The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Empty category, created Sept. 2005. MakeRocketGoNow 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 09:20, 6 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inactive musical groups and Category:Active musical groups

Both of these sets rightly contain thousands of artices. Unless they are to be kept as flat, oversized administrative cats like Category:Living people, they will inevitably be subdivided by genre and nationality, creating complication and potentially doubling the size of hierarchies for musical acts. Membership in the categories is also dated and requires maintenance. There has also been some criticism on each cat's talk page. Delete both. ×Meegs 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No "dead" and "not dead" categories (except category:Living people, natch).--Mike Selinker 01:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How long do they have to go between albums? Not useful or reliable. Choalbaton 12:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 14:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both -- LGagnon 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Incipient category clutter as per nom. CalJW 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. It gets worse than even Choalbaton mentioned - Does a charity reunion make a band 'active'? Is Guns N' Roses active because Axl uses the name for his shows? Lets not go there. SeventyThree^(Talk) 01:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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 of the proposed deletion of 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 all. Conscious 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and Category:Million and Category:Billion. Includes numbers which are in that range (n to 1000×n−1) as well as units and adjectives related to that number. Pretty much a worthless category. If I were the type to use "cruft", I'd call it "numbercruft". Created a few minutes ago. Let's kill it before it spreads. Delete all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (creator of the categories). It makes finding things relating to the number and numbers in that range easier. It is useful in that purpose. Hoof38 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all 3 per nom. Awkward categorization of numbers, at least under the these titles. The grouping with prefixes and units is even less useful. ×Meegs 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hoof38 -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't care whether they're kept or not, but if they do stay, they should at least be renamed to Category:Thousands, Category:Millions, and Category:Billions.--Mike Selinker 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to plural form, per Mike Selinker -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As presently defined, the proposed rename to plural is wrong. The numbers in the category should be in the plural form, while the units and prefixes should be in the singular. Yet another reason to delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These are unhelpful categories. No need to group things by the fact that they have to do with a billion/million/etc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The creator is alleged to be a WP:Sockpuppet of blocked User:Science3456, and has been blocked as such about 6 hours ago [1]. If confirmed, speedy delete all as {{db-banned}}. (Don't forget to orphan the template after it's deleted.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I prefer 'Thousand' to 'Thousands' - the plural sounds like it limits things to multiples of 1000, rather than numbers in the range. On the deletion - it seems a sensible way to split up Category:Numbers, although the various definitions of Million and Billion might make those categories difficult. SeventyThree^(Talk) 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I don't find these very useful as categories, and don't believe they add much to WP. Madmath789 19:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three. Not useful. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all --Gro-Tsen 23:03, 4 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one user (the user that made the category). The acronym is just something the user made up one day and is too specific. Unlike Category:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, AWWDPTDTNAEWPADNNSMSHCCSFSEMAWFTSHIIAA is non-notable and does not have its own page. SCHZMO ✍ 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike People That Delete Their New Article Edits Without Prior or After Discusion, Now Needing Some Moral Support to Help Cope with the Choking Stress, Frustration, Sadness, Eventual Maturation and Acceptance, and Who Feel They Still Have Important Information to Add to an Article, just in case anyone was curious. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 14:57, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems POV to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction, no not POV. However, it's a duplicate of Best of Eurovision -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A winners' category might be legitimate, but this isn't it. If they are to exist, there should be one for songs and one for acts. Better to delete and (maybe) start again. CalJW 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:58, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And listify instead. This is a category that should be a list. MakeRocketGoNow 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is similar to the Wold Newton category below, only about a million times more significant. Howerver as it doesn't concern a work in the genres which have many fans on Wikipedia, there have been no protests against deletion so far. Osomec 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And it's also only been up for nomination for a few hours, so please don't assume you know what will happen, Osomec. Anyway, this is a fine use of a category.--Mike Selinker 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category clutter. Sumahoy 15:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep strike out vote - new vote below Carcharoth 10:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC) - again, I find this sort of category informative and interesting. I also find these "listify" calls mystifying. There are many categories that should be lists that aren't. Are you going to listify them all? I strongly suggest that "listify" requests are preceded by the creation of such a self-contained list before the category is nominated for deletion. That way the nominator has shown willingness to do the work needed. Self-contained lists are required because the list will need to be placed in the category system, and lists that are sections of an article cannot be categorised. Carcharoth 15:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being used in a literary work which was written after they died cannot possibly be an important attribute of a real person. Nathcer 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, already listified at List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy. "Listify" is a valid vote when, according to WP:CLS, something would be appropriate as a list but not a category. Some things are appropriate for both. This isn't. It's simply not a sufficiently important factor in these people's lives. A list, on the other hand, would be perfect. TheGrappler 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being mentioned in Divine Category isn't primary or secondary characteristic of the persons listed there. This kind of "categories" should be speediable as absurdity, only destroying value of articles. Pavel Vozenilek 01:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In the Divine Comedy article I only saw the "Characters" link to the category (in the "See also" section. I failed to see the List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy. That is a much better way of handling the issue. I actually thought this was a list of characters created for the Divine Comedy (the use of the term 'characters' is highly misleading here - they are historical people that appear in a work of fiction). If they are borrowed from elsewhere, they are part of a common mythological melting pot, and are not Divine Comedy characters per se. If there are any characters that only exist in the Divine Comedy, then leave this category as it is, and include the list there as well, leaving clear instructions at the top to stop people repopulating it. Carcharoth 10:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of them were real people. This is like having list category for people who were mentioned on the Simpsons - not even guest stars, just people who were referenced. ReeseM 03:37, 3 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always better to expand abbreviations; much clearer. -- Necrothesp 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, IEE (I-double-E) is better known 132.205.94.148
  • FRS is better known than Fellow of the Royal Society, but we wouldn't call a category FRSs! Abbreviations are never a good idea unless they are used almost exclusively (like BBC and ICI, for instance), which IEE most definitely isn't. -- Necrothesp 22:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Rename per nom. IEE is not known to the general public. Choalbaton 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Shorter, those who read such bios likely know what IEEE is. The long name may not tick. Pavel Vozenilek 01:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. When I first saw this I though it was a typo for a sub cat of Category:IEEE. I think that while better know for by their acronyms, we should consider expanding IEE and IEEE to avoid confusion since the acronyms are so similar. Vegaswikian 02:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand The full version is easily understood by people who are familiar with this body, but the abbreviation isn't easily understood by those of us that aren't. ReeseM 03:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Much better known abbreviations are expanded, even U.S. for United States. Honbicot 20:00, 3 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 tag subcategories and relist. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and subcats

If WP is not a social club, are these really appropriate? 132.205.93.89 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, God. Delete it. Derex 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 18:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Necrothesp 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this isn't a social network. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:51, 6 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your There were two New Orleans classes. The earlier class, Category:New Orleans class cruisers (1896), was already separate, but I believe this one should be renamed Category:New Orleans class cruisers (1931) for clarity. TomTheHand 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Perhaps we should keep a category at Category:New Orleans class cruisers as a parent of the two? Perhpas not? SeventyThree^(Talk) 01:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. No need to keep the plain category. Jinian 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and then make Category:New Orleans class cruisers a disambig for the other two categories. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Spot87 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, an obvious rename. I moved the articles for you. Gdr 20:25, 6 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were two Minotaur classes. I have separated the later class out into Category:Minotaur class cruisers (1943) but I believe this one should be renamed Category:Minotaur class cruisers (1906) for clarity. TomTheHand 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Jinian 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and then make Category:Minotaur class cruisers a disambig for the other two categories. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Spot87 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, an obvious rename. I moved the articles for you. Gdr 20:24, 6 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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:Television stations in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the name spells out the state names and also replaces the ampersand with the full word. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: expanding the abbreviations is a good thing, but there has to be a less awkward name. Would Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee and Virginia or even Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee be any better? The article for the metropolitan area is at Tri-Cities, Tennessee. - EurekaLott 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee per EurekaLott. Vegaswikian 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? SeventyThree^(Talk) 01:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks! SeventyThree^(Talk) 09:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subcat of Category:Collections of the Louvre, which is comprised of articles for sculptures – the Winged Victory of Samothrace, Venus de Milo etc. – which are undisputed works of art, and yet the "works" designation is reserved for paintings. I'm not keen on these "works" categories (the others are Category:Works in Musée d'Orsay, Category:Works in the National Gallery, London, Category:Works in the Uffizi and Category:Works in the Vatican). "Work" is an awfully ambiguous word ("artwork" would be far clearer), and in any case it seems like an unnecessary subdivision after "collections". That's why I'd rather that this didn't just get renamed to "Paintings in the Louvre", and would prefer a merge with its parent category (sur-category?) Collections of the Louvre. For the other four examples, I would advocate changing their names to the more general "Collections of the [Foo museum]" ("collections" categories don't currenty exist for those). HAM 18:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Create the following subcategories of Category:Collections of the Louvre*...?

Category:Sculptures (of/in)* the Louvre

Category:Paintings (of/in)* the Louvre

Category:Xs (of/in)* the Louvre

* If any annexes etc considered part of "the Louvre", then use "in" rather than "of" (Category:Collections of the Louvre → Category:Collections in the Louvre; Category:Sculptures in the Louvre; etc)...?

Regards, David Kernow 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding any subcats, they would be styled "Sculptures etc. in the Louvre" – I've yet to see a sculpture of the Louvre. I'm not in favour of creating any such categories, though. As for "annexes", am I right in thinking that you mean people's collections which have ended up in public museums but are often displayed in a separate room, and are referred to in books as if they were a single entity, e.g. "The Wilbur J. Foo III Bequest"? (This is usually done in order to glorify the collector and seems to be a mainly, though not exclusively, American phenomenon.) I don't know of any such collections in the Louvre that have a Wikipedia article, and if there was one, I would expect it find it in Category:Louvre. "Collections of the Louvre" all the way. HAM 12:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Osomec 13:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. These categories aren't large enough to justify further divisions. - EurekaLott 14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Necrothesp 15:23, 2 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 Redirect. Vegaswikian 05:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Colleges and universities or someone else will just create it again ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to redirect. David Kernow 01:10, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user category is not at all appropriate and can serve little use other than for vanity purposes or to be inflammatory. BigDT 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carina22 18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You've got to be kidding me. Gamaliel 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is daft. --Runcorn 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Crazy stuff. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: You mean that there are wikipedians beside me who look good? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen photo of Ta bu shi da yu, and he looks no better than my grandma.70.48.250.251 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, purely for spite, since I wasn't invited. Derex 05:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV. The only three people who think I'm attractive are me, my wife, and my mama. Everyone else thinks I'm as homely as a mule's butt. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sheesh. —tregoweth (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Deathphoenix' mule's butt. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all in good fun and cheer, as long as it stays out of articlespace hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?}
• Keep Per Hoopydink Gizza^{Chat ©} 10:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Intent of good fun should have nothing to do with it. Are we also willing to have a "Hideous-looking Wikipedians" category? Avogadro 10:34, 7 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 all. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the media by countries use the adjectival form, but about one in seven do not.

• Category:Media of Afghanistan to Category:Afghan media
• Category:Media of Africa to Category:African media
• Category:Media of Algeria to Category:Algerian media
• Category:Media of Bahrain to Category:Bahraini media
• Category:Media of Ecuador to Category:Ecuadorian media
• Category:Media of Japan to Category:Japanese media
• Category:Media of Korea to Category:Korean media
• Category:Media of the Netherlands to Category:Dutch media
• Category:Media of Nicaragua to Category:Nicaraguan media
• Category:Media of Qatar to Category:Qatari media
• Category:Media of Singapore to Category:Singaporean media
• Category:Media of South Africa to Category:South African media
• Category:Media of the United Kingdom to Category:British media
• Category:Media of Zimbabwe to Category:Zimbabwean media

I have omitted a couple of countries for which there is not a suitable adjectival form.

• Rename all Nathcer 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, or rather merge in the case of Korea. Carina22 18:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge per nom and Carina22 Sumahoy 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is actually totally correct. Instead, rename the others to the 'Media of XYZ-Place' form, because that's the accepted format. Otherwise, either stuff like 'Hong-Kon[g]ese media' creeps in, or there are two different formats. Azate 14:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, even though I'd agree with Azate that adjectivals (name + "an" or other suffix) can lead to odd-sounding results. However, I'd also say the adjectivals above are either/both well-known or comprehendable. Perhaps a list of adjectivals and demonyms for which there is a consensus for use in category names should be kept, to which proposers and proposals may be referred...?  Regards, David Kernow 17:34, 5 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For capitalization, plural, etc. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carina22 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:59, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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, in my opinion, a rough consensus to delete. Conscious 19:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous vote to delete this by the overwhelming majority of fourteen to four. User:Tim! declared this to be "no consensus" on the spurious grounds of the strength of feeling of the keep voters. This is a slippery slope and is not acceptable. It is perfectly normal for people who value cruft to feel strongly about it, but if that was accepted as a reason to keep, why bother with cleanup in Wikipedia at all? Also, Tim's suggestion of just removing Sherlock Holmes is not at appropriate. Any category which exists should be properly populated, but this one should not exist. As Scranchuse put it last time, categorising very well known characters by their relationship to something much less well known is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Bhoeble 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy delete As the "no consensus" declaration was invalid. Bhoeble 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure was endorsed on deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Category:Wold Newton family members. This nomination is spurious. Tim! 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bhoeble has also acted to vote stack this: see [2] Tim! 16:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There would not have been a review if Tim hadn't made a dreadful decision in the first place. Deletion review is not visited by many people who frequent this page, and even counting what took place there there is a substantially prevalence of delete votes. I only drew this to the attention of the originally nominator, not to the many other delete voters and I was in a state of shock when I did so. Tim is not a fit person to close votes and should be banned from doing so. He should also be dismissed as an administrator. Bhoeble 17:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bhoeble, your personal attacks against me are totally unacceptable. Tim! 17:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Administrators who use block threats at the first opportunity are damaging to the community. Bhoeble 17:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fan cruft. Nathcer 17:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very much agree with Scranchuse's analogy. A compendium of these names is absolutely fine, but it should be a list. For example, an article on one of the great James Joyce's characters (Leopold Bloom) should not be co-opted by reference to a science fiction writer. There's no reason for it, since a list linked off the Wold Newton Family article provides the same information, and without making Wikipedia look pitiful as this does. Derex 17:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have no desire to get involved in the ancillary arguments, but as the original nominator for deletion, I would simply like it stated for the record that nothing I have read has made me change my mind. In fact quite the opposite. And I would have visited CFD and voted Delete even if I had not been notified, although I do appreciate the notice. --Mais oui! 17:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Articles should only be categorised by their primary characteristics. Carina22 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep'. If this made it through deletion review, it should stay.--Mike Selinker 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This made it through the first round, and then through a deletion review.

• To Bhoeble: What do you have against this category? I have yet to see you try to delete other categories of this sort, say Category:Star Wars characters or Category:Star Trek characters. They are exactly the same as this category. Philip Jose Farmer used already established characters in this new universe, just like the authors of the new Star Wars and Star Trek materials. Another thing, Philip Jose Farmer is not the only person writing in this universe anymore. There is a new author, Win Eckert who has been published using this universe. There may be more characters added to this category soon. I really wish to know why you hate this category so much. Please retract this CfD.
• Nathcer: Can you come up with a better reason than that? Every single category is created by someone who is a fan of that item. To actually take the time to write an article on Wikipedia on a subject, and then find other articles which are similar denote some sort of fandom. Category:Nazis was more than likely created by someone who enjoys studying them. You don't see me trying to get that category deleted just because I don't agree with it.
  • That just isn't true. Some of us are trying to do our modest little bit to create a complete, balanced encyclopedia. Earlier I created category:Manufacturing companies of India to pick one at random, but I am not Indian, I have never been to India, and I have never been inside a factory. Wikipedia needs to be a lot more than a collection of fansites if it is ever to be taken seriously. Nathcer 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Derex: Take a look at the list again. The category is only for those characters brought into the Wold Newton universe by Philip Jose Farmer (and in future, by Win Eckert more than likely), through published works. The list is for any character or real person who is connected to the Wold Newton universe, no matter how light the tie.
  • I have no idea what you're talking about. Plainly Leopold Bloom is a James Joyce character, yet he is included in this category. It frankly makes Wikipedia look ridiculous to infect serious articles with fancruft because a sci-fi writer co-opted a character. Moreover, I can't imagine what purpose this category serves that a simple list would not. I'm puzzled by those who say keep because it was kept before. Are we slaves to past mistakes, or do we try to make good decisions now? Derex 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Carina22: I have seen articles placed in so many categories what covered extremely minute details.
• Mais oui!: What have you read that has turned you so solidly against this category?

As I had said in the previous attempt to delete this category, without this category I would have never heard of the Wold Newton universe. I would have never known it existed. I was looking up Elizabeth Bennet when I saw the category on her article. I may even attempt to create similar categories in the future, such as Charaters of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. (There are a lot of them.) Before I found this category, I had never heard of Fu Manchu or the Scarlet Pimpernel. I would have never been exposed to Bulldog Drummond or Professor Challenger.

Though my interest in these characters is how they relate to each other in the Wold Newton universe, I may pick up one of those old books and read them. I had no interest before since I could care less about those dry writings. I am a science fiction and fantasy fan, I have no interest in old literature normally. (I hated my English classes in high school because of the material I was forced to read was so boring. Mark Twain was the worst. I almost failed an English class because I just couldn't read Huckleberry Finn, it put me to sleep literally.) Now I may read some of the books and see some of the films that I eschewed from lack of interest to see how Philip Jose Farmer came up with his universe. Without the Wold Newton category, I would still be uncaring about characters that at one time bored me. The only reason I had any interest in Pride and Prejudice is the fact that Colin Firth played the role of Fitzwilliam Darcy. I read the book and found it dull in comparison to the miniseries.

So seeing Colin Firth on television in the Pride and Prejudice miniseries lead me to look up Elizabeth Bennet here which lead me to the Wold Newton universe category which brought so many other characters to my attention that it boggles the mind. I now know more about the world of old literature than I ever did from high school. Wold Newton makes literature fun, so why not allow this category to stay to bring others to these old writings?
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I know that I was long winded.

• Delete per nom and User:Derex. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Yes, the various characters' identities are primarily defined by their original incarnations, but we consider other (sufficiently major) authors' takes on them as well. If Sherlock Holmes#Adaptations exists, why in heaven's name shouldn't he be characterized on that basis as well?

  Incidentally, I also object to the "perpetual relist syndrome". This is the third time this category has gone up for deletion. Come on. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete (vote changed again - see multiple comment and reasons below) Carcharoth 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC) - interesting and informative. I learnt something from this category. Carcharoth 11:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As mentioned above, tail wagging dog. It should have been deleted the first time. Choalbaton 12:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everything is important to someone, and science fiction seems to be important to quite a few Wikipedians, but that doesn't mean that the works of Philip José Farmer are really important in an encyclopedic sense. The articles about his work should be self contained and not encroach on more truly important topics in this way. This is territory claiming and while no doubt this category was created honestly, this sort of overrepresentation of a commerical product could be inserted by advertisers. Osomec 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it seems that this category is more important to people than the Divine Comedy category above. That should certainly be deleted too, but think about what the contrasting vote patterns say about Wikipedia's priorities and credibility please guys. Osomec 13:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category was inappropriate before, and it's just as unsuitable now. That they were co-opted by another writer is a trivial aspect of these characters. - EurekaLott 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the essay above shows, this is effective as advertising, so it sets a precedent that we don't want other writers to follow. It seriously misrepresents what is significant about these characters. Sumahoy 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this whole vote for deletion is a joke, regardless what others think these characters have been categorized in this category due to their affiliation of PJF's fictional Wold Newtonverse which is notable for these reasons: he has published several successful books relating to Wold Newton and the popular fictional characters listed therein, he has a considerable fanbase of other authors who have contrubuted works of fiction relating to the same characters of which he has written about (i.e. the ones listed in this very category which is up for deletion, there are numerous web sites relating to the characters and research of their genealogy as per the Wold Newtonverse. I don't know what else you need to convice or satiate your hunger to delete anything. Most of the users here forget this is NOT a paper encyclopedia. But as I said before it is pointless to educate a bunch of individuals who are so keen to delete something without even a decent reason other than "fancruft". I believe the entire voting for deletion and for keeping articles needs to be ammended because there are far too many people on here who just put forward a vote without having any knowledge of the subject matter as we can clearly see from the last VFD of this category and the reason why Tim! kept it to no consensus. But I'm not going to bother anymore with this sort of crap so either keep or delete don't make a big show about it simply to boost your deletionist egos up! Piecraft 15:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another note to the editor in charge of judging this matter please bear in mind the malevolent attitude of Bhoeble against this article as proven through Tim!'s earlier statement. Piecraft 15:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Part of the problem seems to be that there are no separate articles on the treatment of the characters before and after Philip José Farmer co-opted them. Ideally there would be articles such as [[character name (Wold Newton Universe)]]. Or at least a redirect as such. I would recommend that any characters deserving of a separate "Wold Newton Universe" article are put in this category, and everything else is removed from the category. At the moment, it is very confusing to click on something from this category and think you are reading about a Philip José Farmer creation, when actually you are not. So I'm changing my vote to delete (see above). Carcharoth 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Compromise and rename - is it just me, or is this "cross-over fiction" just stealing other people's characters? Can't these authors come up with their own characters? If not deleted, I propose a compromise and renaming to Category:Fictional characters used in the cross-over Wold Newton Universe. Would that satify everyone? Carcharoth 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me, because it would still appear on the pages for the characters in question. Only deletion or listification would prevent that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the whole problem is one with linking these articles to the Wold Newton list. That can either be done through a category tag, a "see also", or a "References in popular culture" section. If none of these appear, then the only way to navigate from Sherlock Holmes to the Wold Newton articles is to click "What links here". After misunderstandings created by the "characters" characterisation of these cross-over cases, I now agree that the category should be deleted, but would support the addition of "References in popular culture" sections to all the people dragged into the Wold Newton universe. Carcharoth 10:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find the idea that people shouldn't vote to delete this because it is obscure puzzling. Many of the articles are about very prominent characters, far more prominent than this sci-fi chap who co-opted them, and that exactly why so many people want it deleted. This category is being used to promote something above its station, possibly for commercial gain. Wikipedia is supposed to be a mainstream encyclopedia, but this sort of thing makes it look like a bit of a joke. Twittenham 18:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The last nomination was a clear cut delete imo. The strength of people's feelings aren't relevant, only the best interests of the project. A lot was written in defence of the category, but none of it is convincing. There is no obligation on the part of people who wish to see a category deleted to write as much as those who wish to see it kept. Those of us who are regulars here vote on many, many categories, and a short sharp reason is all that is required. This category exposes Wikipedia's systemic bias towards science fiction and should have been removed before now. CalJW 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment in other words no one has yet come up with a justification to delete this category other than your preconceived "opnion" that this sci-fi chap is hardly notable when in fact he is notable for exactly what you have just slated: "is it just me, or is this "cross-over fiction" just stealing other people's characters? Can't these authors come up with their own characters?" - is this is so we might as well opt for deletion other categories that list these "prominent characters" such as the Category:Kingdom Hearts characters which lists Tarzan within the category. The fact that the category is WOLD NEWTON FAMILY MEMBERS is a dead giveaway that it is a definitive listing of the characters prevalent in the Wold Newtonverse, therefore it would not confuse a user/reader unless they are looking to get confused. There has as of yet been no justifiable purpose or reason for this category to be deleted. And I do not see anyone's "best interests" for Wikipedia here at all, it seems this is purely a malevolent deletionist tactic to get rid of something which is remotely "alien" to another user who wants to control Wikipedia and ensure that it remains restrictive in reagrding specialised articles such as these. Guve me a break.

Also I would like to add this VFD should not be taken seriously because the nominator has other reasons for deleting it, Bhoeble has also been placed on W:PAIN for his statements and comments which continue to support my reason to believe that this entire VFD is under wrongful intent. Piecraft 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Intent of nominator irrelevant, delete. I fail to see how this category would not be better as a list. Alternative suggest: keep the category, containing only the listified version of this plus any "Sherlock Holmes (World Newton character)" type articles. There is no point categorizing articles which are generally about fictional characters in their "original" form in a category about their co-opted equivalents in a different fictional series. TheGrappler 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia:Categorization of people says that we should "try to limit the number" of categories that articles about real people are placed in. This can be applied to fictional people too, by only placing them in categories that are to do with their main characteristics. This category is kind of like the lists of "pop culture" references which clutter up articles, most of which are usually to trivial to merit inclusion, but get added because they seem important to some random person, and wouldn't be their in a professional encyclopedia. Chicheley 10:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this use of the category system probably does end up being trivial. On the other hand, literary concepts don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in a synergy between author and reader. This later use of these characters by another author does appear to be notable enough to merit a "references in popular culture" or an "other appearances in literature" type section, or at least a "see also" mention. In other words, a category tag would be too prominent for trivia, but a mention in the articles in a "trivia"-type section would not be. It is precisely references like this that contribute to the legacy and enduring nature of a story/character. I actually object to these things being referred to as trivia, because we are pre-judging what will be of interest to the reader. As long as the material is organised and referenced properly, then so-called trivia should be included. Otherwise this sort of little detail gets lost over time, which would be a tragedy and would provide an incomplete view of the literary and cultural aspects our times and society. Carcharoth 13:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Being a member of the Wold Newton Family is not an essential quality of most (if not all) of those characters. Having the list itself as an article is a sensible and even helpful tool for those that have become interested in one literary character through Farmer's works and would like to know about others. However, categorization as a Wold Newton Family member places this accidental quality on the same level as other aspects of that character. Avogadro 12:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Avogadro expresses why very clearly. (And as per my "vote" in the previous debate). Valiantis 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know whether this was put together by the author's agent, or simply by an enthusiastic fan, but either way it is promotion of a commercial product and should be deprecated for that reason. Athenaeum 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I only just found this category today while doing research on Sherlock Holmes and was dismayed to see a link to this vote. I don't understand the policies and don't care about the politics. All that matters to me, as a Wikipedia user, is confidence that if I bookmark the category page it will continue to exist when I return to it again. Keep, in the strongest terms! Tem2 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Make it into a list. Per WP:CLS, categories "should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article" and ideally the category subject will be "prominently discussed in the article". I'd argue that Wold Newton fails the first test for most of the items in the category, and it definitely fails the second for many of them, such as Elizabeth Bennet; I'd be delighted to see "Sherlock Holmes (Wold Newton)"-type articles, though, if Farmer's version is markedly different the original authors'. The same argument would apply to tagging Tarzan with the "Kingdom Hearts" category, or tagging Richard Francis Burton with "Riverworld character", if someone actually did that. --Snarkout 22:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carcharoth and Chicheley. I like the idea of handling this kind of material with "other appearances in literature" and a list of Wold Newton characters. I don't think Philip Jose Farmer is a non-notable author, but appearing in his books is not an essential feature of these characters. --redfox 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This looks like a marketing tool to me. ReeseM 03:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as per Simetrical. Deleterious 09:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wold Newton Universe characters
And for the record, I am in no way affiliated with Philip Jose Farmer, nor have I read the books from which this category was derived. I am just interested in the geneology of the characters according to the only one ever offered for most of these characters.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 08:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reveals an inappropriate set of priorities as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but a promotional tool for populist fiction. Piccadilly 13:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see how Philip José Farmer was not guilty of copyright infringement, as some of the characters are quite modern. This category promotes his work above its proper station; it looks quite out of place on those articles which do not have a category related to the original creator of the relevant character. Honbicot 19:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• note fyi, all the characters that PJF has used are more than 100 years old which allows them to be in the public domain, thus he is not infringing upon copyright, as for the more modern characters they are only referenced and there's nothing illegal about that, you might ask the same about Alan Moore and his LOEG series which references much more and lifts characters from a much wider spectrum than PJF. The two are oddly interlinked. Piecraft 01:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is better served by the list, but it is a complex one. Vegaswikian 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep useful category hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As with the category for Fawlty Towers guest actors, the fact that it may be useful information doesn't make it category material. Hawkestone 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This should be a list, not a category. MakeRocketGoNow 00:45, 6 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Once the rename is completed then a new CfD can discuss the Islam vs Muslim issue. All votes seem to be to change from the present name. Vegaswikian 06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for deletion of this category with the majority (approximately 2/3rds of editors) voting for deletion. A common theme on both sides of the debate in that discussion though was for renaming the category. Even the category's creator agreed to the idea of renaming. Netscott 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename phobia is both a loaded word and overly narrow. Derex 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carina22 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Ben Houston 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I prefer the term "Anti-Islam sentiment". What is the opinion of the nom on this matter? --Ben Houston 22:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename BhaiSaab ^talk 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 13:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but I disagree on what to rename to. I think it should be "Anti-Islam sentiment" rather than Anti-Muslim sentiment. For one, this is more consistent with the "Islamophobia" theme. Also, most of the anti-islamic sentiment is specific to the religion/dogma of Islam itself and not necessarily to the individual (the Muslim him/herself) therefore "Anti-Islam sentiment" is a more accurate replacement.--FairNBalanced 10:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Peter G Werner 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment per FairNBalanced. David Kernow 09:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  PS Suggest category's main article renamed if category renamed.
• Rename to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment per FairNBalanced - Muslim refers to a person practicing Islam, so if we're talking about the religion the proper label would be Islam hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:53, 6 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Greek football clubs. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. CalJW 19:21, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Sports in Chicago. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. - EurekaLott 14:30, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral rename by Spasage... should be merged -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:57, 31 May 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:High schools in Turkey, listify text -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can changes like this (cap fix) be listed on speedy rename? A merge in this case is basically the same as a rename, but merges are not listed as OK for speedy nomination. Vegaswikian 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if merges were ok for speedy or not. I have one up there now, I guess we'll see if it goes through ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and suggest speedy-rename criteria are clarified to indicate such nominations are acceptable. David Kernow 00:57, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were two Arethusa classes. I have separated the later class out into Category:Arethusa class cruisers (1934) but I believe this one should be renamed Category:Arethusa class cruisers (1913) for clarity. TomTheHand 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Rename per nom. Jinian 20:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and then make Category:Arethusa class cruisers a disamig for the two other categories. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, an obvious move. I renamed the articles. Gdr 20:28, 6 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be renamed. (Reason:Bad english grammar. Sorry for that) Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to speedy. Immediate second thought: Move to external (but linked) wiki. David Kernow 14:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely pointless. -- Necrothesp 15:33, 2 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add missing "the". (Not a speedy?) David Kernow 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 12:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom.--Jusjih 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carina22 18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT there's been more than one Russian Revolution... Red October was preceded by the Republicanist one, and followed by the breakup of the Soviet Union / democratization. 132.205.94.148 02:02, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous categorisation per scope of Category:Russian Revolution. (Cf discussion here.) David Kernow 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom. David Kernow 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge [per] nom. Dahn 10:51, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of prominent rap artists have died prematurely, but this category is POV and unnecessary. Its effect is to perpetuate stereotypes of hip-hop musicians and ethnic minorities. We don't have categories like "Dead rock musicians", "Dead novelists" or "Dead politicians". szyslak (t, c, e) 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - It's not POV, they're simply dead. We do have other dead categories, I'm sure. Anyways, I wouldn't really miss this category, but I don't agree with you that it's POV.--Urthogie 08:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward delete. There's something I just don't like about this category (maybe it is POV), can't put my finger on it, though. --Merovingian {T C @} 08:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV, but it's a slippery-slope category. If we do dead rappers, then why not dead pop singers, then dead singers, then dead people. (As bad as Category:Living people is, that'd be worse, because dead people already have death-year categories.) Now if we rename it to Category:Murdered rappers and prune it, that I could see. If that's what the creator of the category was trying to document, that's a notable enough trend.--Mike Selinker 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We shouldn't divide categories between the living and the dead. Bhoeble 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly not POV, and can't see how it could be construed as such. I like Mike's idea of a re-categorisation, but certainly going to take a lot of effort, as where do you stop if you go down that path. --Wisden17 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, you like that idea? The "dead people" chain was my attempt to show what a bad idea I think this is. Gotta be more careful in my wording, I guess.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bhoeble. I might also be receptive to Mike S's idea of narrowing it to Category:Murdered rappers if someone wants to argue that that is a cohesive and noteworthy set. Incidentally, I think the POV claim was not about the cat's own criteria, but simply based on the observation that we have this category for rappers, but not for most other professions. ×Meegs 15:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias would probably be a more accurate description of there being no category:Dead singers.--Urthogie 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mike Selinker.--Rockero 16:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename to Category:Murdered rappers per above. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Murdered rappers and prune the list. Dead brith already have their year of death as a cat, so unless the death itself was notable (like a murder would be), their is no, reason to recat a dead horse 216.141.226.190 02:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 01:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 15:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This type of subdivistion is not done for other occupations, and that has never seemed to be an inadequacy to me. Piccadilly 13:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to admin : Can you delete Category:Dead Underground Rappers along with this, on the basis of logic?--Urthogie 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 7#Category:Dead Underground Rappers. David Kernow 13:17, 8 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix plural and capitalization Paul 05:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to speedy. David Kernow 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I've wanted to correct this myself. JonHarder 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:33, 31 May 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand acronym that isn't self-evident. BoojiBoy 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. CalJW 19:22, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand acronym that isn't self-evident. BoojiBoy 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is "Junior A"... and we have some "Junior B"... doesn't anything that falls below Major Junior (aka Junior Elite) or AAA pro, fall too far down the heirarchy of skill? 132.205.94.148
  • If the articles are appropriate content it would be appropriate to have a category to organise them, but as to whether they are or not, I have no opinion as I know nothing about ice hockey. CalJW 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. CalJW 19:23, 1 June 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 of the proposed deletion of 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. Vegaswikian 05:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category doesn't seem to be named for a specific designation used in Swaziland, so it will be tidy and consistent to rename it to match category:Protected areas by country. CalJW 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:34, 31 May 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.