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

The result of the debate was Delete. WinHunter ^(talk) 10:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Pages with Wiktionary entries serves absolutely no purpose. It is a Wikipedia maintenance-style category not informative in terms of content. — Dunc|☺ 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Brammen 16:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is absurd. I am all in favor of useful categories, but this is ridiculous. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete isn't this like having an index in the OED? •Jim62sch• 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Especially since it could potentially include all articles - jc37 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: see template:wiktionarydis. Punkmorten 09:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fraser-Fort George Regional District, British Columbia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Regional districts of British Columbia is a mess. About half of its contents say Regional District of Foo, and the other half say Foo Regional District. According to this website the latter is actually correct, but I still would prefer that some Canadians decide what they want to do. I have no strong feelings either way, other than wanting them to be consistant. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic. If you want to keep it, please suggest a less awkward name. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A very awkward name that is not descriptive, with the use of anacronyms and poor abbreviation. -- Dcflyer 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under any name - not a defining characteristic. Merchbow 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above plus over-specific. David Kernow 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom, If you can think over a better title go ahead and rename it, and just what is ment by "over-specific"? grazon 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding signed comment was added by Grazon (talk • contribs) .
  • Well, consider if similar categories involving all major U.S. military operations were created; then for those in other potentially sensitive occupations such as ministers, peace activists, etc; then for countries and nations other than America... Yours, David 01:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - how does one define "family"? : ) Also, this may just exist as a propaganda tool for political debate (intending to show a politician as "biased" in some way to related issues). - jc37 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment biased? I have people in both parties listed.

Bias doesn't have to have anything to do with political party. (Not to mention that there are more than 2 parties : ) - jc37 20:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Listify and cite sources. --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Listify sounds ok. 04:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American Conference Pro Bowl players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Redundant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:National Conference Pro Bowl players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Redundant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hoysala Empire, to match the Hoysala Empire. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Turks and Caicos Islander people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge Pavel Vozenilek 20:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Turks and Caicos Islander people to Category:People from the Turks and Caicos Islands per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Residence then merge nominated category with it. Have tagged Category:Turks and Caicos Islander people. David Kernow 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a strange one, since it's not a nation. I agree that they should be merged to the same place, Category:People from the Turks and Caicos Islands, Category:Turks and Caicos Islanders, or one of the existing cats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:San Francisco Bay Area rappers as it better describes the geographic area these rappers hail from. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "Bay" is non-specific to the point of uselessness. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete, A new category that overlaps with this category. --Snarius 17:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's really a duplicate of the parent category Category:Emulation software, so delete. — sjorford++ 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Snarius. Pavel Vozenilek 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Unitarians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, this category is a hopeless mix of American Unitarians, members of the denomination; and Americans who can be quoted, more or less accurately, as opposed to the Trinity. (Some of the second class, like Abigail Adams or Thomas Jefferson, are anachronisms; some, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, who declined to join any denomination, and disliked Channing, are positive errors.) I don't think nationality is a particularly useful way to divide Category:Unitarians; but if so, it should be done right. Septentrionalis 16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there is a problem with the definition, fix it. Deletion doesn't address that issue. Merchbow 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Brammen 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, joke category. Apparently the Pshagananga built giant dodecahedrons to worship their gods. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; too vague for a category anyhow. David Kernow 02:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brammen 18:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Geograph project to Category:Geograph British Isles images Category:Images of the Geograph British Isles project

• Rename or delete, I clicked on this category wondering what it might possibly contain (and not in a hopeful disposition either) and the answer is "not a lot". It seems to be replicating a WikiProject category, but it's related to a project external to Wikipedia and has main space exposure. If the images need to be categorised, I say rename. If they don't we have a useless almost empty category and I say delete. kingboyk 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Based on other discussions here about categories containing images, the category name should start with the word "Images". Thryduulf 17:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per updated nom (and delete when images moved to Commons). David Kernow 03:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC), modified 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is called Geograph British Isles project, so it should be Category:Images of the Geograph British Isles project. I'll change the nom. --kingboyk 08:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have modified the above accordingly. Thanks, David 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:1111x births.
• Category:1111x deaths.

Delete, Unfortunately these do not qualify for {{db-catempty}}. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. --Cswrye 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. David Kernow 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Reverse Merge --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online games into Category:Internet games

• Merge, Stared at them for a while; can't see the difference. Marasmusine 07:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't either, but I'd suggest a reverse merge. I think online games is a more common usage than internet games.--Mike Selinker 16:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Category:Internet games into Category:Online games - Note that the main article for both categories is called Online game. So therefore it would make sense if the associated category is likewise called Category:Online games. Dugwiki 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge as per above - Jc37 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Internet Games was not tagged for the reverse merge, so I'm relisting this for seven more days. The original discussion is here. --Kbdank71 14:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge "Online games" is the standard term. Merchbow 21:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Merchbow and Dugwiki. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be blunt, this categeory is WP:POV and it's offensive because the term "polygamy" and "bigamy" are mostly used in a pejorative way here. In short it's a disaster waiting to happen. Please note that polygamy (as well as bigamy) is only a "sin" according to mainstream Christianity and hence to Western culture, the rest of the world has opposite views on this subject (even though most men marry only one wife, even when they may have more than one). This category's creators and users are assuming that every human on this planet shares the Western belief that polygamy is somehow negative. It's entries and sub-categories focus mainly on the Mormons' "failings" (as it's in the media spotlight now), and throws in a smattering of Biblical figures such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Esau as "polygamists" when in fact there is NOTHING in the Hebrew Bible that prohibits a man from marrying more than one wife. On the contrary, ancient Jewish law allows a man to marry more than one woman if he so desires and if he is able to care for them all. It was only in the early Middle Ages that Rabbi Gershom issued a ban against it which applied to Ashkenazi Jews only (since they lived in Christian lands). The category's name as it stands is thus simplistic and displays a gross mistunderstanding of other cultures' and religions' very real and ongoing tolerance for so-called "polygamy" over history until now. For example, Islam until the present time openly allows and encourages polygamy (where the man can support more than one spouse), and it would be foolish to suddenly find prominent Muslims (like all the Kings of Saudi Arabia -- the guardians of Islam's holiest shrines!) placed in a pejorative and demeaning "polygamy category" on Wikipedia. Over most of Africa polygamy is widespread and accepted, and who would want African polygamists (by country perhaps?) to land up in this poorly defined category? Thus it makes perfect sense that category be renamed as Category:Christian Polygamists which is really where this approach is coming from, and that all Biblical figures and non-Christians be removed and permanantly excluded from it. Thank you IZAK 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for above reasons. IZAK 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename polygamy is not unique to Mormons or Christians - I agree that the media spotlight makes this a more difficult issue; however, the category isn't People who practiced polygamy illegally but Category:Polygamists which is pretty easy to determine - did they have more than one spouse (and generally most only assign the term to those whose spouses were both living and married to one person at the same time. I would also favor straight Delete --Trödel 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the entire Category:Polygamy needs reorganisation, and that renaming just this one category isn't going to help much. I can see this name being controversial too. --kingboyk 15:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename - agree, it needs some cleaning up and subcategorizing, but I find it to be a very interesting collection of people! I'm the original creator of the category, and I really didn't have quite the villainous motive as proposed above. I was actually pretty suprised that the category didn't exist before I set it up. Renaming the category to "Christian Polygamists" won't do too much except create more chaos and fights, only this time they will all be religiously fueled. Also, the above argument about not wanting to call Islamic and African kings polygamists "polygamists": what do you propose we call them? To me, that kind of sounds like not wanting to put George Washington in the category of "People with dentures" category because someone might see it one day and be shocked and offended by hearing unusual facts about someone considered by many to be a great leader. We could subcategorize the category in to "Christian polygamists", "Mormom polygamists", "Atheist polygamists", "Islamic polygamists" and soforth, but that's some very sticky ground... Shamrox 17:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather than dividing the polygamists by religion, perhaps they should be divided by country? Categories such as American polygamists, British polygamists, and Saudi polygamists seem more appropriate than Christian polygamists and Muslim polygamists. After all, not all Muslims live in countries where polygamy is legal. --Metropolitan90 03:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the nomination is to rename Category:Polygamists to Category:Christian polygamists and I don't believe all polygamists are or have been Christians. Regards, David Kernow 03:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Rename 1. Many of the people in this cat are not christian 2. Who are the bona fide polygamist who are offended to be called a "polygamist?" Dr U 06:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename Osama bin Laden is a polygamist, and he could be put into this category because he has more than one wife. Jesse Viviano 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on the grounds that many polygamists are not Christians. However, no objection to creating subcats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not all polygamists are Christians. However, I think that this category could legitimately be split into subcategories. --Cswrye 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nom and all subcats (including the religious org ones). We don't have category:Monogomists, and it puts forth the idea that more than one spouse makes one "different" than the mainstream, which is not true in many cultures (as noted above). In any case, "Christian" does not describe all who are categorized. This really looks like a cat that is mostly making a statement about religion, rather than culture. - jc37 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As birth ratios of males to females are close to 1:1, polygamy is not the norm in ANY culture. There aren't enough women to go around, and polyandry is exceedingly rare. Dr U 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Polygamy is an interesting classification: it's verifiable, it's not necessarily pejorative, and it's cross-cultural. We don't have a category:Monogomists for the same reason we don't have a category:Nobel prize non-winners. One issue is there will be debate about the edges: was Henry VIII a polygamist; under the Pope's ruling he had no divorce from wife 1 when he wed wife 2, but then he started the whole C-of-E and may have just skirted the whole polygamy thing, but these finer points of law and religion will be somebody's interest. Carlossuarez46 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Okay, so can we take this category off the "Categories for deletion" page, since no one has commented on this in four days, and we have a "Keep" majority? Shamrox 09:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International Anti-Apartheid activists to Category:Non-South African anti-Apartheid activists

• Rename, to remove incorrect capital and improve clarity. Hawkestone 10:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Combining the categories gives only 67 entries. Or, make a South African category and have that as a subcategory. "Non-South African..." is just too unwieldy to me. --kingboyk 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The category is presumably intended to slot under Category:International opposition to Apartheid, which is in turn paired with the somewhat ambiguous Category:Opposition to Apartheid in South Africa. -choster 19:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The distinction between South African and non-South African opponents of Apartheid seems fundamental and interesting to me. Merchbow 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restructure per kingboyk as "Non-South African anti-apartheid activists" is a little strained...  Regards, David Kernow 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I see no strain as "non-South African" is very easy to understand. Brammen 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though "non-South African anti-apartheid activists" tries to combine a double negative in a double adjectival...?  Not convinced that most folk consulting the encyclopedia (more than editing, debating CfDs or the like) might appreciate the construction... Regards, David Kernow 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grammar pedants are a small minority. Noisy, but small. Anyway, you haven't said it is a grammatical error, and frankly if it is the rule sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casper Claiborne (talk • contribs)
      • I guess the above does appear to be grammar pedantry, which isn't my aim; apologies. Here's a more straightforward way to express my concern: "Non-South African anti-apartheid activists" is an uncommon and cumbersome kind of name, especially for a general encyclopedia. Hope that helps, David 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Casper Claiborne 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as CSD C1 --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Anglican religious to Category:Members of Anglican religious orders[reply]

• Rename The function of these categories was not immediately clear to me and as there are two of them change is necessary in any case. The proposal matches Anglican religious orders and Category:Members of Christian religious orders. Hawkestone 10:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Hawkestone. David Kernow 03:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Brammen 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South African physicians to Category:South African doctors

• Rename, in line with Commonwealth English usage and the parallel categories for other Commonwealth countries. In Commonwealth English only certain specialists are qualified as physicians so this category name is incorrect. Hawkestone 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Merchbow 21:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. But perhaps all the categories should be renamed to "medical doctors" as has been suggested before. Golfcam 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:South African medical doctors. PhDs and DDSs don't seem to be the focus : ) - jc37 17:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Adding "medical" in only this one case is not sensible. Brammen 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Spitting Image songs --Kbdank71 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chris Barrie songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This category is far too narrow. Chris Barrie is not well known for singing, there is one single song that lies in this category, and it would be better off elsewhere. RMS Oceanic 08:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to special treatment of Category:Songs by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent. Anyway, he's not dead yet - there's time for it to grow :) --kingboyk 15:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not really a Chris Barrie song though, is it - it was almost certainly credited to "Spitting Image", with Barrie's name hidden away in the credits. Suggest a rename to Category:Spitting Image songs, where it can reside with The Chicken Song. — sjorford++ 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with that. I wasn't sure when I created the category whether it was a solo project or a group project. Let's move it.--Mike Selinker 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I see. I hadn't actually checked which song it was :) The Chicken Song (aaargh!) was definitely Spitting Image, so I support that. --kingboyk 08:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Namibian biography into Category:Namibian people[reply]

• Merge, Another confusing category. I will clean it up if I have time after I've finished the one below. Hawkestone 08:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Merchbow 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Brammen 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian biography to Category:Books of Christian biography

• Rename, This category needs a much clearer title as people are adding random Christians to it as they not surprisingly confuse it with Category:Christian people. I will tidy up the contents. Hawkestone 08:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It only contains literary articles just now. Merchbow 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Anthologies of Christian biographies...?  (I reckon "biography" should be plural...?)  David Kernow 03:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC), converted to suggestion 01:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Why restrict to anthologies? Brammen 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anthologies" seems to describe the nature of the category's contents; apologies if mistaken. I considered "Collections", but thought this less likely to imply books. Regards, David Kernow 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't describe the contents of the subcategory and I see no benefit in imposing an encumbering restriction. Brammen 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the time being, have downgraded my "vote" to a suggestion as I agree that Category:Books of Christian biography is an improvement on Category:Christian biography. Hope that's okay. Yours, David 01:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Streets and squares in Winnipeg --Kbdank71 14:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Winnipeg streets into Category:Roads in Winnipeg

• Merge, Redundant categories, "Roads in Winnipeg" adheres to naming conventions. Caknuck 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No it doesn't. Rename both to Category:Streets and squares in Winnipeg as per the convention for cities without squares in Category:Streets and squares by city. Hawkestone 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per convention for cities per Hawkestone. Road is more appropriate for national/regional categories as at that level the focus is mainly on the transport function, but for cities the facilities in the artery are more significant so "street" sounds better, as in "city streets". Merchbow 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Category:Streets and squares in Winnipeg Brammen 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete all as CSD C1 --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Contemporary instrumental keyboardists
• Category:Contemporary instrumental composers
• Category:Contemporary instrumental pianists

Delete all four. Created by user:Cricket0825 and each one only populated by Bradley Joseph (almost certainly a vanity article). Could Bradley please explain what the difference is between a pianist and "instrumental pianist". -- RHaworth 03:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost any time a category uses the word 'contemporary' it is not encyclopedic. Bejnar 04:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket0825 05:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, not sure I should post here, but please note, "contemporary instrumental" is a valid GENRE of music of which I was trying to categorize bradley joseph into, (of whom I am not by the way - never met or spoke to the man - just trying to write an informative article about him with as many verifiable citations as I could find). And just because "it is only populated by Bradley Joseph does not mean I am trying to make him stand out - all genres were populated by only "one" at one time or another, agreed? I am hoping this genre fills up. Please reconsider this genre. It is not "new age" or "electronic" or anything like that. It is music that is orchestrated for many instruments - but not "classical". Cricket0825 05:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports festivals in the Philippines to Category:Sports festivals hosted in the Philippines

Category:Sports festivals in the Philippines ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename, I've just created this category and I realized I forgot to add "hosted". Speedy is possible. --Howard the Duck 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 10:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Malacoda albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Empty category from non-notable deleted band and singular non-notable deleted album. — Wwagner 02:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--Mike Selinker 03:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was cat redirect per nom --Kbdank71 14:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:New Zealand people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't this a reverse merge/redirect...?  David Kernow 01:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:People by nationality has a somewhat non-standard naming convention. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it hasn't. They should all be "Fooian people" except where there is no generally agreed adjective. Category:New Zealand people is correct, so Category:People from New Zealand should be merged Hawkestone 09:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we delete it without leaving a redirect, we'll just have to delete it again in month or two. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to my reading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Residence, "People of Foo" is the convention...?
      • New Zealand is a country, not a residence. There is no ambiguity or doubt here. Category:New Zealand people is correct, end of. Brammen 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe it's possible to say "I reside in New Zealand" (as a formal version of "I live in New Zealand")...?  David 02:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes - but entirely irrelevant as Wikipedia has different conventions for nations and for other places. Either we treat New Zealand on the same basis as the United States, or we downgrade the United States to the same status as a city as well. Picking on a small country is not acceptable. Brammen 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apologies if it appears I'm picking on a small country or perhaps looking to downgrade something. Meanwhile, I don't think I understand the distinction between saying "I reside (live in) in New Zealand" and "I reside (live in) the United States" (or any other country). Apologies again if I'm (still) missing something obvious, David 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:New Zealanders and merge Category:New Zealand people with it, otherwise keep. Have tagged Category:New Zealand people. I guess it follows that the subcategories there using "New Zealand" as if it were an adjective will need nomination, but will await the outcome here.
  Reverse merge per above. Regards, David Kernow 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC), updated 03:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "New Zealand" is the adjectival form of New Zealand. New Zealand people are called New Zealanders in the same (grammatically speaking) way as Scottish people are called Scots. If the standard way of writing bopgraphical categories is such that "Scottish people" is correct, then the correct category for New Zealand people would be "New Zealand people". Grutness...wha? 23:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (a New Zealander living in a New Zealand city)[reply]
    • • Comment - I'm not really sure that I agree regarding your differentiation between the meaning and usage of the words "Scottish" and "Scots". As far as I am aware they are actually synonyms. "Scottish" is more Standard English, whereas "Scots" is the correct Scots language version, although is also common in Scottish Standard English (eg. look at The Scotsman or The Herald: they are full of references to "Scots MPs" etc., as a more journalistic version of "Scottish MPs"). They both derive from the old spelling "Scottis". --Mais oui! 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have been reminded that "People of Foo" is the convention; see above. Regards, David 03:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom "New Zealander" is deprecated, as has been mentioned here before and even if it wasn't Category:New Zealanders would be a breach of convention. Merchbow 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convention per my reading above indicates "People of Foo"...?  Regards, David 03:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • New Zealand is a country, not a residence. There is no ambiguity or doubt here. Category:New Zealand people is correct, end of. Brammen 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. - EurekaLott 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Brammen 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What do folk make of the demonyms at List of adjectival forms of place names...?  Suggests to me that people from / born in / native to / with a nationality associated with / etc New Zealand are "People from New Zealand" if not "New Zealanders"... "New Zealand people" might be people who like New Zealand ("Oh, she's a New Zealand person...")...?  Regards, David Kernow 02:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's never used that way here in New Zealand. "New Zealand people" is an exact synonym for "New Zealanders", as List of adjectival forms of place names indicates. If you were to say to anyone here "Oh, she's a New Zealand person", the response would be "Whereabouts in New Zealand is she from?" Grutness...wha? 19:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, then, "People from New Zealand" (i.e. "People from X") is a solution, as (hopefully!) it favo/urs no particular region/culture/etc...?  Thanks for your info, David 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. I am really baffled by David's sustained refusal to accept that he is simply in error. Casper Claiborne 12:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if my queries suggest I am refusing to accept I am in error; I'd just like to understand why this area of categoriz/sation isn't simpler. Regards, David 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was moved to Akhbar Al-Adab Newspaper --Kbdank71 14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, premature ... there aren't any articles for it yet. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to article space; this is a stub in the wrong place. Septentrionalis 20:14, 7 September 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.