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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Naval battles of World War II ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, empty and redundant with Category:Naval battles and operations of World War II. Kirill Lokshin 23:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The name would seem to be more accurate. - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Saga City 03:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. David Kernow (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mountain Men to Category:Mountain men

• Rename, decapitalization in second word. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Choalbaton 11:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename. (was editing when it was closed) - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Popular Hasidic Entertainers to Category:Hasidic entertainers

• Rename. Correct case, "popular" not necessary. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Hasidic entertainers. "Popular" shouldn't be in the title. Picaroon9288 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Hasidic entertainers, per caps, and the remove of "popular". - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. "Popular" is improper. Wryspy 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controlled substances ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Too many issues with this categroy. The list varies by country and by the strength of the drug. Could be split up by multiple categories, but is that effort needed? Vegaswikian 19:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See also Category:Over-the-counter substances. --Dhartung | Talk 12:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, please note that link. - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though I would not oppose subcategorisation by country. - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ambiguous category. Wryspy 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Photography organizations --Kbdank71 14:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProveIt ^(talk) 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Speedy. Vegaswikian 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Photography organizations for simplicity and since it is a subcat of Category:Organizations. Recury 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Photography organizations per Recury. David Kernow (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Photography organizations, per Recury - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Recury. — Reinyday, 01:19, 4 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Created in error -- duplication of Haitian people category. Emptied out. Thanks!

HOT L Baltimore 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this one has been passed over; please consider speedy deletion. Thanks!! HOT L Baltimore 21:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Category:Haitian people -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - since this seems to be {{db-author}} - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. — Reinyday, 01:18, 4 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Académie des sciences morales et politiques to Category:Members of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences

• Rename, Use English description. Intangible 15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - That is the actual name of the academie. See: Category:Members of the Institut de France for other examples, as well as Institut de France. - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept or no consensus, rename Academy of Political and Moral Sciences accordingly. David Kernow (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per jc37 and because we have Category:Members of the Académie française. David Kernow is right that the rename of the article should be reverted (although I don't see how it actually was renamed, something strange there) to Académie des sciences morales et politiques. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was do not rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western Australia cricketers to Category:Western Australian cricketers

Category:South Australia cricketers to Category:South Australian cricketers

Category:Victoria cricketers to Category:Victorian cricketers

Category:Tasmania cricketers to Category:Tasmanian cricketers

• Rename to standard naming style for Australian states. See parent Category:Players in Australian domestic cricket by team. States ending in "a" need an "n" added to form an adjective. -- I@n 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose These are team categories rather than person-by-origin categories. It is essential that adjective forms are not used as they would imply that the players are all natives of the state, which is not the case. Calsicol 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Calsicol Choalbaton 11:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Grutness...wha? 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Some of the players aren't even Australian. Piccadilly 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Hiding Talk 21:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated (for consistency); personal opinion, "foo to English translators" makes no sense; presumably, if someone can translate foo to English, they can also translate English to foo, so "foo-bar translators" makes sense; As for the supercat, that should be left as is to differentiate between "Translators to English" and "Translators to (insert language here)" --Kbdank71 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Icelandic to English translators to Category:Icelandic-English translators

• Rename, In line with others at Category:Translators to English. 86.134.15.60 10:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think they all should have the "to" convention, categorisation is not a "tree", and clarity is preferrable. - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Icelandic-English" suggests to me someone either Icelandic or more acquainted with Icelandic who's willing to translate either way, whereas "Icelandic to English" suggests they only feel able to translate in one direction... or is that the point...?  Unsure, David Kernow (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nod, the name of the "umbrella" cat is Category:Translators to English. So the structure of each one is apparently: Translation language to english. And since thse cats could be used within other cats, it makes sense to clarify by name (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)). - jc37 15:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and change the others per Jc37's remarks. Wryspy 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge Category:Sex moves to Category:Sexual acts --Kbdank71 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Sex moves into Category:Sexual practices
• Category:Sexual acts into Category:Sexual practices

The categories "Sex moves" and "Sexual acts" are currently two existing ambiguous categories, with different parent categories to make matters even more confusing. I propose a merge into Category:Sexual practices, making the common parent category Category:Human sexuality. - GilliamJF 07:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Recury 14:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Sex moves into Category:Sexual acts. Category:Sexual acts is a specific enough and catchall term for me. -- I@n 14:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both in Category:Sexual practices per nom. Choalbaton 11:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to sexual acts per I@n. I believe sexual practices is too vague as it could include incest, polygamy, safe sex and other more general sex-related things often termed "practices". Alternately, Category:Sexual activities, Category:Physical sexual acts, Category:Sexual techniques. Problematically, we also have Category:Sex positions (subcat of acts). --Dhartung | Talk 12:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge category:Sex moves to category:Sexual acts per Choalbaton et al. And Keep as a sub-cat of category:Sexual practices. - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge category:Sex moves to category:Sexual acts per Choalbaton and make a sub-cat of category:Sexual practices per jc37. — Reinyday, 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• could I go ahead and suggest that, whatever we they're called and regardless of which ones are sub-sections of others, that wikipedia have seperate categories for body-part combinations to orgasm(s) (ie oral sex, sexual intercourse, fisting ect.) and the odd little "moves" that comprise many articles here in wikipedia (ie snowballing, donkey punching, and ass-to-mouth?)
• Merge per nom. Wryspy 04:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you mean "per nom", or per the modification of the nom? (I admit, it's starting to become confusing.) - jc37 15:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films based on H G Wells ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Films based on the works of H. G. Wells. --Bacteria 07:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I created this cat and struggled to name it. Good call. Mallanox 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and cat creator. - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Bacteria. David Kernow (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Honestly, why bother discussing this? Just move it already. Wryspy 04:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, there's a waiting period (see top of page), and we have to wait for an admin to do it. Chill. 355698 16:51, 5 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was merge and delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adopted fictional characters into Category:Fictional adoptees

• Merge, Redundant category, already covered by the later, with several more entries. Animedude 07:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Wryspy 04:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mark Foley scandal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, lists people only peripherally related to the scandal. It can't yet be said whether there will be even two major figures involved (WP:NOT a crystal ball). If this had been created as something like List of inviduals involved with the Mark Foley scandal, it would simply be redirected to 2006 Mark Foley scandal, since it overlaps so much with that article. Interiot 05:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see why just mentioning who is involved in the article isn't sufficient. Recury 14:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Category:Jack Abramoff scandals grazon 16:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There is no need to explode the article into a category. It is almost inevitable that such categories will include people for whom the connection is not a defining characteristic so they are to be avoided. Calsicol 18:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Category has already been abused. Crockspot 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dislike this type of category quite a bit. To a casual reader, it tends to implicate those tagged without any context given. If the event in question is notable for that figure, then it should be mentioned in the text, with a link there. IMO categories should be reserved for similar articles, e.g. football players or Congressmen. It should not be used for everything mentioned in an article, because we have direct wikilinks for that.Derex 04:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as far too broad. Note we do not have a Lewinsky category. (I'm an editor on the article, and I wouldn't use this.) --Dhartung | Talk 12:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Another example of where a list would be better. (Citations/references, for example). - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this per above. Wryspy 04:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Derex that this is a dangerous path to go down. Lincolnite 10:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. This sort of category does nothing but set Wikipedia up for potential libel claims. WP:BLP policy is quite clear: When something gets created that even comes close to making unverifiable negative assertions about living people, it's to be deleted. I'm not even sure we should wait for this CfD to close. Speedy kill it dead now. --Aaron 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dcflyer 06:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Aaron Piccadilly 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice so if need be it can be recreated, if need be, as the story unfolds. Arbusto 18:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Creative works --Kbdank71 13:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I first noticed this as a subcategory of Category:Categories (what would the proper parent be, Category:Arts, perhaps?). It appears this was created as a response to a comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 20#Category:Fictional works. This apparently refers to anything somebody makes, including art, documents, or music. I'm not sure what the purpose of Category:Works by year is, either. TimBentley (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: I think it should be renamed to Category:Creative works, but it certainly houses a relevant collection of categories. In addition Category:Works by year houses 40 subcategories. — Reinyday, 03:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Creative works per Reinyday Tim! 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Creative works per above comments. - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure that most members of the subcategories Category:Documents and Category:Fictional works fit the description "Creative works", but I'm also not sure what alternative approach/es to suggest... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:4chan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, contains two articles (4chan and a related Internet meme. Has no room for expansion, and is probably just fancruft. --- RockMFR 01:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RockMFR. — Reinyday, 03:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, overcategorization. Recury 14:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is enough room for expansion. Nightmare X 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - entries could be handled through "see also" in articles. - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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