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 both. the wub "?!" 09:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Silver Award [and Category:Wikipedian recipients of the Girl Scouts Gold Award respectively]. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete [both] Th[ese] should be a complete list linked to from Girl Scouts of America as a ["]List of recipients of the [Silver/Gold] Award["]. As [categories they suggest] that every recipient deserves an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a phone book. These remarks apply to many other marginal categories that are essentially lists. --Wetman 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename [both] per nom. Note to Wetman: This is apparently a Wikipedian category, not a category for the article namespace, so a list as you described would not be appropriate. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is, no doubt, a fundamental difference between a heading that is suitable for a list and a heading suitable for a category. Is it not clear that every item in a category is a Wikipedia article—or potentially a Wikipedia article? The idea that every Gold Award recipient is a candidate for an encyclopedia entry does seem somewhat inflated. A list is only useful if it is a complete list, otherwise it must be identified as a selective list in its naming, so as not to be misleading to the reader. Perhaps my point is too abstruse. No matter. --05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Categories do not suggest to me that everyone who could be in them deserves an entry. Twittenham 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Piccadilly 10:22, 14 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 "?!" 11:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nationalist political movements to Category:Nationalist movements

• Rename, Remove redundancy. Intangible 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --Wetman 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:28, 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. - EurekaLott 23:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Civic Footprint ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, I'm not sure if this is linkspam or what, exactly, it is -- but I don't believe the individuals here belong in any objective category beyond the website in question. Ben-w 21:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a category that theoretically serves the users of a different website? YGBKM. In any case the category page itself is inappropriate linkspam, no matter what good they do. --Dhartung | Talk 03:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Wetman 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as probable spam. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Cook County, Illinois. The content is useful, it's the name that's the problem. --M@rēino 16:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the strongest possible terms. Misuse of categories for spam/promo of some non-notable project. KleenupKrew 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a catogory for promoting a non-notable project. The project working the the Civic Footprint is simply putting all the articles about or related to Cook County politics on one page. Is that name of the category the problem? I don't think a problem with the name of the catgory warrants deleting the whole category.

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 "?!" 10:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:One-hit wonders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, there's a list. list of one-hit wonders. User:Arual 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list is the right way to go. Not every one-hit wonder deserves an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a phone book. These remarks apply to many other marginal categories that are essentially lists. --Wetman 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some artists were one hit wonders in one or more countries, but had several hits in other countries. Osomec 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Isn't one of the reasons for categories to replace lists? Although there are situations where lists and categories complement each other (since lists can have information not in a category), categories are generally preferred per Wikipedia:Categorization. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories do not replace lists. Whichever is better should be used. Due to definition problems lists are better in this case. Twittenham 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks necessary context. The term is not universally applicable to any given one-hit wonder; someone who qualifies as such in the US might be a huge star in numerous other regions. -Sean Curtin 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless definition tightened up. I only vote delete here because the definition of one-hit wonder is a little too vague. Even the main article has a large section talking about how the phrase means different things to different people. If a more specific definition is put forth, though, such as "artists with only one song to reach the Billboard Top 40", then I'd support the category. (P.S. I don't buy the "list is better here" argument. Personally I think it would be an ok category if the definition is tightened up.) Dugwiki 21:14, 17 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 "?!" 11:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TV schedules to Category:Television schedules

• Rename - Avoid abbreviation, bring into line with other television-related categories. MakeRocketGoNow 18:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --musicpvm 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:28, 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 "?!" 09:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Defunct companies of Maryland, member of Category:Defunct companies of the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Some of the members are not defunct, just companies now based elsewhere. This is a not-very-useful kind of category. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Merchbow 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no problem with renaming the Category. However, a more appropriate name may be "Companies Formerly Based In Maryland". My point in making this category was to show that many companies used to be based in Maryland and are now gone, either through mergers, bankruptcy, or relocation.

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 "?!" 09:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct subcat of Category:EastEnders. I'd speedy this, but it still has a template. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not needed by the associated WikiProject (WP:WPEE). Thanks. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - MakeRocketGoNow 18:46, 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. the wub "?!" 09:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Government of the District of Columbia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge Category:District of Columbia was just merged into Category:Washington, D.C., so its subcategories should have similar names. - EurekaLott 18:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (Update: if the consensus is to merge as nominated, that's okay with me, too. - EurekaLott 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Either way is fine by me. I've tagged Category:Government of the District of Columbia as well -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a mistake, while folks like me were busy with primaries. --William Allen Simpson 21:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge - There have been other discussions about this, and it seems that "Washgington, D.C." is preferred over "the District of Columbia". Personally, I prefer "the District of Columbia", but I think it's more important to remain consistent. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom., renominate the other categories to solve the consistency problem. There is no such thing as the government of Washington, D.C. Only the District of Columbia has a government, not its components. See [1]: there's a Mayor of DC and Government of DC, not of Washington.--M@rēino 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as Wash-DC is the wrong name to categorize non-WashDC information under. DC is also the more comprehensive category name. 132.205.45.148 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, and fix related categories. --William Allen Simpson 21:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not the same entity in history. — Instantnood 00:15, 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 keep. the wub "?!" 09:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Types of universities and colleges ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge/Redirect, Dup of Category:Universities and colleges by type -Confuzion 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Category:Types of universities and colleges includes articles about different types of higher educational institutions, while Category:Universities and colleges by type includes articles about individual schools categorized by type. - EurekaLott 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think. This does serve a purpose. Oddly, I can find other Types of... cats, but no pairing of a Types of X category with a X by type category. Anyway, it's not redundant, ipso facto. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above comments. Osomec 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons stated above, although the category descriptions should probably state the differences between the two categories. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above and explain distinction between Category:Types of universities and colleges and Category:Universities and colleges by type on both categories' pages. Regards, David Kernow 04:57, 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 - EurekaLott 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Not really a notable characteristic. --musicpvm 16:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless the veil fetish contingent objects. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Wetman 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ultra-trivial. Osomec 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trivial information. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - MakeRocketGoNow 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Beyond trivial. KleenupKrew 02:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. AgentPeppermint 23:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yo. Back at ya. HEADON 01:51, 20 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 "?!" 15:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:WikiProject Rugby union articles, member of Category:WikiProject Rugby union. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 23:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:28, 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 merge/delete. the wub "?!" 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trading Cards ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Duplicate of Category:Trading cards. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge per above. David Kernow 04:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the category's single article, please. - EurekaLott 04:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the one article and delete the category. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete - MakeRocketGoNow 18:46, 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 merge into Category:Fictional marsupials. the wub "?!" 15:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete, Useless, only contains 1 entry, too specific to create a meaningful category (such as umbrella Category:Fictional_marsupials already does. Skabat169 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Also delete :Category:Wallabies that have appeared veiled. --Wetman 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge into umbrella category. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete - MakeRocketGoNow 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge one article into Category:Fictional marsupials. --musicpvm 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per musicpvm. -Sean Curtin 21:25, 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 both. the wub "?!" 15:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea, also US-centric -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not useful. Impossible to judge. --Wetman 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above. David Kernow 04:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - If this were a U.S. encyclopedia, I'd support these categories, but as a worldwide encyclopedia, we don't need to have these subcategories based on a certain nation. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. The two are totally unrelated. If an actor's political affiliation is relevant, there should be another category for that (but it's relevant a lot less often than the average reader of Us Weekly seems to think). --M@rēino 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above. Michael 17:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - MakeRocketGoNow 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Pointless labeling. KleenupKrew 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Largely irrelevant. Twittenham 20:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The creator, Here2fixCategorizations, is a sock of banned user:Jerry Jones/user:JJstroker. He is fully familiar with how categories work. He was banned, in part, due to efforts like this.

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 "?!" 14:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nashville suburbs to Category:Nashville metropolitan area

• Rename, this is what we call the surrounding metropolitan area of a major city. User:Arual 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Nashville metropolitan area as the article is at Nashville metropolitan area. --musicpvm 16:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - As a resident of a Nashville suburb (Antioch, Tennessee), I suggest renaming to Category:Nashville metropolitan area. --Cswrye 14:28, 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 "?!" 14:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good way to categorize people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Aren't moustaches temporary? Who plans to maintain the cat? --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Wetman 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trivial information. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - So what if it's temporary? If you're known for having a moustache you're known for having a moustache. - Rainwarrior 16:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This should be a list, not a category. MakeRocketGoNow 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, people should not be categorized by the way they look. --musicpvm 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People aren't known primarily for having a moustache. Twittenham 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Something easily changable is not a good basis for categorization. KleenupKrew 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify Q0 03:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do not listify. Piccadilly 10:24, 14 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 "?!" 14:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how useful this is. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many people are identifiable by their distinctive facial features, including handlebar moustaches, in much the same way that people are identified by the fact that they are from, for example, a particular U.S. State. I mean, the fact that Rollie Fingers has a handlebar moustache is, in my opinion, no less important than listing the fact that he's in the category for Major league baseball players from Ohio. We can say in both instances "who cares?" but, this being an encyclopedia, I think part of the point of creating such categories is to identify the similarities people/things share with others. Absecon 59 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC) ^(talk)[reply]
• Delete both. The subject is fine for a list of moustaches (with people attached) that have achieved their own notability, and there's already a List of famous people wearing a moustache. But we shouldn't head towards a categorization of people by their mostly temporary hair styles, facial or otherwise. Do we seriously want the parent Category:People by hair style? --Mereda 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Make a list. --Wetman 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this being an encyclopedia, and not a book of amusing trivia, it is essential to focus on defining characteristics. Osomec 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think this makes more sense than just Category:People with moustaches since fewer people have handlebar moustaches and those who do are more likely to be known for them, but ultimately, this isn't a useful category. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a distinctive feature. We are an encyclopedia here, not a snob club. Just because you might not use Wikipedia to do research on hairstyles doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to. --M@rēino 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This should be a list, not a category. MakeRocketGoNow 18:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, people should not be categorized by the way they look. --musicpvm 22:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Beyond trivial. KleenupKrew 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems pretty stupid to me. Ben davison 13:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculous idea for a category. ReeseM 22:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. Piccadilly 10:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is the stupidest category I have ever seen. Better categories have been deleted. SiobhainO'D 19:54, 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 rename. the wub "?!" 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings of Enric Miralles to Category:Enric Miralles buildings

• Rename, to match all other categories under Category:Buildings and structures by architect. thanks. Mcginnly | Natter 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:28, 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 merge into Category:Comic book titles. the wub "?!" 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Comic book titles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge - I don't understand this infatuation with the work "title" or "titles" it appears completely redundant term at best. Worse, it implies the articles are about the "titles" of the comics books rather than the Comic books themselves. But then again I may have the subject all up round my ears, help me out if I hav'n't undestood. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me like Category:Comic books are about them in general, and Category:Comic book titles are about specific titles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin, I think you may have overlooked the capitalization. Category:Comic books already exists, and this category is an unneeded duplication. - EurekaLott 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Comic books. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If Category:Comic book titles is to be kept, suggest rename to Category:Comic books by title. David Kernow 04:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Comic book titles per nom. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Comic book titles per nom. Note that having "Comic Books" and "Comic books" as seperate categories would be way too confusing. Since "Comic Books" appears to be specifically titles of comic books, it should be merged into "Comic book titles"Dugwiki 21:24, 17 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 "?!" 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psion EPOC devices to Category:Psion devices

• Rename, Not all of these devices run on the EPOC OS - eg the Psion Organiser. There could be a separate category for EPOC devices which can include the Psion EPOC devices and the (few) from other manufacturers. Vclaw 13:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. A subcategory for EPOC devices can be created if necessary. --Cswrye 14:28, 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 "?!" 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Residents of Amsterdam to Category:People from Amsterdam

• Rename per naming conventions of Category:People by city. - EurekaLott 04:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency. --musicpvm 05:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Mereda 08:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:28, 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 "?!" 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable Drexel alumni to Category:Drexel University alumni

• Rename per naming conventions of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. - EurekaLott 04:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the naming conventions are arbitrary and not striclty adhered to. --South Philly 04:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Please look at Category:Alumni by university in the United States and you will see that the naming conventions are strictly adhered to.--Mike Selinker 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, category names should never begin with "notable". --musicpvm 05:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know of at least five others, but I'm not going to say which because the 'category police' will come after them. --South Philly 03:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, As I would like to expand this article to Good article (as stated on the Drexel University talk page) status I'd rather have everything per wiki naming conventions as of now then have it pointed out as a fault later. --ImmortalGoddezz 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I was unaware this had been made into a category as well before I moved the page with the same name to List of Drexel University people as per its talk page (I'm not sure if that has any relevence to the categories section at all though). If it doesn't have any relevence I throw my vote alongside those and say Rename. If it does have relevence the page has been moved as per naming conventions. :/ Page reverted by some user so the comment is no longer valid, vote is though. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Osomec 13:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ProveIt ^(talk) 23:56, 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. the wub "?!" 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish temple and synagogue architecture to Category:Synagogue architecture

• Rename to match the category's main article and the other categories in Category:Synagogues. - EurekaLott 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. David Kernow 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:28, 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 merge all - EurekaLott 03:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here2fixCategorizations (talk · contribs) created a bunch of categories without clearly understanding how things work in wikipedia. After being warned by several users in his talk page to discuss things with other people first, he proceeds happily thus creating a big amount of work for other users. All categories "Naturalized XXX citizens of the United States", where XXX= "Jewish", "Russian", "Irish" should be bot-merged back into Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States.

Judging from his work, this person even does not know differnece between "Russian", "Ukrainian" and "Jewish", yet boldly undertakes a massive robot-like recategorization of biographical articles. `'mikka (t) 04:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 8#Category:Naturalized Jewish citizens of the United States. `'mikka (t) 15:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or organize a project to verify XXX nationalities. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back per nom. Osomec 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back per nom, and I hope that the user who did this will learn how to better use categories in the future so that he can truly benefit the project. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fix the contents of the subcategories, as needed (all editors do this). Move all possible articles out of Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States and put them in its subcategories. Otherwise, we have a category with hundreds of articles, making it nearly useless. No argument has been presented why the sub-categories should be deleted or why they are undesirable, as such; arguments denigrating the author of the sub-categories is no argument at all. Thanks Hmains 17:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Yes the parent is nearly useless, but that suggests to me that it should be deleted, not subdivided. Twittenham 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The creator, Here2fixCategorizations, is a sock of banned user:Jerry Jones/user:JJstroker. He is fully familiar with how categories work. He was banned, in part, due to efforts like this. -Will Beback 21:50, 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 - EurekaLott 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Flying Spaghetti Monster ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Has only a handful of articles and it will not expand for the forseeable future. JoshuaZ 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pretty darn funny. --South Philly 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm in agreement that the articles have amusement value, but the cat is hopelessly small, and we already have cats for joke religions and intelligent design parodies. JoshuaZ 04:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Microcategories is more harm than help for search `'mikka (t) 04:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Durin 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough content for its own category. --Cswrye 14:28, 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 keep all - EurekaLott 02:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Temple Owls men's basketball into Category:Temple Owls basketball
• Category:Temple Owls women's basketball into Category:Temple Owls basketball
• Category:Temple Owls women's basketball coaches into Category:Temple Owls basketball
• Merge, The subcats are too small and specific. South Philly --South Philly 03:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is the specifically agreed upon structure for college basketball teams. Many users wanted men's and women's basketball separate, so they are. Doesn't matter how many articles are in each.--Mike Selinker 05:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike S. BoojiBoy 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. This seems to be the standard. --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike S. --M@rēino 16:17, 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 - EurekaLott 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Facial cancer deaths to Category:Skin cancer deaths

• Rename, "Facial cancer" refers to the specific location of the cancer, rather than what it is a cancer of, which is skin. Currently, category has only one article, and renaming it would make it more inclusive to allow for other skin cancer deaths.Chris Griswold 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support - This is a logical and necessary change.--Michael David 00:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. ReeseM 22:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 07:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename - Very few, if any, people are diagnosed with or die from "facial cancer". SiobhainO'D 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename - facial cancer doesn't necessarily refer to skin cancer, but it's a bit of an obscure term and the category only contains one entry, which can probably be merged into another section. DiamonDie 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Besides, I think broadening the category to include ALL skin cancer deaths would be more useful. In fact, I'm kind of surprised Skin Cancer Deaths didn't already exist; there's a lot of people who die from Melanoma.Dugwiki 21:29, 17 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 - EurekaLott 02:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural icons by nation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Basque cultural icons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:British cultural icons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Cornish cultural icons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Croatian cultural icons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:English cultural icons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Greek cultural icons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Scottish cultural icons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Singaporean cultural icons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Spanish cultural icons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, broad and ill-defined categories which seem unlikely to achieve consensus on what should be included. Some articles could be recategorised in the relevant Category:Culture of ... Warofdreams talk 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Extremely POV. --musicpvm 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inherently a pov that offers no information. --Wetman 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. heavy biased pov. `'mikka (t) 04:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Would be fine as lists, with discussion, citations and annotations. -- Samuel Wantman 08:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Samuel Wantman. --Mais oui! 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If a person is a cultural icon, it is probably because of something significant that he or she did. That should be the basis of categorization rather than the vauge "cultural icons". --Cswrye 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hopefully Category:Cult films will share the same fate one day... GregorB 01:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Cswrye. Greg Back 10:34, 14 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.