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 14:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illegitimate children ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, useless, broad category which violates WP:BIO WP:LIVING. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - How does it violate WP:BIO? Everyone on the list was apparently notable enough to warrant an article. Also, everyone on the list already has "illegitimate" or "born out of wedlock" in their article, so what is wrong with listing them here? Also, I would argue that there are plenty of "useless" categories in Wikipedia, but what is useless to one person is not necessarily useless to another. Mapetite526 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there are lots of useless categories so let's delete them all and stick to categories that define why people are in Wikipedia. Brammen 09:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Opps, it's WP:LIVING my mistake, still everyone in that category needs to be sourced. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but cite all sources and remove articles with none reliable source found. Pink moon1287 21:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• That seems silly. I doubt that there is any other category or list that the user is required to make sure that the articles in it are sourced properly. Mapetite526 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess what I meant was, cite the source of the parentage status at the time of birth, especially to living persons. Pink moon1287 23:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the category already has an well establised subcategory Category:Illegitimate children of Swedish monarchs. -- Petri Krohn 00:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in fact we should go through all people in Category:Royal mistresses and see if any of these women have children (with articles on Wikipedia), and categorize them accordingly. Evidently User:Mapetite526 has already done that. We should and create appropriate subcategories, maybe Category:Illegitimate children of royality. -- Petri Krohn 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You know I originally tagged this article "speedy" because I agreed with the nom in that the category violates WP:LIVING. However like Mapetite526 points out everyone in this category already has their mention that they were "illegitimate" in their article. Stubbleboy 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Not a defining characteristic. Also, it is bad manners to draw attention to this attribute when in most cases it is irrelevant to the subject's encyclopedic achievements. Brammen 09:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in the case of children of royality, this is their most important atribute. -- Petri Krohn 13:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only a few of the facts in each article should feed into a category and this isn't one of them. Hawkestone 10:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overly broad, and begs the question whether in this age, a child of parents that spend their life together but aren't married is illegitimate. >Radiant< 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might we need to remove the reference to illegitimacy from the articles also if that is the case? Mapetite526 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or change scope and category name to only include children of royalty. Recury 16:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, limiting it to royalty-only is definitely necessary. In any other context, illegitimacy really doesn't matter. --- RockMFR 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a defining characteristics. Hard to prove in the past, irrelevant today. Useless for encyclopedical purposes unless someone is building an online database. Pavel Vozenilek 22:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Serves no purpose. --Ezeu 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I just don't see what purpose it serves. Andrew Parodi 08:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a category of historical interest. In many cases people are notable because they are the illegitimate children of historical figures, such as kings and queens, for instance, or notable writers, or because they are illegitimate and have overcome the odds to become successful themselves.--Bookworm857158367 13:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Note: this comment was left on the main cfd page here. I've moved it to the correct place. --Kbdank71 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

comment - For instance, is it not notable that Oprah Winfrey was born illegitimate? Look where she is now! Mapetite526 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The concept of illegitimacy is anachronistic (I assume the definition used for the category is "a child born to unwed parents"), given that common-law relationships are increasingly common. The concept also seems to have a negative connotation that doesn't seem proper for simply being born into it. Mindmatrix 15:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move relevant articles to Category:Illegitimate children of royalty. Other than for purposes of succession in monarchist governments, illegitemacy as a concept doesn't have much relevance today. The category name also implies that the people are still children. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move relevant articles per GeeJo. johnpseudo 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable characteristic. Piccadilly 20:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a list of people with cleft chins in the article Cleft chin. Is that a notable characteristic? Mapetite526 20:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Way too broad a cat, going to be unmaintainable and controversial. Categories shouldn't do controversy, articles should. Hiding Talk 21:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify As it's a category of people which requires citations/references. - jc37 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or listify - Could be useful information to have. And it's not an expression of prejudice, any more than categories relating to left-handed people (also a group historically that faced prejudice, but which is seen as irrelevant today) are. And as mentioned above, in some cases like Oprah or Larry Ellison it's especially impressive that they have found great success despite being born illegetimate.
• Delete it's not the 1950s, this has no encyclopedic value. --Peta 00:00, 9 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 --Kbdank71 13:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sign into Category:Signage

• Merge. Sign is not a good category name. I considered Category:Signs but I believe the existing Category:Signage is the best choice. Vegaswikian 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Signs" might invite some confusion with things related to semiotics whereas as far as I know only advertising people use the word "signage." Recury 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - As above the word signs is ambiguous. It could also refer to "omens", or parts of sign language, or "symptoms", among other things. Signage, as far as I know, only refers to what this category is about.Dugwiki 18:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and Dugwiki. --Satori Son 13:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Signage sounds like a neologism. Any citations to this usage (such as the ad people noted above)? If so, I support the nom, else try something like signs, posters, and/or placards? - jc37 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a very common term even outside of advertising, at least in the U.S. Here is a link to the Small Business Administration and another to the Environmental Protection Agency, both large, federal agencies. If you Google it you can find many more. --Satori Son 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looked at the links, thank you : ) - I noticed that one had a glossary: "SIGNAGE: A system of signs." Changing to support. - jc37 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. - jc37 01:18, 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 keep --Kbdank71 14:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Outoftuneviolin is no longer active vandalizing, so sockpuppet categories for him is useless now. Delete. FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous discussion. - EurekaLott 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, old edits by these users^Msocks still need to be discredited. -- Petri Krohn 01:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete worthless information. The content of the edits are the discredit as was the reversion of them for vandalism as is the fact that the user is indefinitely blocked. The categories add no value (And not to mention that the pattern of usernames is so obvious anyway) --pgk 06:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist on WP:CFDU --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:DENY. 72.139.119.165 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous discussion. - jc37 21:49, 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern Ireland symbols to Category:Symbols of Northern Ireland

• Rename, Naming conventions "x of place" Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from speedy as 2 objections received.

• Category:Northern Ireland symbols to Category:Symbols of Northern Ireland Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not eligible for speedy. Doesn't match the format for other countries. Doesn't match the contents. Category needs to be cleaned up by reducing the contents in line with the national symbol categories for other countries.Choalbaton 10:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment actually it should be speedy renamed to: Category:National symbols of Northern Ireland, as per the convention of Category:National symbols by nation. - jc37 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Even stronger oppose This is not presently a "national symbols" category, as anyone who takes the trouble to look at the contents will quickly realise. It is a rogue category that needs something doing to it, but that something is not misnaming it. For the time being I have removed it from the national symbols category. Choalbaton 15:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, should this be moved and tagged for CfD? - jc37 16:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete. I would prefer an article explaining why they are symbols, and links from in-article rather than a cat. >Radiant< 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object to delete. This is clearly a very useful category (even more useful than the national symbols categories) as can be seen by the large number of members and sub-categories.

An article is a good idea; it would be complementary to the category. There is precedent at the Conflict Archive --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Do not listify. I can only assume that Radiant hasn't looked at the contents. Piccadilly 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Um. Category:National symbols of Northern Ireland would be controversial, since we're not entirely certain Northern Ireland is a nation. That said, the stuff here is already served by appropriate categories. If you ask me, someone is pushing a POV with this one, especially adding the Flag of Ireland to it. Hiding Talk 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:National symbols of Northern Ireland to match "National symbols of" standard (as I mentioned above). See also Home Nations. - jc37 21:49, 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blanked discussion pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, The point of blanking discussions is to avoid drawing attemption to them. As such, this category does the opposite. See also this edit Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 17:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, blanking hides the pages from well behaving search engines. We have no reason to hide these pages (or their histories) from Wikipedia editors. -- Petri Krohn 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, since Jimbo removed the category link from the template, this category is not going to be updated. Incidentally, well-behaving search engines do not access AfD pages per robots.txt. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 10:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tizio. We're not hiding these pages from editors per se but we have no reason to advertise them. >Radiant< 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Going by Jimmy's actions, I'm guessing he'd rather this went. Hiding Talk 21:39, 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reviewed protected edit requests ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This category has been removed from the template that populated it ({{editprotectedreview}}), and so is unlikely to ever contain any members again. It's a bad idea anyway (see Template talk:editprotectedreview). --ais523 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, too bureaucratic. >Radiant< 15:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hiding Talk 21:40, 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 --Kbdank71 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Near East Paganism to Category:Ancient Near Eastern religion

• Rename, per Category talk:Ancient Near East Paganism. dab (ᛏ) 12:15, 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 13:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misspelling of Category:Montreal Canadiens draft picks, to which I have already moved all the pages which were in this category. Skudrafan1 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Flibirigit 15:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CategoryRedirect 132.205.44.134 22:27, 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mass casualty atrocities"...?  Doesn't the word "massacre" describe an atrocity involving relatively large numbers of casualties...?  (This assuming the description "atrocity" already agreed to be (mostly) uncontroversial in each instance.)  See also this CfD.

• Merge with Category:Massacres as nom. David Kernow (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & delete. Name is too negatively phrased. >Radiant< 15:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge Category:Massacres into Category:Mass casualty atrocities per my comments in the "Massacres" CfD below. (Yes, this is the exact opposite of what's being proposed above.) The term "atrocity" has its own POV issues, but at least the phrase "mass casualty" will keep people from using it as a dumping ground for every school shooting they see on TV. --Aaron 23:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your concern, but "mass casualty atrocities" seems to be a neologism (WP:OR)...?  Perhaps what's needed is a minimum number of deaths for something to qualify for Category:Massacres...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  See also comment in following nomination. David (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is also a very interesting list of massacres, for comparison. - jc37 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - to Category:Massacres. Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Massacres per nom, and comments above. - jc37 21:49, 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Relisting here to adjoin discussion to the above. - jc37 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
As our article Massacre hopefully states, the use of the term "Massacre" is ambigious and problematic. This category groups together incidentds, which shouldn't be grouped together. It is no usefull aid for categorization or navigation.
Previous CfD (result: listify) [1].
Pjacobi 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These things should not be grouped in this way. Calsicol 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please suggest how they should be grouped. It is possible that a reorganisation will cause less disruption than deletion. It will involve more work, but if everyone voting here helps out, it won't take too long. Any volunteers? Carcharoth 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there's a similar category called Category:Mass casualty atrocities too. I feel Category:Massacres should be kept, and would vote to delete Category:Mass casualty atrocities. Massacre is a completely valid word, and the category is not being misused. - GilliamJF 07:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Massacre" is too emotive to be used as a category name. Choalbaton 11:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mass casualty atrocities"...?!  David Kernow (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All sub-cats follow the same naming convention. "Events of mass deaths" seems awkward to me. (as does David's suggestion above, sorry DK. Any other ideas? : ) - jc37 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've set up this CfD. Regards, David (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Massacre" is more accurately descriptive than "mass deaths." There are many non-massacre events of mass deaths. Wryspy 04:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the category just doesn't work. Neither the inquisition nor the Holocaust were massacres (as they were not individual acts of mass killing -- don't get me wrong, they were worse), and you find many more examples of bad tagging. Removing the cat entries don't work, they are repeatedly re-added, because massacre is such a vague term. --Pjacobi 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but suggest merging with Category:Massacres per here; adding a note conirming that by "massacre" is meant single events; and then removing articles such as The Holocaust and Inquisition. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. How about re-listing this one adjacent to that one on the CFD page, to reduce confusion? - jc37 15:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this and the other category. There's rather well maintained list for massacres. Pavel Vozenilek 22:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Barring a tighter-defined rename, Strong Delete. The fact that we can't think of a better name is beside the point. The problem is that the category is too ambiguous to have any meaning and thus is an [[WP:NPOV]|NPOV]] violation. As an example, please note that this category gives readers the implication that Kent State (number of dead: four) was an event equal in overall moral heinousness to The Holocaust (number of dead: ~6,000,000 - 8,000,000). (Or at least it's going to make that implication for a few more minutes; as soon as I'm done typing this I'm going to go pull the category from the Kent State article.) Something alone the lines of "Mass deaths" or "Mass casualty atrocities" may not roll off the tongue quite as well as "Massacres" does, but at least the phrase "Mass [anything]" would prevent people from adding the category to any unpleasant deadly incident they happen to find personally repugnant. In addition, the fact that the last CfD decision on this has been ignored for well over a year doesn't exactly make me want to give it the benefit of the doubt. --Aaron 22:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note below saying that this is a recreated category. You may wish to retract the 'fact' that the last CfD decision has been ignored for a year - it wasn't. Carcharoth 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Along the same lines, I have nominated Category:School massacres in the United States to be renamed Category:School shootings in the United States [2]. And I pulled Kent State from Category:Massacres. --Aaron 23:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced that misunderstanding/misuse of the category should necessarily mean its demise; I'd try adding one or more notes to its page (along the lines of that suggested above and in the now-preceeding nomination) to clarify its scope. As regards an overlooked/ignored CfD, please link...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted above, list of massacres would seem to be a relevant article to this discussion. - jc37 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mention this article as an alternative to a Category:Massacres...?  (Apologies if I'm misunderstanding...)  David (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, rather to show the applicability/appropriateness of the name, and the entries under the category. Since the list already exists, its data lends credulity to the category. - jc37 04:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood; thanks. David (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: or rename to Category:Mass Murders. The cat helps to point out articles about mass murders that can be monitored for NPOV RS etc. If they are not classified then too many of them will be edited by vandals and anon ips with sectarian biases and we will not be able to keep track of them easily.Hkelkar 13:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Its got quite a few subcats and articles. might I also know why I was not notified about this CfD as the creator?Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has been discussed elsewhere. It helps to read the talk pages of the categories and subcategories before nominating or voting. Please see the discussion at Category_talk:School_massacres. My main argument there was that ambiguous wording is sometimes unavoidable. For example, not everything under Category:Disasters really produces the emotional response expected from the word 'disaster', but the events overall form a spectrum. It is entirely reasonable to form a category covering a spectrum of events from a small-scale shooting to massacres involving millions of people. Also, it is reasonable for a category to group articles that have the word 'massacre' in their title. The arguments over use of the word masacre should then be directed at the talk pages of those articles. What is problematic is what to call a spectrum category. This does not, however, justify undoing the amount of work that has gone into organising the category structure. Excluding school massacres (didn't have time to count them) there are over 100 articles in this category. Please consider renaming, rather then removing these articles from the category structure (some may not have other categories). Carcharoth 11:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreated category. After reading the stuff above about a previous CfD discussion, I thought I would investigate further. Looking at the category logs, we see here that the category has been deleted three times before. This is not difficult to find out. There is something wrong when a debate progresses this far with no-one (me included) spotting this! Looking in the history, we see that the category was recreated on 14 August 2006. Given that many articles have the word massacre in their titles, this will be a continual problem, so just deleting is not sufficient. The normal situation is to blank and protect with a template visually redirecting people. But the problem here is where to redirect people to? I suggest that the category be allowed to stay, but the criteria made much stricter, with only those articles where the word massacre is used appropriately in the title being allowed to populate it. Carcharoth 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous debate probably lost - I have a vague memory of writing something similar to all this a year or so ago. It was probably at a version of Category talk:Massacres that got deleted. Can any admins look at the deleted versions and tell me if I am remembering correctly? I am currently arguing elsewhere that talk pages should be preserved, rather than deleted, if they contain relevant stuff like this, and I will be extremely annoyed if I have had to repeat myself because what I said previously was deleted. Hmm, actually, looking at the logs for that talk page, I see that there are no previous versions that were deleted. The discussion I remember, that took place with Pjacobi, was at Category talk:School massacres. Carcharoth 14:37, 9 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 keep --Kbdank71 13:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movie theatre chains in the United States to Category:Cinema chains in the United States and also Category:Movie theatre chains in Canada to Category:Cinema chains in Canada

• Rename, Apparently I forgot to list this. Consistency with Category:Cinema chains in the United Kingdom, etc. See also Category:Cinema_and_movie_theatre_chains. Lankiveil 04:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Local usage applies. Choalbaton 15:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, local usage applies to spelling in articles on local issues; for Wikiwide categorization, consistency is more important. I've added the Canada one. >Radiant< 15:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Radiant's comments bear no relation to actual practice, eg in Category:Transportation by country and while mistreating Americans may be fun, we should be sporting and show them the same cultural sensitivity as we do other countries. Hawkestone 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Also because "cinema" is picking up the semantic connotation of "art film" in some usages. And for references: Siskel and Ebert at the movies - not "at the cinema". And I'm sure we can come up with quite a few other shows, examples, etc. This sounds similar to the discussion about Monster movies... - jc37 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The current name appears to be the correct local usage name. Vegaswikian 05:30, 9 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 --Kbdank71 13:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - Category:Ground warfare Should be called "Land warfare". 70.51.202.251 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in line with main article land warfare. Hawkestone 09:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ACK - This is a result of Ground warfare being COPIED to Land warfare rather than moved/merged. See: [3]. I think this requires admin fixing. I also think that both names should be lised at AfD, and that result should determine this one. - jc37 21:49, 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railroad Forum ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, empty category (formerly contained a single article about *surprise* railroads). Overcategorization, etc. --- RockMFR 01:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hiding Talk 21:43, 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 13:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese Japanese people to Category:People of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent

• Rename, Easily mistaken for a nationality+heritage category for either Chinese immigrants in Japan (as in Category:Chinese Americans) or Japanese immigrants in China (as in Category:Thai Chinese). Also, Chinese Japanese is a disambiguation page; the use of this term for referring to people of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent qualifies as a neologism and isn't widely supported by citation (I can only find one printed example, Cushner et al's Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide, p140). The proposed name is clearer and avoids the ambiguity. cab 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: reading the proposed category name, one cannot tell if the people are of Chinese origin now living in Japan or if they are Japanese people now living in China. These are two separate groups of people and need two different, well-named categories. ThanksHmains 03:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there's some confusion here. The proposed category name is Category:People of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent, not Category:Chinese Japanese people. I don't see how "mixed Chinese and Japanese descent" might be confused to mean "Japanese immigrants in China" nor "Chinese immigrants in Japan". This category is neither about Chinese people in Japan nor Japanese people in China. It's for people of mixed descent, some of whom live in China, some of whom live in Japan, and some of whom live in third countries. Their unifying characteristic is their ethnic background (having both Japanese and Chinese ancestors), not their location of residence. This is similar to existing categories like Category:Eurasians. Making separate location categories for people of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent feels like overcategorization, especially since it's a fairly small category in the first place. cab 03:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Everyone is of mixed descent if you go back far enough and such categories are a waste of server space. Choalbaton 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify - This requires citations. - jc37 21:49, 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was empty when I found it. -- Beland 01:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless populated and name (thereby) clarified. David Kernow (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 15:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Flibirigit 17:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hiding Talk 21:44, 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 --Kbdank71 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move "Danish Functionalism" to Category:Linguistics or Category:Semantics and delete. -- Beland 01:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but change the "or" to "and" (someone more "in the know" can decide which is more appropriate). - jc37 21:49, 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main article was apparently previously deleted. Sole actual article, agent noun was moved to Category:Linguistic morphology, so it's now empty. -- Beland 01:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; category's {{main}} article is a redlink. David Kernow (talk) 08:58, 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crack Rock Steady 7 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not do categories – 132.205.93.148 00:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is only about one group of seven musicians. They don't seem notable enough to warrant their own category. 02:39, 2 October 2006 user:Spylab

• Keep - Is there a limit on how many categories Wikipedia (or its category-namespace) can handle? - No! All the articles in the category are related. If you think they are not notable, you should attack the individual articles. -- Petri Krohn 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If wanted, merge the information into an article. - jc37 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A legitimate category with numerous articles. No reason to delete. - Quirk 13:37, 9 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.