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

The result of the debate was upmerge all subcategories to parent category. I am convinced by the arguments for deletion presented here, by WP:CAT - "categories become less effective the more there are on any given article", and by analogy with other sports (eg. Category:Cricketers selected for Gentlemen v Players at Lord's, 1933 would get short shrift). --RobertG ♬ talk 11:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the children of Category:National League All-Stars and Category:American League All-Stars that are subcategorized by year should be deleted and merged into their parents. This is a severe case of over categorization. Articles are being written about each All-Star game. They can include the rosters from both teams. Putting this information in articles is much better than having categories. These categories are the reason why Hank Aaron holds not only the home run record, but also the record for the most categories of any Wikipedia article. -- Samuel Wantman 23:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an attempt to vote stacking has been made against this nomination, e.g. here.

• Merge all subcategories into Category:National League All-Stars and Category:American League All-Stars - The subdivision by year has rendered the category system useless for baseball players. This merge will improve navigation substantially. Unfortunately, it means that I can no longer use Hank Aaron as an example of category clutter. George J. Bendo 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This has been needed for a long time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would favour keeping both categories. I find categories useful for browsing related articles and exploring people with something in common. MusiCitizen 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We want to keep the above two categories. We just want to delete all of the miniature subcategories within the above two categories. George J. Bendo 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, causes too much category clutter. Is there some template (perhaps similare to {{succession box}}, but more general) for "The subject of this article is on the following lists:"? As that would allow easier navigation of lists in cases where there isn't a category. Mairi 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per MusiCitizen Tony the Marine 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Per nom. This is a little hard to swallow but even I have to agree the categorization is a little out of control here. I will not vote to merge the individual World Series categories though, dammit!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the World Series categories and I think a good argument can be made for their removal. Babe Ruth is in 7 of these categories. While cluttering up the article with categories, it is interesting that the team rosters are not in the articles about the world series games. It seems to me that they would be more useful if they were listed in the articles and are less useful as categories. -- Samuel Wantman 01:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per MusiCitizen and Tony the Marine. These categories are very helpful for people who are doing research involving baseball or who are just searching for players with similarities. Alex 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both Alex and Tony the Marine were contacted by MusiCitizen who requested that they vote to keep these categories. Which might explain why they are both voting to keep the two parent categories which are not being proposed for deletion. -- Samuel Wantman 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the subcategories. Baseball values its history and records more than any other sport. BurmaShaver 06:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also contacted by MusiCitizen. -- Samuel Wantman 07:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. (Radiant) 09:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. Baseball doesn't get any special treatment here. Recury 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. The yearly rosters can be better presented in articles. ×Meegs 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very, very difficult call here. First off, let me explain my decision has nothing to do with being contacted by Musicitizen, I also had Sam on my talk; so I got a good review of both sides of the story. It's a tough call, but I believe it's helpful for keeping track and better organizing everything to have the seperate All-Star games so we can have a list of how everything went down. Yanksox 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There are many other places to get baseball history in such detail. Link to the games in question in the articles. Wencer 06:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Orleans clergy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, dividing clergy by city they're associated with is in most cases unnecessary and adds to category clutter, given that clergy are often posted to many cities over their carreer (in this category, John Philip Newman was a pastor in atleast 7 cities in 5 different states). Mairi 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As noted in the debates on categories about Dallas, division of people by location and profession is too complicated and inhibits navigation. George J. Bendo 23:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. (Radiant) 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Fellows of The Queen's College, Oxford. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fellows of Queen's College, Oxford to Category:Fellows of the Queen's College, Oxford

• Rename, the college is called The Queen's College, not just Queen's College. Pruneau^talk 20:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I agree. Fellows, students and former students are very carefull to get the name correct. --Bduke 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection to the renaming, but when are you Oxonians going to get round to changing all your categories to say "Alumni of Foo College, Oxford"? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is a difference between a fellow and an alumnus. Fellows of the college are teachers and the like, not students. Pruneau^talk 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fellows of The Queen's College, Oxford. Both the wikipedia article and the official website are using a capital t for "The" (Queen's College) whether or not it is at the start of a sentence. --MarkS (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Alumni of The Queen's College, Oxford. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former students of Queen's College, Oxford to Category:Former students of the Queen's College, Oxford

• Rename, the college is called The Queen's College, not just Queen's College. Category:Alumni of the Queen's College, Oxford would also work. Pruneau^talk 20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I agree. Fellows, students and former students are very carefull to get the name correct. --Bduke 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Former students of The Queen's College, Oxford. Both the wikipedia article and the official website are using a capital t for "The" (Queen's College) whether or not it is at the start of a sentence. --MarkS (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename further to "Alumni" rather than "former students" per standard. (Radiant) 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Alumni of the Queen's College, Oxford or Category:Alumni of The Queen's College, Oxford if "The" is always capitalised midsentence, as per standard. The main Category:Former students of the University of Oxford and other college sub-categories will also need renaming (bar Lincoln which is already there). Timrollpickering 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Alumni of the Queen's College, Oxford or Category:Alumni of The Queen's College, Oxford. Vegaswikian 06:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge into Category:Snooker players. Shyam ^(T/C) 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, There really is no other sane way to organize snooker player listings (not even by professional league - there's only one, with national/regional affiliates.) The "by nationality" is simply superfluous and adds an unnecessary category nesting-depth layer. The two categories are a perfect merge, too - the former only has nationality subcategories and no articles, and the latter only has a couple of list articles and no subcategories other than "by nationality". This merge would also make Category:Snooker players consistent with the rest of the cue sports players subcategories by game such as Category:Carom billiards players, Category:Pool players, etc. I realize some sports need this extra layer of subcategorization depth, but snooker does not. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Dividing people by nationality in Wikipedia categories is frequently done inappropriately. That seems to be the case here. George J. Bendo 21:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Potential '08 Conservative Republican U.S. Presidential Candidates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Unimportant category, too early in the process, leaning POV (e.g., no "liberal Democrats" category). Zz414 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crystal ball category. Crockspot 18:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. George J. Bendo 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - United States presidential election, 2008, and its related articles cover this MUCH better. (And of course there's the usual issue of citations/references in categories...) - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Big Can Of Worms.--Folksong 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. "potential" is speculative, and "conservative" is POV (e.g. from a European perspective, all the likely Democrat and Republican candidates can appear to be conservative). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial potential 2008 U.S. presidential candidates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, POV, no objective criteria for determining "controversial," too early to start classifying candidates. Zz414 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crystal ball and pov cat. Crockspot 18:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely subjective. Kaisershatner 20:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think, if the creator tried harder, he/she could create a worse category name. George J. Bendo 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - United States presidential election, 2008, and its related articles cover this MUCH better. (And of course there's the usual issue of citations/references in categories...) - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inherently POV. Stealthound 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 16:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no solid criteria for either "controversial" or "2008 U.S. presidential candidates". szyslak (t, c, e) 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as POV prophecy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, totally inflammatory--Folksong 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as doubly POV. "Potential" is crystal-ball-gazing (Wikipedia doesn't do speculation); controversial is entirely POV. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PBS actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't understand the need for a category like this. It would be incredibly broad and of very little use to have a category for every single actor that has appeared on one network. EmperorBrandon 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Imagine the equivalent categories for other networks. George J. Bendo 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Stupid. Postdlf 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry I'm late in posting this, but I vote a strong KEEP because it'll help us understand just who appeared on PBS at one time. --Ryanasaurus0077 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make a list. Delete -- Samuel Wantman 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 13:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all profession subcategories, except for Category:Mayors of Dallas. I think this is just going too far. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, and no, I haven't tagged them, theres dozens and dozens. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all subcategories except Category:Mayors of Dallas and (for clarity) Keep Category:People from Dallas - Subcategorization by profession and location is too inane. Eventually, we will have categories with only a few people in each, and we will be forcing users to navigate complicated navigation trees to study articles. George J. Bendo 17:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most per nom and GJB. Crockspot 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some per the fact that Category:Hong Kong does something very similar..? drumguy8800 C T 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow I don't buy Category:Hong Kong vegetarians as an encylopedic intersection. Vegaswikian 20:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because someone somewhere on Wikipedia has devised a bizarre organizational scheme does not mean that you should copy the scheme. Maybe someone can nominate the categories for upmerging? George J. Bendo 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started to ... then realized how many there are. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of these subcategories (Category:Hong Kong Freemasons and Category:Hong Kong vegetarians, for example) are the "national" subdivisions of a Category:Thingy by nationality parent category. Maybe some of these categories need to be upmerged into a parent category. I sorely want to do this with the subcategories of Category:Astronomers, but I want to see what happens with Category:Astrophysicists first. George J. Bendo 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hong Kong and Dallas are not comparable because Hong Kong is treated as a separate territory in the category system, and territories are basically treated the same as countries. On the other hand Dallas is simply a city. Osomec 16:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll begin the process of upmerging..., however I intend to keep some of the main categories (politicians, entertainers/musicians, athletes, businesspeople) unless of course those here at CfD think even that's too overdone, then I suppose the entire thing can be moved back to one unsorted list. However, I did find Hong Kong's categorization system very helpful last week when I was writing a research paper on HK. That's why I decided to do it to Dallas, it made finding information easier for me. drumguy8800 C T 04:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and I didn't keep any categories except Category:Mayors of Dallas. I had the epiphany that if I wanted to do something like this, a List of people from Dallas, Texas could be sorted in a similar fashion ;).. Sorry for the trouble. drumguy8800 C T 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. (Radiant) 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, the problem has been solved. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I created a subpage, Guion Bluford/Temporary, and linked from the article's talk page so that interested Wikipedians can use its content if it is suitable. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a category. Seems to be a class paper about Guion Bluford. Parts of the text could be merged into the article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Guion Bluford - The "category" seems to be well-studied and well-referenced and could supplement the Guion Bluford article. Unfortunately, the category's creator apparently did not understand Wikipedia. I hope someone has the time to handle this properly. George J. Bendo 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball merge and delete - completely inappropriate use of cats. Crockspot 19:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per George J. Bendo's comments.--Tlmclain | Talk 03:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has only a single article (Mick the Miller) and looks very unlikely to get any others. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crockspot 19:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete g7, blanked by creator. NawlinWiki 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one of the big issues of categorization is you have to know when to STOP. If you take it too far, you end up with thousands of tiny categories, each with just a few members, useless for navigation. Someone has been a little over-enthusiastic with Category:People from Dallas. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Inane subcategorization. George J. Bendo 15:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bendo. Crockspot 19:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created the category, was going for a similar system as that seen at Category:Hong Kong. Seemed like a good way to organize things, very specifically for navigational purposes. It is a little excessive though, however, I'm sure the category would flesh out once I finish migrating articles from the parent category to subcategories. I've only done the A's and a few B's.
  • Please do not copy the Hong Kong category system. Perhaps someone should dismantle that as well. George J. Bendo 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as requested. - Mailer Diablo 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dominican Christians to Category:Dominican Republic Christians

• Rename, to clarify that this category is for people from the Dominican Republic rather than the separate independent nation of Dominica. Piccadilly 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category and its subcategories - Separating people by nationality and religious belief somehow seems like overcategorization. George J. Bendo 15:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is a common and basic category type. Osomec 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Crockspot 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we desperately need Category math to deal with this sort of overcategorization. -- nae'blis 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It is not overcategorisation because there are thousands of articles about Christians that are classified by nationality and this one is needed if people from the Dominican Republic are to be included. It is at the same level of the category system as Category:American Christians but just happens to be smaller because the Dominican Republic is smaller than the United States and the latter is favoured due to systemic bias. Hanbrook 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Existing category name could also be confused with the Dominican order of the Catholic Church. --Blainster 20:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Wizardman 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we do not want to categorize Category:Songs by television series, not a defining characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Television soundtracks is probably enough. If you want to know what songs are in what show that'd probably give you a clue.--T. Anthony 16:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic of the songs, or at least not of most of them. Osomec 18:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments above. Crockspot 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Category:Songs by television series is not a good idea. Imagine the category list for: Happy Birthday to You or The Star-Spangled Banner, or even Auld Lang Syne. : ) - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Category:Space agencies and Category:Space programs and delete. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Category:National space programs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Unnecessary layer between Category:Space agencies and Category:Space programs Tim! 14:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Space programs - However, the subcategorization of things under Category:Space agencies appears to be less than optimal. Someone needs to figure out how to clean this up. George J. Bendo 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and cleanup. Crockspot 19:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. -- nae'blis 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only member has already been added to Category:Houses in Colombia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only famous houses should have articles. Piccadilly 15:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cannot improve on Piccadilly's assessment. George J. Bendo 15:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 19:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tlmclain | Talk 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Religious television series, convention of Category:Television series by genre. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. There are a couple more in Category:Television series by genre that should probably be nominated for renaming as well. - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Hmains 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Hanbrook 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Somehow this seems inappropriate to me. I'm sure there will be actual candidates soon enough. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - United States presidential election, 2008, and its related articles cover this MUCH better. (And of course there's the usual issue of citations/references in categories...) - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. George J. Bendo 15:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think the crystal ball objection to be the most persuasive here insofar as it is certainly fine for us to cover prospective candidates for public office where the candidacy is speculated on by multiple prominent media sources, such that prospective candidacy itself is notable (we have developed, e.g., at United States presidential election, 2008, some understanding as regards when a classification of potential candidate is appropriate), but I don't see this category to be useful (it certainly serves no purpose pondered by WP:CAT) and think this to be one instance in which, per jc37, a list–albeit not a standalone one–is to be preferred; our employing a category the membership of which is necessarily fluid and the eventual composition of which should be quite small (the category could ultimately be renamed in order that it should comprise individuals who were mentioned as potential candidates, their ultimate decisions notwithstanding, but such a category would be cruftacular) is also to be disfavored (Category:United States presidential election, 2004 has no such subcategories, and its treatment of candidates and potential candidates is, IMHO, quite fine). Joe 18:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - crystal ball cat, pov prone. Any US-born citizen who meets the age requirement and lacks felony convictions is a potential candidate. Crockspot 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as speculation, except if someone wants to finance my run. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Wholly speculative, and the only non-POV way of populating the category is, as Crockspot poits oit, by including all eligible US citizens, which would be a huge and useless category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rear of the Year winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete A tabloid style publicity stunt does not make a defining characteristic. There is already a list. Piccadilly 13:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Users browsing the pages categorised there may not know about it otherwise, and I don't think it constitutes a section on their page. Blast 11.19.06 0903 (UTC -5)
  • If it is important enough to merit any attention at all it should be mentioned in the text. Articles are full of facts that do not have a related category in the selection of categories at the end as the categories are not intended to be a rearranged version of the article. Piccadilly 15:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - And noting the list in: Rear of the Year. (I wondering how long it will be before Afd gets it? : ) - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it would be deleted as it is very well known in the UK. I have heard of it and I don't follow celebrity culture at all. Piccadilly 15:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has already survived for more than 2 years. Piccadilly 15:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Earning this "award" does not define the individuals who earn them. The current list is appropriate. George J. Bendo 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Bendo. Crockspot 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I suported the keeping of the Page3 category on notability grounds - this is trivia marketing for jeans manufacturers, which just about keeps itself in the news for one day a year on announcement day. Rgds, - Trident13 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Alabama in the Civil War to Category:Alabama in the American Civil War
• Category:Arizona in the Civil War to Category:Arizona in the American Civil War
• Category:Arkansas in the Civil War to Category:Arkansas in the American Civil War
• Category:California in the Civil War to Category:California in the American Civil War
• Category:Colorado in the Civil War to Category:Colorado in the American Civil War
• Category:Connecticut in the Civil War to Category:Connecticut in the American Civil War
• Category:Delaware in the Civil War to Category:Delaware in the American Civil War
• Category:Florida in the Civil War to Category:Florida in the American Civil War
• Category:Georgia in the Civil War to Category:Georgia in the American Civil War
• Category:Idaho in the Civil War to Category:Idaho in the American Civil War
• Category:Illinois in the Civil War to Category:Illinois in the American Civil War
• Category:Indiana in the Civil War to Category:Indiana in the American Civil War
• Category:Iowa in the Civil War to Category:Iowa in the American Civil War
• Category:Kansas in the Civil War to Category:Kansas in the American Civil War
• Category:Kentucky in the Civil War to Category:Kentucky in the American Civil War
• Category:Louisiana in the Civil War to Category:Louisiana in the American Civil War
• Category:Maine in the Civil War to Category:Maine in the American Civil War
• Category:Maryland in the Civil War to Category:Maryland in the American Civil War
• Category:Massachusetts in the Civil War to Category:Massachusetts in the American Civil War
• Category:Michigan in the Civil War to Category:Michigan in the American Civil War
• Category:Minnesota in the Civil War to Category:Minnesota in the American Civil War
• Category:Mississippi in the Civil War to Category:Mississippi in the American Civil War
• Category:Missouri in the Civil War to Category:Missouri in the American Civil War
• Category:New Hampshire in the Civil War to Category:New Hampshire in the American Civil War
• Category:New Jersey in the Civil War to Category:New Jersey in the American Civil War
• Category:New Mexico in the Civil War to Category:New Mexico in the American Civil War
• Category:New York in the Civil War to Category:New York in the American Civil War
• Category:North Carolina in the Civil War to Category:North Carolina in the American Civil War
• Category:North Dakota in the Civil War to Category:North Dakota in the American Civil War
• Category:Ohio in the Civil War to Category:Ohio in the American Civil War
• Category:Oklahoma in the Civil War to Category:Oklahoma in the American Civil War
• Category:Oregon in the Civil War to Category:Oregon in the American Civil War
• Category:Pennsylvania in the Civil War to Category:Pennsylvania in the American Civil War
• Category:Rhode Island in the Civil War to Category:Rhode Island in the American Civil War
• Category:South Carolina in the Civil War to Category:South Carolina in the American Civil War
• Category:Tennessee in the Civil War to Category:Tennessee in the American Civil War
• Category:Texas in the Civil War to Category:Texas in the American Civil War
• Category:Utah in the Civil War to Category:Utah in the American Civil War
• Category:Washington, D.C. in the Civil War to Category:Washington, D.C. in the American Civil War
• Category:West Virginia in the Civil War to Category:West Virginia in the American Civil War
• Category:Wisconsin in the Civil War to Category:Wisconsin in the American Civil War

Rename per the precedent set by the supercat of these: Category:U.S. states in the American Civil War. As it is, they're somewhat US-centric, as there have been other civil wars both prior to and following the one referred to by the articles within. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral What other civil wars have these states been involved in? Blast 11.19.06 0905 (UTC -5)

  Arguably any Civil War in which the United States provided support to one side or another could have an article describing contributions by the individual states. Regardless, imagine if this format were applied to all such conflicts. Category:Cornwall in the Civil War, Category:Catalonia in the Civil War, Category:Vienna in the Civil War, etc. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - per naming agreement with American Civil War. - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - it's the proper naming convention. Resolute 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Osomec 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Crockspot 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Hmains 00:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Timrollpickering 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. User:Dimadick

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. There were several unconvinced contributors to this debate. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astrophysicists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is effectively redundant with Category:Astronomers. The distinction between "astrophysics" and "astronomy" is vague, and so is whether people should be listed as "astrophysicists" and "astronomers". Moreover, most articles in Category:Astrophysicists are already listed in a sub-category of Category:Astronomers, so the category clearly is not needed. (I am also trying to figure out whether I am an "astronomer" or an "astrophysicist". I last published in the Astrophysical Journal, and I work for the Astrophysics Group at Imperial College London, but my research is more observational than theoretical, so I do not know whether I would distinguish between "astrophysicist" or "astronomer" for myself.) GeorgeJBendo 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - George J. Bendo's comment about himself sells me on it : ) - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Astrophysicist sounds cool. To be serious there are times when a more specific term is useful. For example Category:Entomologists has the subcategory Category:Myrmecologists, Category:Geologists has Category:Petrologists, etc. This also serves as a sub-cat of Category:Astrophysics.--T. Anthony 15:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that the examples above (geology and entomology) have well-definied subfields. In astronomy/astrophysics, however, the majority of the reasearch (including what I do) is physics-based. "Astrophysics" is not treated as a subfield (or at least not a clear subfield) within "astronomy". Instead, "astrophysics" is sometimes treated as a synonym for "astronomy" and sometimes used to describe more "physics-intensive" research. The key problem is that the degree to which something is more like "astrophysics" or like regular "astronomy" is vague. (Category:Astrophysics also looks like it is being used as a catch-all for everything in astronomy. If Category:Astronomy did not have crisis messages on its page, I would recommend merging the categories into Category:Astronomy.) GeorgeJBendo 17:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well there is Charles Bruce (physicist), Dave Green (astrophysicist), Colin Franklin, Jean-Pierre Luminet, and a few others which are not in the astronomer category as well. Most of those aren't in the physicist category either. As your proposing delete instead of merge this seems damaging to a few of those articles. Still this is your area and not mine so I'll reluctantly defer from saying anything more.--T. Anthony 02:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merging to Category:Astronomy would probably be appropriate for these few articles. Most of what I saw when I looked were articles listed in both Category:Astrophysicists and a subcategory of Category:Astronomers by nationality. GeorgeJBendo 13:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well I still have some doubt, but you're convincing enough I'm withdrawing my keep and just not voting.--T. Anthony 13:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have nothing against you George. I have much respect for those who are involved in the field of work such as yours. But,I'm not convinced about your argument. May be in your case it may be true. Sometimes there is also a historical aspect to classification, Halley and Gallileo were astronomers. Astrophysics was probably not much in scientific vocabulary then. Also, you can call Edwin Hubble an Astronomer but not Einstein. Although it is his theories of relativity which are the central Pillar of today's Astronomy & Astrophysics. Einstein, can be called a theoretical physicist,theoretical Astrophysicist, cosmologist etc. For obvious reasons not all of astrophyiscis is per se experimental ( although many Astrophysicists involve in computational modelling and numerical simulations and also involve in research with particle acceletors, underground detection facilities for neutrino studies, dark matter, dark energy studies etc). Point is research in astrophysics is not confined to study of "astro"(literally star)physics but the overall structure of the universe (though mostly but not necessarily restricted to large-scale matter)and in many ways can be a category directly under Cosmology. The kind of research that is done right now in astrophysics will soon branch out in many ways, different from the traditional view of Astronomy. Either Astrophysicists alone or Astronomers& Astrophysicists, but NOT Astrophysicists under a broader Astronomer category. My.musings 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. It would seem to me that astrophysicist would be a subset of astronomer. All astrophysicists would be astronomers, but not all astronomers would be astrophysicists. I am thinking of the advanced hobbyists astronomer, who may have little expertise in physics specifically. Being neither, I do not know enough to make other than this comment here. Crockspot 19:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Amateur astronomers would be appropriate for hobbyists. GeorgeJBendo 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - My thought is that anyone who would qualify as an astrophysicist would also qualify as a physicist and as an astronomer (for example, Kip Thorne). I don't think we need three categories to categorize them. --Fournax 21:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - From reading this discussion, it sounds like when people hear "Astronomer", they think of someone, anyone, who looks into space (typically using some form of telescopic device), and when they think of "Astrophysicist", they think of someone at a desk working out formulas, functions, and such. I agree about the usage of Category:Amateur astronomers is appropriate for amateur cases, but for professionals, I dunno. As noted above, GJB isn't sure about himself (Which is likely because he is both : ) - I'm leaving my support in place, but I'd like to hear further discussion (and references would be wonderful). - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As cheesy as it sounds, I did a Google search on "difference between astronomy and astrophysics" and found these links from "ask an expert" websites: 1, 2. These effectively say what I have been saying: the difference between astronomy and astrophysics is very gray. I also like the comments about how some departments use "astrophysics" instead of "astronomy" or vice-versa for historical reasons. (I am an astrophysicist at Imperial College London because I work in the Physics Department.) GeorgeJBendo 09:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  Didn't sound cheesey at all : ) - Thanks for the links. I liked how they both said essentially what I was trying to say : ) - Given this, then I would suggest that we merge to "Astrophysicists", then, for historical reasons, and to prevent ambiguity between it and amateur astronomers. And perhaps use astronomers as a parent cat for the two of them, giving a nice explanation for the terms, to prevent this confusion in the future : ) - jc37 09:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would suggest to keep it or rename category along with astronomers as Astronomers & Astrophysicists. I agree to an extant with George Bendo that the differences are vague. But the truth is that there are Physicists who actually do not use a telescope (i.e observation) for research purposes (but they may use already observed and established results), but they work in the same realm, where their tool is basically mathematics and they may use both relativistic and quantum principles, they may be called Astrophysicsts, theoretical physicists, theoretical Astrophysicists, cosmologists etc. In no way they are called as astronomers and there is no such word called "theoretical astronomer" (see comment below). Point is if you don't use observation(whether it is ground based or orbitting) you are not an astronomer, but you can be an astrophysicist. Many leading universities have Department of Astrophysics and PhDs are earned. There are departments named Astronomy & Astrophysics. My suggestion is either keep it or recategorize along with Astronmers but still maintain in the title astrophysicists (i.e A&A). Notify the editors of the involved articles (tag article for CfD discussion) and get their suggestions (you might get a lot of different views). My.musings 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment First of all, "theoretical astronomer" is used in professional astronomy. Please look here and here, for example. Also, please look at the links I provided in another comment, which partly explain why some schools have "Departments of Astronomy" and others have "Deparments of Astrophysics". Having said that, I could see the use of Category:Astronomers and astrophysicists to describe everyone in both categories except that it is overly long. GeorgeJBendo 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment True George. I see in the links you provided that they need a PDR for theoretical astronomy. Thanks to you, I googled on it and I came to know there is in fact a theoretical astronomer position. My misatke I will retract the argument that there are no theoretical astronomers. But my point is, as in one of your links "VITA is a center for research on theoretical problems in astronomy and astrophysics", lot of research institutions maintain the "AND". I'm not disputing the congruence, but in a place like wikipedia where we are trying to establish a global knowledge base that encompasses a length of time, it is important to distinguish that the work William Herschel/Clyde Tombaugh did and the work Kip Thorne/Stephens Hawkings are doing, infact are different things.
• Comment to the admin - If Category:Astrophysicists or Category:Astronomers is deleted or merged somewhere, please create a redirect to the other category. GeorgeJBendo 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, argument for merging is only relevant to the last century. You could merge astrologers and astronomers with such an argument in a different century. 132.205.93.88 02:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Timrollpickering 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the point is surely not to distinguish astophysicists from astronomers; the former is clearly a subset of the latter. Astrophysicist is simply a more precise term and can be distinguished from eg. cosmologist or astrochemist. Where one knows a person's area of specialism is in astrophysics it seems right to clasify them as such. WJBscribe 09:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this nomination has probably failed anyway, but "astrophysics" is more frequently used as a synonym for "astronomy" rather than to describe a subfield of astronomy. Most of modern astronomy relies on physics anyway, even very observationally-related astronomy. In contrast, cosmology is a recognized subfield that deals with large-scale structure and galaxy evolution, and astrochemistry is a recognized subfield that deals with the chemical composition of objects (particularly things with complex chemistries such as molecular clouds and comets). Many astronomers can be clearly defined as working in either field. Similarly, many astronomers can be clearly defined as not working in cosmology or astrochemistry. This cannot be said about "astrophysics"; most of the astronomical community would say that they do use physics in their work (including the astrochemists). Dr. Submillimeter (Formerly GeorgeJBendo) 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Timeline of rail transport to Category:Rail transport timelines

• Rename, Timeline should be plural, and the proposed form seems to be the most dominant in Category:Timelines. Tim! 08:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Crockspot 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Wizardman 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Timeline of aviation to Category:Aviation timelines

• Rename, Timeline should be plural, and the proposed form seems to be the most dominant in Category:Timelines. Tim! 08:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Wizardman 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC) We should categorize computer games in actual genres, not by items they appear to be related to. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Since FPSs and RPGs would both fall under this category... - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that this is a pretty specific sub-genre and is a term used by game journalists (which has more or less replaced the phrases 'diablo clone'). This was also an attempt to sub-categorize the now bloated parent categories. Marasmusine 08:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is still keep as a specific sub-genre (FPSs and RPGs don't fall into this category) but if its just the name of the genre that is the issue, rename to Category:Computer and video action role-playing games, which is really a broader genre but at least has its own genre article. In any case I've prepared an alternative list page should the decision be to delete. Marasmusine 09:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization. "Superhero cvg" and "RPG cvg" are useful, but its intersection is not. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Actually, by their very nature of involving superheroes, nearly all are "Role-playiong games". : ) - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not about biology, it's about computer games that play similar to Centipede (video game). This should be renamed to clarify that, but arguably deletion is appropriate since this is hardly a genre (noting that Centipede is in itself a variant to Space Invaders). (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These games are best linked within the text of their articles or possibly through "See also" links, not through a category. George J. Bendo 12:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd suggest "listify", except with only 2 members, they should just be listed in Centipede (video game). Oh look, they are, and a much better list/description too : ) - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer games that play similar to Joust (computer game). I doubt this is actually a genre of its own, but if people think it is, it needs a rename. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These games are best linked within the text of their articles or possibly through "See also" links, not through a category. George J. Bendo 12:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - please listify. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Again, not biology. Lemmings was a highly original top hit and arguably is a genre of its own. Still needs a rename; how about "Computer games related to Lemmings" or somesuch? (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (I have no objection to delete/listify) (Radiant) 16:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 'not biology' and thus needs disambiguating. However, as this goes for the other nominations here, 'clone' is the phrase used in computer game journalism. Marasmusine 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - please listify. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Category:Falling block puzzle games. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Again, this was a highly original top hit, and this name might be reasonably appropriate given the prevalence of the word "Tetris". Nevertheless I don't really like the wording, although the alternatives that come to mind ("falling blocks games"?) don't sound too good either. Maybe "tetris-like computer games"? Suggestions please. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (I have no objection to delete/listify) (Radiant) 16:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, this is a grandchild of Category:Falling block puzzle games. Marasmusine 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Upmerge - please listify. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Replace with Category:Action puzzle games. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Actually, that's "games based on Boulder Dash". Note that several games in the category don't feature actual diamonds per se. This is more-or-less a genre of its own, but a better name would be something like "action puzzle games". Note that e.g. Supaplex is simply in Category:Puzzle computer and video games. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (I have no objection to delete/listify) (Radiant) 16:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I avoided calling this 'Boulder Dash clones' originally to avoid any backlash from Repton fans; as the two games were developed independently from each other. 'Rocks-and-diamonds' was the alternate phrase I found in computer magazines/websites. Marasmusine 09:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Category:Action puzzle games? Note that "Rocks and Diamonds" itself is, ironically, a Boulder Dash clone. (Radiant) 12:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - please listify. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tile-based games to Category:Tile-based board games

Rename to "tile-based board games" (even though it sounds a bit oxymoronic), since I found several computer games in here that don't belong. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I vaguely recall a discussion in a prior CfD (months ago) about a naming convention for Board game computer and video games. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Overcategorization. Upmerge to Category:Donkey Kong games. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge - George J. Bendo 12:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I could alsmost see "keep", if there was also a sub category for DK racing games. Sounds like normal catgorisation. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Replace Category:Mental-skill games with Category:Games of mental skills and Category:Physical-skill games with Category:Games of physical skills. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC) The hyphenatation in the names looks rather awkward. Would prefer a rename to "Games of <m/p> skill" or somesuch. Note also that both cats need to be (mostly) depopulated, as most game articles in fact belong in the subcategories. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Note that the articles of each redirect to: Game of skill. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Games of mental skill and Category:Games of physical skill, respectively. Notice no hyphen, per article. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't that be plural? (Radiant) 09:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch. Added the "S"s : ) - jc37 09:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Category:Physical-skill games. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC) Given the nebulous definition of "tabletop", this appears redundant with its parent cat, "Physical-skill games" mentioned above. This contains anything from air hockey and billiards, to arm wrestling and tiddlywinks. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (by which I mean merge) (Radiant) 09:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it's a useful distinction. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - However, the spelling seems to vary here: Tabletop game or Collegiate Association of Table Top Gamers. I've looked in several dictionaries (granted each was at least over 5 years old), and can't even find the word, though "Table game" appears in my thesaurus as a synonym for board game (and redirects to Casino game). Looks like we could use a naming convention consensus on this. So supporting a Rename, but would like to see about some further references. : ) - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Regardless of the outcome of this, the mal-named Category:Physical-skill games should be renamed Category:Games of physical skill. And then it too should probably be examined pretty closely to see if it is needed at all... Heh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the consensus is that it should go away, then Merge (upward into what is presently Category:Physical-skill games); don't just delete it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that was the idea. Sorry if I was unclear on that. (Radiant) 09:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:Remakes. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too narrow, should be upmerged to its parent cat, Category:Remakes. Both cats are rather small. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Actually I think deleting the parent (Category:Remakes), is the better idea. The two sub-categories are totally unrelated except for the word usage of "Remake". - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 12:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful intersection. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's part of Category:Open source games. I'll be cliche and suggest that if you were to nominate all the "genre" sub cats for discussion... Well, you know the rest : ) - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Open source RPG games are very rare, and every one of them are of extreme importance. Neither open source, nor role-playing games are "useless", so I don't see why their intersection would be "useless" (also, "useless" in what sense?) Frigo 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Fallout series. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the computer game, not about nuclear radiation. Should be renamed to reflect that. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fallout series, per Fallout series. (Though perhaps the article could use further disambiguation as well?) - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:The Elder Scrolls. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:The Elder Scrolls, with which it is redundant. Note that related categories do not include the word "series". (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:The Elder Scrolls - Category:The Elder Scrolls appears to gather general information on the games, including articles on places, races, characters, creatures, toothbrushes, etc. within the game. Category:The Elder Scrolls series appears to contain the articles on the individual games themselves. Thinking about how I would want to navigate pages on individual games, I would prefer to have the articles on the games themselves located in the parent category. George J. Bendo 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Thing is, the reason the others don't use "series", is because they don't refer to a series of games. This could become ambiguous with the first game of the series without the disabiguating word. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not actually the case; e.g. Category:Final Fantasy games and several others in Category:Computer and video role-playing games are also about series, and use "games". (Radiant) 09:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Then those should be renamed as well. - jc37 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge no need fir a seprate cat. Name is not ambiguous since there is no game called The Elder Scrolls. Eluchil404 15:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to omit series from all of them. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to omit the word "series"; nearly all related cats don't use that word either. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Thing is, the reason the others don't use "series", is because they don't refer to a series of games. This could become ambiguous with the first game of the series without the disabiguating word. - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not actually the case; e.g. Category:Final Fantasy games and several others in Category:Computer and video role-playing games are also about series, and use "games". (Radiant) 09:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Then those should be renamed as well. - jc37 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Chrono series; mostly redundant. The best name is probably "Chrono games". (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Category:Chrono series is the parent category. Category:Chrono games and Chrono media is the division of the parent into it's subcats.

• I believe the subcats are too small to be useful and thus should be upmerged. (Radiant) 09:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you look at the media one? it's almost all images. I don't think merging those two cats is a good idea. - jc37 09:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Square Co., Ltd. games. the wub "?!" 16:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's games created by Square Co, presently known as Square Enix - but the cat name sounds just rather weird like this. I'm not sure whether this is or isn't the same as Category:Square Enix games; if it is, merge; if not, should probably be renamed to "Square Co games" for clarity. (Radiant) 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Square Co., Ltd. games. This is a legitimate category for games created by Square Co., Ltd. before it merged with Enix to form Square Enix. The corresponding Category:Enix games also exists. Other categories and Wikipedia articles related to Square are following the convention "Square Co., Ltd.", so this category should be renamed using the same convention. George J. Bendo 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per GJB - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law related to Anti-Mormonism to Category:Law related to Mormonism

• Rename, The laws shown in this category are ones that address Mormonism, not anti-Mormonism. The category name seems to be an attempt to assign a POV label to these laws.. BRMo 07:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. (Radiant) 08:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 13:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Crockspot 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Antonrojo 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edmonton Oil Kings alumni to Category:Edmonton Oil Kings (WCHL) alumni

• Rename, A new team in the WHL is using the old Edmonton Oil Kings name. The new team has moved to the Edmonton Oil Kings article name, while the defunct teams have been moved to Edmonton Oil Kings (WCHL). This category exists for players of the defunct team, and should be renamed to match that of its parent article. Resolute 07:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Recury 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sandler Chick ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, besides having improper capitalization as well as being poorly named and vague as to who/what "Sandler" is, this cat is cat-cruft and overly trivial. Dismas|^(talk) 04:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not sufficiently defining - do we want categories for people who have played opposite lots of actors ? -- Beardo 04:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not defining. Regarding Beardo's comment, if they're Category:Bond girls, then yes. But Bond girls are actually a notable subject and perhaps most importantly they have their own article. --tjstrf talk 06:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per tjstrf Piccadilly 13:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is little different than "actors who played Batman". Instead it's: "Actresses who were in the same movie as Adam Sandler". Let's NOT start this trend : ) - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments above. Silly name for a cat too. Crockspot 19:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think I passed this several times without realizing what it was talking about. It is overcategorization and should be deleted. George J. Bendo 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic category. Doczilla 02:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate of Category:Anti-Semitic people, completely unnecessary. 70.49.84.61 02:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia guidelines in WP:CAT state that it must be 'self-evident' and 'uncontroversial' which articles belong in a category. To say that someone is anti-Semitic is subjective because 1) it's not clear what criteria are required to place them within a category (a problem that can be dealt with by defining concrete subcategories tied to objective criteria, as this category attempts to do) and 2) because it is very different to say that a person is an Anti-Semitic person, racist, etc. than to say that they made a statement that fits the definition or that someone called them an anti-Semite, racist, etc. The latter case makes no claim that 'at their core' they are 'anti-Xist'. This is especially problematic with living persons since labeling them as anti-Semites conflicts with WP:LIVING. Breaking down the catchall Category:Anti-Semitic people into concrete subcategories (e.g. based on Webster's definition of anti-Semitic) moves it towards conformity with WP:CAT. Relevant discussions include Category_talk:Anti-Semitic_people#Concrete_subcategories (and really the rest of that talk page which shows the debates that have arisen due to subjectivity in that category) and Category_talk:Cults. Antonrojo 03:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a category fork. While I understand some of your arguments the proper process, anton, would be to request the existing category be renamed. --tjstrf talk 07:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one and delete Category:Anti-Semitic people for the reasons stated by Antonrojo. Anit-Semitic people is the fork that should be deleted. Removing it has been attempted several times without success. If this category is kept it can be populated in an NPOV way, at which time Category:Anti-Semitic people can be nominated for deletion, and perhaps will be deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 07:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV magnet. (Radiant) 08:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV attack-category and also a duplicate. Piccadilly 13:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - citations/references, if you please : ) - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you asking for cites/references that these people should be included or the policy that supports my vote above? The former should be included in the articles that are tagged and the latter in WP:CAT Antonrojo 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I was attempting to humourously say a rather common statement: "Supporter/Critics of <x> categories would require citations/references for each member. Since that isn't possible for categories in this case, then delete the category, or listify if wanted." The simple problem is that this categorizes by "anti-". And we shouldn't categorize people by "issue". - jc37 08:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One anti-semitism category is enough on an article, or perhaps too many. Osomec 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is intended to replace the Category:Anti-Semitic people category. Similar concrete categories (e.g. tied to objective criteria) could then be included under Category:Anti-Semitism which would function as a meta-category for topics related to anti-Semitism. So articles would only belong to one category. Antonrojo 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Duplicate cat, prone to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP abuses. - Crockspot 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is no more concrete than Category:Anti-Semitism as it is a matter for debate whether a statement is antisemitic or not, eg hard line Zionists treat any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, but many people regard that as an outrageous position to take. Olborne 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-defining, attractor for warriors and vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 21:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek Choalbaton 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Systemic bias. Some people have made statements on hundreds of issues, but we don't have hundreds of such categories. Wilchett 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Who defines anti-Semitic here and in what historical context? Prior to World War II this would include many people simply parroting popular notions. User:Dimadick

*Keep Although I'd prefer it be limited to those who published Antisemitic works. This would change the purpose some, but I think it'd be a helpful refinement.--T. Anthony 10:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people surviving makes me switch to non-voting.--T. Anthony 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - duplicate of Category:Anti-Semitic people, completely unnecessary. As with the other, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia as a category. An article linking such people, maybe - but not a category. Rcnet 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate of Category:Anti-Semitic people, completely unnecessary. 70.49.84.61 02:46, 19

November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This category was an earlier version of the category above and can be deleted as a no-member category. Antonrojo 03:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV magnet. (Radiant) 08:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, empty category and the author agrees. --tjstrf talk 10:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - citations/references, if you please : ) - jc37 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One anti-semitism category is enough on an article, or perhaps too many. Osomec 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Duplicate cat, prone to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP abuses. - Crockspot 19:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above category. Olborne 14:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous debate. Choalbaton 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Systemic bias. Some people have made statements on hundreds of issues, but we don't have hundreds of such categories. Wilchett 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete duplicate, subjective, and excessively broad category. Doczilla 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NY Mets First Round Draft Picks to Category:New York Mets first round draft picks

• Rename: No need to abbreviate New York. Fix caps as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. (Radiant) 08:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Crockspot 19:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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