be a useful category. --Cswrye 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mareino. Mike Christie 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Very few actors will do only one audio book if they have any ability at it whatever. Also, it would be a useful start to differentiate between radio actors, narrators, and audiobook narrators. I am off-and-on adding to List of U.S. radio programs, and I have at least one reference book listing around 900 (?) performers on old radio. Subcategorization is a very good idea. Badbilltucker 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both cats seem to be for Tamil literature; they point to the same main article and contain many of the same articles. Category:Tamil literature is consistent with other literature categories, so Category:Classical Tamil should be merged into it and deleted. --musicpvm 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I previously nominated this for a merge (see discussion here). The result of that debate was "no consensus", but most users agreed it should be renamed to Category:British radio DJs, as that name would be consistent with its parent cats. --musicpvm 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Vegaswikian 22:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The previous proposal was absurd. Osomec 13:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Numbered routes in Massachusetts to Category:Massachusetts State Highways

• Rename, To bring in-line with other states, see WP:USRD. This is a category for numbered highways maintained by MassHighway, i.e. state highways. --Tckma 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Massachusetts state highways which appears to be the most common and make this the standard. WP:USRD does not seem to provide a standard for this category type, instead it includes several different forms and capitalizations on the project page. Vegaswikian 22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

er, sorry. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/U.S. state highway naming conventions. --Tckma 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion appears to be about the articles and not the category names. The table there uses both forms for categories. Has the project selected a standard for category names? Vegaswikian 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, they are capitalized. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. In Massachusetts, state highways are highways maintained by the state. There are many state highways that are not numbered, and there are many sections of numbered routes that are not state highways. --SPUI (T - C) 04:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SPUI. --Schzmo 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, however the actual official practice (with rare exceptions) seems to be capitalization (or all caps) in titles, and lower case in text. See http://www.google.com/search?q=site:mhd.state.ma.us+%22state+highways%22 --William Allen Simpson 21:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you didn't read my statement, here it is again: In Massachusetts, state highways are highways maintained by the state. There are many state highways that are not numbered, and there are many sections of numbered routes that are not state highways. Often you'll be on a numbered route and see a sign reading "state highway ends". But the numbered route does not end; it continues onto a local road. On the other hand, there are also many routes with no numbers (not even "secret" internal numbers) with signs reading "state highway begins". The matches you found on Google are talking about the system of state-maintained highways, different from the system of numbered routes. --SPUI (T - C) 10:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just curious, how do you write articles on highways without numbers? Do they otherwise have names? —this is messedrocker (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes; they are typically assigned names by the towns. For instance, see Washington Street - "The first state highway in Boston was the part of Washington Street from Dedham to West Roxbury Parkway (at Lagrange Street). It was taken over by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works in 1908." This was numbered for a time in the 1930s, but has not carried a number since then. There many other examples of main streets that were bypassed or state highways that were simply never assigned a number in the 1920s. --SPUI (T - C) 10:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is there already a category that handles the state routes? - LA @ 10:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "state routes" you mean numbered routes, this is it. If by "state routes" you mean state highways, no. Such a category wouldn't necessarily be a horrible idea, but I can't clearly see the logistics. --SPUI (T - C) 10:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per nom. --Polaron | Talk 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus on merge; renaming it to Category:Pro-Soviet propaganda films to fix capitalization --Kbdank71 14:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Soviet propaganda films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. There's a distinction to be made, but it's a very thin distinction that's best served by the separate "films by nationality" categories. --M@rēino 22:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Speedy rename to Category:Pro-Soviet propaganda films. --GCarty 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per GCarty. These are American films, not Soviet ones, which is why they are not in the Soviet propaganda films category. JW 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV category housing POV-reviewed films. "Pro Soviet propaganda" is euphemism for US films skewered by McCarthy & his HUACkos in the 50s; read the articles already there, and do some serious rewriting on them, and ditch this Cat. 12.73.196.170 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the films in this category portray the Soviet Union in a positive light, but strictly speaking are more anti-Nazi than pro-Communist (most were made during World War II). Would you accept Category:Pro-Soviet World War II films? GCarty 07:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems more listworthy than major Cat under that presumption. And, you'd need to balance that with lists for Anti-Soviet films, and Soviet-Neutral World War II films. Then there are Pro-Germany/Anti-Germany, Pro-French and Anti-French, Pro-British and Anti-British, Pro-American and Anti-American, Pro-Japan and Anti-Japan, Pro-Axis/Anti-Axis, Pro-Allies/Anti-Allies, Pro-War/Anti-War themed films to account for, to balance it out. All of which seems to me to simply lead to overcategorization - Wikiclutter, a major problem with this whole site. And any Cat name doesn't address the problem that the articles put into the original Cat are being written with a decidedly pro-McCarthy, anti-Soviet POV. I could even easily read in the plot summary for NORTHERN STAR a pro-Nazi slant. This whole business smells of politicization, not categorization. 12.73.196.170

• Keep. The argument that there ought to be an anti-Soviet film category is spurious. These films were deliberately made to create a positive response to the Soviet Union during the Second World War. Later, during the beginning of the Cold War, these films were used as examples of Hollywood's alleged pro-Soviet bias. Therefore, there ought to be a specific category of Western films that were Pro-Soviet. Also, these films are different from the category Soviet Propaganda films, since none of these movies are Soviet—they are all American. Thus there needs to be a differentiation between Soviet films made for propaganda purposes (such Alexander Nevsky, et al.), and American and European films that were Pro-Soviet (such as Mission to Moscow et al.)--TallulahBelle 01:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Pompous Poop. "These" films were "deliberately" made because there was already an established alliance between the US and USSR during WWII, and American audiences were willing to pay to see films featuring Soviet people in a positive light. Before Pearl Harbor, there were numerous American films set in a sound-of-music Germany, but no one calls them Pro Nazi Propaganda films; likewise, there were few if any Anti-Soviet films, but lots of blatantly negatively stereotyped portrayals of Japanese and other Oriental groups which had nothing to do with political differences between our country and theirs. I can agree that "there ought" to be a reference list somewhere of films used by the McCarthyites to "prove" Soviet Communism was taking over the film industry, polluting our minds and corrupting our youth, but I don't accept that setting up a whole category to do that is needed: a list in the relevant article(s) on that period will suffice. Also, in your grand scheme of things, where would you plan to put all the post-War Pro-Soviet war movies that were turned out in other European countries "liberated" and reformed by the Soviets according to the doctrines of Stalinism, and all the Soviet-made war films that were imported into the USA, edited and dubbed and distributed through major US venues, up to and including the Academy Award winning documentary MOSCOW STRIKES BACK (Republic Pictures Corp., 1944), which were just as much a part of any fancied "deliberate" conspiracy to "create a positive response to the Soviet Union"? 12.73.196.170.
• Another Argument to Keep. Whenever someone freaks out about some information, and is hell-bent on suppressing it, as 12.73.196.170 so clearly is, I'm usually all in favor of it. More information and more cross-referencing can never hurt. Also, I usually can't take seriously the arguments of someone who doesn't have to nerve to identify him/her/itself with anything more than a number. --TallulahBelle 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of Propaganda! TallulahBelle is the creator of the Cat!! No wonder she raves so for keeping it, while pretending to just be passing by. TallulahBull.
• Merge per nom, or delete. Barely used category and POV magnet. KleenupKrew 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing these subcategories of category:Wikipedians interested in radio, in the manner of category:Wikipedians who listen to KROQ:

• category:Howard Stern fans to category:Wikipedians who listen to Howard Stern
• category:Kiss 957 Listers to category:Wikipedians who listen to Kiss 95.7
• category:Opie and Anthony Pests to category:Wikipedians who listen to Opie and Anthony
• category:Sirius Subscriber to category:Wikipedians who listen to Sirius Satellite Radio
• category:User LBC to category:Wikipedians who listen to LBC 97.3
• category:User NPR to category:Wikipedians who listen to NPR
• category:User Radio4 to category:Wikipedians who listen to BBC Radio4
• category:Wikipedians as Iain Lee Correspondents to category:Wikipedians who listen to The Iain Lee Show
• category:Wikipedians who are fans of I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue to category:Wikipedians who listen to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue
• category:Wikipedians who are fans of The Goon Show to category:Wikipedians who listen to The Goon Show

I didn’t spell out NPR or LBC because I think they’re much better known by their abbreviations.--Mike Selinker 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - There are some that I would have named differently, but I'm not going to get upset over minutia. All of the recommended names are better than their previous names. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely propose alternatives. I haven't listened to most of these, so more opinions are good.--Mike Selinker 21:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. All these Wikipedian cats are a mess. --musicpvm 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Vanity categories, useless and unencyclopedic. Haven't you cliquers figured that out yet?? 12.73.195.26 13:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - LA @ 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Judeo-Islamic topics. the wub "?!" 11:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Islam topics to Category:Judeo-Islamic Topics

• Rename, I think 'Judeo-Islamic Topics' sounds far more analytical, by making use of a adjectivial prefix and an adjective, to reflect upon the shared character of the articles included, instead of an adjective which reflects on a noun, and changes the character of the noun, and thus suggests th articles are related to versions of the noun which have the character of the adjective. In simple terms, Jewish Islam Topics sounds like it's suggesting the existence of a Jewish form of Islam, a sort of 'Jews for Mohammed'. ThuranX 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, unless there is a precendent for using "Jewish Islam" in the same context. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Judeo-Islamic topics (lowercase t). -Sean Curtin 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Judeo-Islamic topics per nom and above (more encyclopa/edic). David Kernow 00:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; more encyclopaedic. Mike Christie 02:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Curtin and Kernow, for all reasons listed above. Thanks Hmains 18:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Transferred from PROD, as prod does not and should not do categories 132.205.93.195 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GARBC is independent and does not associate itself with any colleges. user:EricJD 05:03, 7 August 2006

• Comment - It is possible for colleges to affiliate with a denomination even if the denomination is independent. For example, there are several colleges affiliated with the Church of Christ even though that denomination is strictly congregationalist. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asad TV ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Transferred from PROD, as prod does not and should not do categories 132.205.93.195 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax user:Danny Lilithborne 23:45, 6 August 2006

• Obvious strong delete part of a looooooong list of edits related to a hoax. Whichever editor closes the debate should at the same time make sure that the creator is blocked for a sensible period of time, if not indefinitely. Pascal.Tesson 03:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per this CfD and others, I’m suggesting adding Wikipedian to some names, and standardizing formatting.

• Category:Wikipedian bibliophiles to category:Wikipedians interested in books
• Category:Wikipedians interested in Gothic literature to category:Wikipedians who read Gothic literature
• Category:Tolkien users to category:Wikipedians who read Tolkien
• Category:WikiFans of A Song of Ice and Fire to category:Wikipedians who read A Song of Ice and Fire
• Category:FoxTrot readers to category:Wikipedians who read FoxTrot
• Category:Wikipedians interested in Reality TV to category:Wikipedians who like reality television
• Category:User azumanga to category:Wikipedians who like Azumanga Daioh
• Category:Fans of Fruits Basket to category:Wikipedians who like Fruits Basket
• Category:Fans of Yu-Gi-Oh to category:Wikipedians who like Yu-Gi-Oh!
• Category:Wikipedians who are fans of WWE to category:Wikipedians who like WWE

Two templates here: Wikipedians who read X and Wikipedians who like X (the latter matching TV). Wikipedians who read X could become Wikipedians who like X if we prefer. (The WWE one is based on the theory that WWE is more of a TV show than a sport.)--Mike Selinker 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - There are some that I would have named differently, but I'm not going to get upset over minutia. All of the recommendations are better than their previous names. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. As the creator of the User azumanga category, I endorse this idea. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename allwhile categorizations doesn;t have to be precisely uniform, all these changes are imporvements. Eluchil404 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - conformity is good, especially with thses self-referential categories. If nothing else user azumanga needs to be renamed since it is not obvious what it is. Shiroi Hane 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all with Category:Wikipedians interested in Reality TV renamed to Category:Wikipedians interested in reality television - LA @ 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.--Mike Selinker 15:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:WikiProject Classical Tamil. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think it should be merged, as a user is adding articles (not talk pages) to this category. Articles should not be placed in WikiProject cats. --musicpvm 23:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The associated talk pages are supposed to go in Category:WikiProject Classical Tamil articles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the state of Punjab (India), not Punjab (Pakistan). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Universities and colleges of Punjab, India...?  David Kernow 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom The proposal is correct and the alternative proposal is ugly. Osomec 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably ought to be a list in Tom Goes to the Mayor. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, waaaaay too specific for a category. I saw this being mass-added the other day. -- nae'blis 16:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It's category clutter. These television show actor categories should only include the main and recurring cast, not guest stars. --musicpvm 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unnecessary detail for a category. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. FYI, here's the edit that removed this info from the article and turned it into category spam. --M@rēino 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Guess actor categories are a very bad idea. Osomec 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, awesome show, not an awesome category. Recury 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete merge information to Tom Goes to the Mayor -AMK152 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Students who committed suicide ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Contains only one article and is not likely to grow significantly as students are rarely notable. kingboyk 16:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That article can go into category:Activists who committed suicide.--Mike Selinker 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mike Selinker. --M@rēino 22:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per kingboyk and recategoriz/se Kostas Georgakis per Mike S. David Kernow 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. unencyclopedic cat and barely used. KleenupKrew 02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a subset of Category:Composers by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is your point? Latin American composers are a specific subset of composers with a lot in common. As it is, in looking for Latin American composers one would have to search in all the individual categories for composers from each nation, which is a deficiency that was remedied by having this category. Badagnani 16:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. All subcats seem to be in both categories though. It is unnecessary to subcategorize nationalities in this way. No other subcat of Category:Occupations by nationality does this. --musicpvm 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Category:Composers by region may have mileage...?  Regards, David Kernow 00:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. It doesn't represent reality and it would create clutter and inconsistency. Osomec 13:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies; just a suggestion. Yours, David 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olborne 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Business/postads ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, this is nothing more than clear solicitation. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 15:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've speedy deleted it "out of process" (arguably G1). Someone please close the debate as I can't find the instructions at the moment. --kingboyk 16:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like POV to me ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right. My bad.--C1k3 01:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Olborne 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was cats not tagged for two weeks, closing discussion --Kbdank71 15:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Bassists
• Category:Bass guitarists
• Category:Bassists by nationality
• Category:Bass guitarists by nationality

These form the root of a tangled tree, which I discovered when Category:British bass guitarists showed up on the uncategorized categories list. I think expert help is really needed here. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you think is a problem? There are issues about how to categorize British musicians which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, but other than that, it looks OK to me. -- Samuel Wantman 22:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the term bassist is correctly used both for musicians who play the double bass and for those that play the bass guitar. So, their categories are somewhat muddled together. ProveIt ^(talk) 14:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge except that I'm always trying to think of exceptions in cases like this. Bass guitarist is probably less ambiguous so make bassist the redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are more articles categorised in the English bassists, American bassists, and American rock bassists that anything in the bass guitarist categories. The term bassist is used far more often, than "bass guitarist" in the rock press. I know someone created British Bass guitarists, Scottish bass guitarists without actually bothering to check what other people were categorised as. I would think deleting the british bass guitarists, scottish bass guitarists, and and welsh bass guitarists would be the best option as the scottish bassists, english bassist, welsh bassist categories are the ones being used more.

I haven't looked at the articles but something that springs to mind is the double bass as played by Willie Dixon and other blues musicians. Is this only about bass guitar because if not it makes a difference? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The term bassist is used far more often, than "bass guitarist" in the rock press" - this could be a national thing, because I've heard the terms "bass guitarist" and "bass player" far far more often than "bassist" in the Australian rock press. --Stormie 04:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: None of these were tagged for deletion, merging, whatever. After reading the discussion, I don't know what the nominator wanted to do, so I'm not tagging them. They are being relisted, though, so someone who knows what is wanted should probably either tag them or move the discussion to a talk page until they come up with a solution. Original discussion here. --Kbdank71 14:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I wasn't sure what, if anything, we should do with them. The problem is that the term bassist is ambiguous. Currently we're making Fooish bass guitarists usually be a subcat of Fooish bassists, and most people seem to ok with that. -- ProveIt ^(talk)
• Comment: Given the ambiguity of the term "bassist" or "bass player" as it applies to the bass guitar (such as Flea (musician)) and the double bass (such as Charlie Mingus), I think maintaining some kind of distinction between the two is pretty important, particularly since there's overlap between the two within musical genres. How about "bass guitarists" for the former, and "double bassists"/"double bass players" for the latter, with both downstream from an overall header of "bassists" (to help catch sloppy miscategorizations)?-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a good idea, although I am not sure what we could call musicians who play the double bass. Both double bassists and double bass players strike me as awkward, but still it would be better than the way it is now. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed this problem as well and had decided to paint it pink and put a Somebody Else's Problem field around it. Now that it's being addressed, I think I like the separation suggested, with the double bass players and bass guitarists options. Because of the sheer number of each, however, we're still ikely to need some subcats by nationality or something. --Geoff Capp 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usual convention for alumni categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i created the original category but if the new suggested category abides by overwhelming convention i don't suppose anybody would complain Chensiyuan 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. --musicpvm 21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was reverse merge --Kbdank71 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both these categories exist, Caliphates however had only 2 entries and was listed under Caliphate. I moved the two entries to Caliphate leaving this one empty. Its an obvious duplication.--Tigeroo 09:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge By convention, category names are plural. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Caliphate is the Muslim name for the period when Islam was collectively ruled under one caliph. In a sense Caliphates might refer to the few recognized historical caliphates, but Caliphate is a category something like Category:France. Let me think about this one a bit more, I don't think it's exactly wrong, but it is potentially confusing. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted WikiProject Islam for their input. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Category:The Caliphate, with brief explanation for name along the lines above on the category's page...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC), stricken 00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. There is a category:Rashidun with the deals with the specific Caliphates of early islam, after there are just the Omayyads and the Abassids, and various others who claimed it as well such as the Fatimids and Omayyads in Spain etc. even the Ottomans claimed the title for a good while. I think we can place the article caliph in there to explain the history etc. --Tigeroo 04:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge There have often been several contending caliphates, as there have been several popes. Keep and soft redirect. Septentrionalis 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Category:Caliphate was not tagged for the reverse merge, so I'm relisting this for seven more days. Original discussion here. --Kbdank71 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge into Category:Artists by record label --Kbdank71 15:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The performers category should be merged into the musicians category as they both mean the same thing. All other categories use the term "musician". --musicpvm 07:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the distinction was that the first was to include all performers and musical groups, while the second was for individual musicians or singers. For example, George Carlin and Cheech and Chong also released records. I agree that merging them is a reasonable idea, but perhaps it should go the other way? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Comedians by record label" would be a good way to represent that particular group, to keep in line with the category naming idea of "profession by distinction". -/- Warren 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and then create any necessary categories for non-musicians as per Warren. Calsicol 17:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd be fine with a merge in either direction, but there should only be one category. As this is supposed to include both solo musicians and musical groups, Category:Performers by record label may be more accurate. Or how about Category:Artists by record label? This would be consistent with other categories such as Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist. --musicpvm 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:Artists by record label, per musicpvm. I think that's a very good idea. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Category:Musicians by record label was not tagged for deletion, so I'm relisting this for seven more days. Original discussion here. --Kbdank71 13:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into category:Artists by record label. Parallelism is cool.--Mike Selinker 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Performers by record label to Category:Artists by record label to match naming conventions for existing categories. Keep Category:Musicians by record label as a subcategory of Category:Artists by record label, and move all musicians from the latter into the former. -Sean Curtin 21:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Super Mario Bros. media ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, empty (I just deleted them all as orphanded fair use), screenshots from one game is far to narrow to justify a seperate category, these things are getting out of hand. Sherool (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too narrow a category. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo China Kingdoms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, this was previously tagged as an umbrella nomination for Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 6#Category:Indo China, but not properly formatted and was missed during subsequent deletion. --William Allen Simpson 10:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convention of Category:Musical groups by genre. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Recury 19:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_15#Category:Albums_by_sales_and_subcategories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, This is even worse than Category:Platinum albums. This cat will only serve as clutter. Also, platinum means something different in every country. --musicpvm 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I like the idea of this category, but there are too many different meanings for it. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hopelessly imprecise and tinged with marketing hyoe. Osomec 14:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Confectionery. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; I can't see a useful difference here. Also "candy" is US English; "confectionery" doesn't have a local bias. Mike Christie 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. Confectionery is the formal term. Osomec 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Recury 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Australian hardcore punk and metalcore groups. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was already renamed to Category:Arabian slaveholders --Kbdank71 14:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we already do this one? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 27: the result was no consensus. It's even listed on the discussion page. --M@rēino 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I withdraw my cfd. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match Candy (band). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, I was looking for the category on Candy the other day and I got this. Suggest putting a soft redirect here to Category:Confectionery. Recury 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Sport in Japan. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --musicpvm 18:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Osomec 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Filipino people by ethnic or national origin
• Category:Afro-Filipinos
• Category:Australian-Filipinos
• Category:Austrian-Filipinos
• Category:Basque-Filipinos
• Category:British-Filipinos
• Category:Catalan-Filipinos
• Category:English-Filipinos
• Category:French-Filipinos
• Category:German-Filipinos
• Category:Indian-Filipinos
• Category:Iranian Filipinos
• Category:Irish-Filipinos
• Category:Japanese-Filipinos
• Category:Lebanese-Filipinos
• Category:Polish-Filipinos
• Category:Spanish-Filipinos
• Category:Swiss-Filipinos

• Delete. The creation of these categories got a bit out of hand, apparently. The heritage of many of these people are either 1. not notable or 2. unverfiable or even both. For example, The late President Marcos was allegedly part Japanese, but that doesn't merit a new category, does it? There isn't much potential for any of the categories, except for Chinese-Filipino one, since there is a distinct Chinese community in the Philippines and not, say, a Catalan or Swiss one! --Chris S. 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If someone is Chinese-Filipino, then you can use: [[Category:Chinese]] and [[Category:Filipinos]] on the article. If someone is Chinese-Spanish-Filipino-Hawaiian, are you going to make a category for them too? I think you get my point. --HResearcher 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, so where do categories like Category:Lebanese Americans and Category:Franco-Ontarians leave us? --Chris S. 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Chris. :) --Noypi380 08:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all that are not notable groups within Filipino society (i.e., keep Chinese-Filipino). Someone could easily want to search for Chinese-Filipinos, which you can't do if the categories are listed separately. --Dybryd 09:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we did what HResearcher suggested, there would be constant revert wars, with people correctly saying that a Swiss- or Chinese-Filipino who lives in the Phillipines is not Swiss or Chinese and does not belong in category Swiss or category Chinese. --M@rēino 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not usually notable and often unverfiable. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - getting rid of "ethnicity category pages" has been tried before and the vote was a stalemate, and it doesn t make sense to have some such as the mentioned Category:Lebanese Canadians and not others Mayumashu 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Mareino & Maymashu. There is a huge difference between a Lebanese Canadian and a Japanese Filipino. Most Lebanese Canadians identify with both of their Lebanese and Canadian cultures. The Japanese Filipinos in the categories include ex-President Ferdinand Marcos, his daughter, and the national hero José Rizal. Well, this is certainly news to me and most Filipinos for these historical figures never made any mention of any supposed Japanese descendancy, and if it were true, it was probably a distant relative. Take myself for instance. If there were an article about me, I would expect to be categorized under Category:Filipino Americans and not, say Category:Swiss-Filipinos. The Swiss hertiage from my 7th great-grandfather John Lidi is not particularly notable and additionally, I don't identify with Switerzland or Swiss German culture.
  • Furthermore, I suggest both of you read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Heritage, which says "Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors." It is by these criteria that one is to avoid that these individuals are being categorized under. And lastly, keep in mind that the number of supposed XXXXXXX-Filipinos isn't great enough to justify their own categories - there is very little potential - just look in the categories themselves and you will see the meager number within each one. --Chris S. 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but some Lebanese Canadians or Americans don't identify (wholly, partially ?) with their community and it can be too POV to 'deduce' which ones do and don t. i m against ethnicity categorizing of people aside from first generation immigrants but given that the American pages cannot be voted away then these category pages too have a right to exist. i too am against including the Marcoses as Japanese Filipinos based on the info you ve given here, Chris S. i would agree to deleting cat pages empty after a purge of non - first-generation immigrants, but i don t know how many other users would see it this way. Mayumashu 05:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally created a lot of those categories thinking they would be harmless. Dybryd’s suggestion of keeping a separate category for Chinese-Filipinos and other notable ethnic groups does make sense. Since Filipinos of considerable European ancestry, along with Chinese-Filipinos, do maintain practices, traditions, and world-views that distinguish them significantly from the general population, I suggest we merge all hyphenated Filipino categories denoting European ancestry under just one category, like European-Filipino or similar. —Lagalag 08:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is a European-Filipino, though? Is there a community of European-Filipinos? Again, the same criteria for deletion I applied to the above categories certainly applies to this one. --Chris S. 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I could certainly tell you that there exists a community of Italian-Filipinos who, just like Chinese-Filipinos, identify themselves as such and as distinct from the general population. I believe the same could be said about other European ethnic groups in the Philippines, that’s why I proposed merging them into just one. Of course, we could also just keep the existing subcategories as, like Hmains below said, Wikipedia is not static. —Lagalag 03:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Such sub-categories are the only way to account for people from one country who became citizens of another. Philippines is no different from other country; its immigrant citizens and their descendants deserve the same treatment and respect as those of other countries, such as the U.S. And the number of such people will increase over time; WP is not a static, as of this moment, view of things; it is being built both for now and the indefinite future. Thanks Hmains 18:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A quick examination found no legitimate members of these categories, where the persons verifiably self-identify. My favorite being the Zóbel de Ayala family, German emigrant ancestor circa 1832, possible Basque-Filipino ancestor circa 1866, for some odd reason the many generations of Philipino women they married having no importance. That 64th fraction appearing as part of a surname is "notable"? ... deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors. --William Allen Simpson 21:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. — Instantnood 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional perverts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Was part of a no consensus group nomination earlier, relisting individually to obtain consensus. To quote myself in the previous nom, this category is "subjective, POV, vague, unencyclopedic, and otherwise useless for effective classification". It previously had no criteria for inclusion at all, and the criteria for inclusion which were just added are rather odd. "Have knowledge of and have even tried other forms of sex"? Other forms than what? --tjstrf 03:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tjstrf --HResearcher 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just silly --Dybryd 09:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To quote myelf in the previous nom, where else would a character like Merv the Perv go in the category:Fictional characters hierarchy?--Mike Selinker 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I just looked at what goes in there. Not an encylopedic category for me. Vegaswikian 16:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV and not encyclopedic. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What criteria must a character match to be a pervert? The term is subjective. The sooner gone, the better. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The word pervert is too general of a word to use for linking together the fictional male characters that like to spy on women in a period of undress since the word pervert has more than one meaning something like Fictional Letchers would have been a better choice for a category in my opinion. -Adv193 04:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one person's perversion is another's normalcy (too lazy to check spelling). If it is sexuallity based, there are so many other category names that are much better without the negative overtone of this one. Category:Fictional voyeurs, Category:Fictional sexual fetishists, Category:Fictional sexual sadists, Category:Fictional sexual submissives, etc, etc, etc. (I could list much much more, but I will spare this CfD from becoming a list of every sexual "perversion.") - LA @ 05:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The problems this category can cause vastly outweigh the benefit suggested above. Olborne 23:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Let's be serious here most of the characters that are in their almost definitely fit the definition of pervertedness. Does anyone here seriously doubt Merv The Perv, Jiraiya, Happosai and Miroku are not perverts. I could give you thousands of examples of why everybody in that category fits in that category--Jack Cox 01:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I know where you are coming from and I agree however the only problem I am see with this category has to do with name since there is more than one defination of the word pervert here is an example from dictionary.com

per·vert Pronunciation Key (pr-vûrt)
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts
1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt.
4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort: an analysis that perverts the meaning of the poem.

The verb of the word however brings out the defination that this category is trying to represent. One who practices sexual perversion.

My point is that I don't agree with Tjstrf's idea of simply deleting it, I mean the description can be corrected without reccomending it for deletion. However the only issue I have is the multiple definitions of the word so I would suggest to deleted this category and move the material to differently named category where there won't be a definition issue. -Adv193 06:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move: to [[Category:]] Fictional lechers-If what we have here is a problem with the name then I propose we move it to fictional lechers as that is another term used to describe sexual perversion.--Jack Cox 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Me again. I quite like the name Category:Fictional voyeurs but Category:Fictional lechers would also include sex addicts, who aren't actually perverts. Not that it matters. What about Category:Fictional voyeurs and lechers - it would accurely match all the characters currently in the category.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree to it if it comes to it since as long as the category receives a new name without being too broad or having too many definations then I will agree to that. -Adv193 04:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Man Villains ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, The creator of this category assigned it to villians from bot hDC and Marvel, in articles which had no mention of this 'Marvel Man'. A check on the Marvelman/Miracleman pages reveals no connection either, so I suspect this category is vandalism or a prank. ThuranX 02:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; I have nominated other cats created by this user which are patent nonsense. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a British comics character, based on a DC Character and possibly now co-owned by Marvel. What characters were listed in the category? --Chris Griswold 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The British character is Marvelman, and Marvel Man redirects to Quasar (comics); I could see the first one having a category, but if it is referring to Quasar, it's named incorrectly and probably is not worth a category. --Chris Griswold 14:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors that portrayed heroes or villains ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Too inclusive and so fails to categorize; almost all notable actors will have played a hero or villain. Mike Christie 01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mike Christie. --HResearcher 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not useful --Dybryd 09:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most actors have played villains at some time or another - even Hugh Grant. Dev920 10:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Actors that portrayed comic-book characters --M@rēino 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 18:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Who hasn't been either a hero or a villain? --Cswrye 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category apparently means superheroes and supervillains specifically, but that extra degree of specificity still isn't enough reason to keep. -Sean Curtin 21:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; created by a user who I think is just messing around (see his other contributions...). ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. - LA @ 05:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally useless. Osomec 14:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Chensiyuan 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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