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 13:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golf records to Category:Golf records and rankings

• Rename, Two of the most useful articles in this category are Official World Golf Rankings (men) and Women's World Golf Rankings. They are not really about records, but they are about objective measures of performance, so it makes sense for the articles to be in the same place as the records. However that means that a more accurate title is needed. Golfcam 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 15:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 11:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:05, 18 August 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. the wub "?!" 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete, Redundant, role already filled by Category:Web applications, and appears to have just been created by a new user to Wikipedia who may not have been aware of the existing categories. All articles in Category:Webware have already been listed under Category:Web applications, and so there is no need to merge. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant jargon. --Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Carina22 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:05, 18 August 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. the wub "?!" 11:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academic Geography ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• This appears to be one user's idiosyncratic view of what geography scholars examine. Delete and do not merge, since most of the articles are already in other subcategories of Category:Geography. - EurekaLott 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 23:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, grouping doesn't make any sense. Gazpacho 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The category has been created as I am in the middle of trying to sort out the academic geography articles on wikipedia, that by the omissions of geographers on wikipedia are "crap". The category has thus been set up to have a list of topics (which at the momment is limited, and that I accept could give a view that the list is indosyncratic) that form the basis of academic geography (as opposed to the geographies of certain countries) and can be used to improve the at present derisory geography article. I would like you to bare in mind that wikipedia has a policy of being bold and that is what I am trying to do in relation to geography on wikipedia. AlexD 11:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nickieee 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wilchett 00:43, 14 August 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 13:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conservative organisations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, There is nothing in this category. It should be Conservative organisations in the UK or Conservative organisations in the US, which there already are. This category is of no use. C56C 22:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an umbrella category for subcategories, which is a very common use for categories. ReeseM 22:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Rename to Category:Conservative organizations. Intangible 22:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not rename as it is against policy to rename cateogories between versions of English unless they are specific to an English-speaking country and an incorrect spelling for that country is in use. Golfcam 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good to keep sub catergories together and inter-relate them and the articles in them Martinp23 14:18, 13 August 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. the wub "?!" 11:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian sporting events ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, As is openly stated on the talk page this is a deliberate recreation of a deleted category under a slightly different name in order to circumvent consensus. Other countries don't have such a category, and it isn't needed. Like several of the more prominent sporting nations Australia has a category called Category:Sports festivals hosted in Australia to accomodate articles on major one off festivals it has hosted, eg the Olympics and World Cups. Ohterwise the categories for individual sports are sufficient. ReeseM 22:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 23:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom Martinp23 14:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fork. Nickieee 23:38, 13 August 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 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia good articles on actors, models and celebrities to Category:Wikipedia good articles on entertainers

• Rename, this seems to be about entertainers, and entertainers aren't limited to actors and models. User:Arual 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This a subset of GA entertainers. It does not include musicians. "Actors, models and celebrities" are in the "Media" section of the GA page; "musicians and composers" are in the "Music" section. The GA cats are set up from templates and allow the categories to be easy subcats of multiple cats. Maurreen 19:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disregard. OK, I see. The musicians and composers will fall under Category:Wikipedia good articles on musicians. User:Arual 21:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Maurreen 21:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the person who originally requested this changed her mind after learning the background, could we close this early? Maurreen 08:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both current and proposed names. Split into separate categories for models and actors, and for any other specific type of celebrity required. Nathan Mercer 10:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is based on the GA category. The GA page has a section for "actors, models and celebrities". If you don't like the combination, the place to get it changed is on the GA page. Maurreen 08:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too wordy, and the inclusion of "Wikipedia" seems un-necessary.--Atlantima 16:08, 13 August 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 rename. the wub "?!" 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of rail transport by Country to Category:History of rail transport by country

• Rename, "Country" is not a proper noun. The main article, History of rail transport by country, does not capitalize "country". Slambo (Speak) 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy rename surely? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename ReeseM 22:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Martinp23 14:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Nickieee 23:38, 13 August 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, with lowercase R in routes --Kbdank71 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Albany County Routes to Category:Roads in Albany County, New York Category:County Routes in Albany County, New York
• Category:Broome County Roads to Category:Roads in Broome County, New York Category:County Routes in Broome County, New York
• Category:Dutchess County Routes to Category:Roads in Dutchess County, New York Category:County Routes in Dutchess County, New York
• Category:Niagara County Routes to Category:Roads in Niagara County, New York Category:County Routes in Niagara County, New York
• Category:Onondaga County Routes to Category:Roads in Onondaga County, New York Category:County Routes in Onondaga County, New York
• Rename, the title of these categories are too vague. What county in what state is in question here? By changing it to Roads in X County, New York County Routes in X County, New York, it is clear that articles in these categories are about roads in counties in New York. The new names are also in line with the new convention accepted at WP:NYCR. TMF ^{T - C} 17:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I will only support the rename if it retains the words "County Routes". Changing it to "roads" overbroadens it. --M@rēino 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problems with using "County Routes in X County, New York". I only used roads because of the mess going on at this poll. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "County Routes in X County, New York". --TMF ^{T - C} 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate rename to "County routes in X, New York". The term is not capitalized unless it's referring to a specific county route. The parent cat is Category:County routes in New York. --Usgnus
  • I assume you mean "County routes in X County, New York". --TMF ^{T - C} 19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually meant what I wrote, where X can equal Niagara County, etc. (I didn't know if there are any counties in New York that aren't called "Y County"). I should have been more clear. --Usgnus 19:30, 14 August 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 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A DRV consensus overturned the previous CfD on this category. The issue at stake is whether the category conforms to NPOV policy. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per NPOV: "the policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." In effectively all cases, to describe an individual as a psuedoscientist is an assertion affirming a specific POV. It is not neutral. In the case of individuals, particularly living individuals, we should be especially careful about making assertions that ignore significant minority POV's; the issue of whether an individual is pseudoscientist can be appropriately discussed in the body of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the same reason -- NPOV. Science is not a matter of opinion. It is based on certain rules. No one has to follow those rules, but those who don't and try to claim the same air of legitimacy that the scientific method confers are pseudoscientists. --M@rēino 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Christopher Parham Cloachland 18:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list is not a substitute for a category. Categories are a type of navigational tools like our search engine. Taking guidance from Arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber “Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information.” [1]. A reading of neutral point of view makes it clear pseudoscience categories are not eliminated under this policy. Rather, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience leads us to conclude that pseudoscience categories in general are an appropriate representation of the minority view point. A key policy for this Cfd review, biolgraphies of living person guides use to add a category if the categorization is relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content. Of course this should be determined before a person is placed in this category. Together these policies support keeping the category. FloNight ^talk 20:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could never trust this category, so I don't want more gullible readers to be exposed to it. ReeseM 22:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep informative and useful. Science doesn't rely on POV; either these people deal with science or not. I suspect that some of the creationists would like to see this go away. C56C 22:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not a creationist. Golfcam 23:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DRV discussion, FloNight and Mareino. Category is necessary per NPOV, and a list is not an adequate summary for a category. Guettarda 04:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DRV discussion, FloNight, Mareino, Guettarda. FeloniousMonk 05:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DRV discussion, FloNight, Mareino, Guettarda. •Jim62sch• 10:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misapplication of NPOV. Derogatory terms are not appropriate as category names. Honbicot 10:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If anyone knew the history of the attempts to delete the related category:pseudoscience, they would realise that it is not NPOV. In actualy fact not to mention it is a violation of WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. category:pseudoscientists is a category for supporters of pseudoscience, and a subcategory of category:pseudoscience, which is mostly for concepts. — Dunc|☺ 13:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DRV discussion, FloNight, Mareino, Guettarda; utter rejection of bizarre reasoning like ReeseM's. Cannot trust a category? To do what? Categories don't betray logic or write fluff on Cfd, people betray logic or write fluff on Cfd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per same reasons as the killer puppy. Note also that if psedoscientists are not categorized as such, it lets their articles become POV-forks which is unnacceptable. JoshuaZ 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons state above. JoshuaZ makes a good point on monitoring the articles. Nickieee 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Honbicot. Rkevins82 19:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since Category:Pseudoscience appears to be an accepted Wiki category, so having a category that is the equivalent of "People who study pseudoscience" makes sense. (Mind you, I'm not advocating the actual subjects. I just think the category makes sense as an organizational tool for articles.)Dugwiki 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in line with comments from Dunc, Dugwiki etc to something like Supporters of pseudoscience. That's a valid description based on Category:Pseudoscience, but -ist is a non-existent occupational name. Mereda 15:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is simply no way this category is NPOV. Categorizing people by beliefs (which can change) using derogatory terms applied to them by others (but not by themselves) is POV even if it is accurate in some cases. KleenupKrew 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Science is not a POV. Either these people are scientists or not. This is an important academic distinction. CaliEd 07:27, 19 August 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 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category: Air Rescue Service. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - per nom SatyrTN 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States Air Rescue Service or the like. David Kernow 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States Air Rescue Service ReeseM 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States Air Rescue Service, specifying the country is a good idea. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category only has one entry now. The second one was using a category entry instead of a link to the Air Rescue Service. If you voted before, consider changing your vote based on my change. The article I changed was Military Air Transport Service. Vegaswikian 00:18, 18 August 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:People over eight feet tall --Kbdank71 13:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People over eight feet tall or Category:Humans over 8 foot tall. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - per nom SatyrTN 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Rename per Sean Curtin, amended SatyrTN 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to speedy.
  Rename to Category:People over eight feet tall per below. David Kernow 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC), amended 06:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People over eight feet tall. 8 is less than 10 so should be spelled out - and the plural is feet. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • amended to "people" 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC), BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard
• Rename to Category:People over eight feet tall. Most categories for specific humans use the term "people" or "persons" instead of "humans". -Sean Curtin 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People over eight feet tall. Golfcam 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Sean Curtin –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 01:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Nickieee 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People over eight feet tall. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People over eight feet tall. Ian Cairns 09:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People over eight feet tall. Wimstead 11:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - needs renamed with the following issues addressed: Metric vs. Imperial measuring system; over vs. more than. - Davodd 18:27, 17 August 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 13:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Reed College alumni. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per nom SatyrTN 15:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom. David Kernow 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Sumahoy 20:51, 16 August 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. the wub "?!" 11:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celestial bodies by constellation sits empty and is not recently edited. I have not seen any "Category:Celestial bodies in <constellation>" (but haven't looked hard). If not used it might be deleted. -- Goldie (tell me) 11:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment related categories were deleted when it was determined that the constellation categories themselves would be good enough for categorization of celestial bodies within each constellation... but some cats remain around. Also, no one in the Wikiproject:Astronomy wants to go around and recategorize the constellation cats. I think this particular category is an orphan from when the Celestial Body and Astronomical Object heirarchies were merged. 132.205.93.83 01:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Cloachland 23:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:09, 18 August 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 20:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional legendary creatures to Category:Legendary creatures in fiction

Prompted by discussion here, suggest Category:Legendary creatures in fiction as less ambiguous. David Kernow 02:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 02:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. -AMK152 03:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — TKD::Talk 03:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bluap 05:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Seems unnecessary to me.--Mike Selinker 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Rename per nom. Read the discussion if you don't get it, folks. Simply put, calling things which are arguably already fictional by defintion "fictional" in the category title is redundant. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 17:42, 18 August 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 20:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the proposal above. David Kernow 03:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge all as nom. David Kernow 03:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Why switch to more awkward names? Honbicot 08:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity; these categories seem to be about creatures appearing in fiction rather than counterparts to "Real Xs" categories. Please see the proposals above and here. Regards, David Kernow 09:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC), rephrased 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The existing names are not tautologies. Wimstead 13:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies; have rephrased. Regards, David Kernow 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose They're all perfectly fine as they are. They do not suggest that trolls, ogres and vampires exist.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But "fictional" may mean "not real" as well as "of/in fiction"...?  Regards, David Kernow 16:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but there's the criteria qualifier on the category page specifies it better. "In fiction" really works better for stories rather than characters. E.g. I'd put Vampire (Buffyverse) in Category:Vampires in fiction but I'd have put Angel (Buffyverse) in Category:Fictional vampires (until I created the subcategory). :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mefears your distinction might be too subtle, at least for a general encyclopedia... Ironically, many of the qualifiers currently adorning the categories above didn't exist until I added them while constructing this proposal!  I'd say that if qualification may be inherent in categories' names, as I believe it would be using "Xs in fiction" here, then incorporate it in the names rather than rely on qualifying statements. Thanks for your input, David 16:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Honbicot. --M@rēino 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. That said, Category:Legendary creatures in fiction (or, at least, certain subcategories) would be useful. The distinction between the two would match the distinction between Category:Piracy in fiction and Category:Fictional pirates: former covers works of fiction that feature piracy as a prominent theme, while the latter covers specific fictional pirates or groups of pirates. Similarly, Category:Fictional vampires is for fictional vampires, groups of vampires, or types of vampires, whereas Category:Vampires in fiction covers works of fiction in which vampires feature prominently. -Sean Curtin 21:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Vampires in fiction would not be a good name for works of fiction with vampires... Category:Fiction containing vampires or Category:Vampire fiction would be more appropriate names. (etc, for other things along those lines) 132.205.93.83 01:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Bluap 05:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The distinction made by the nominator is a rather hair-splitting one, and the existing names are shorter and more natural. Nathan Mercer 10:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fictional" kobolds, for example, suggests to me that someone might think there are or were "real" kobolds, whereas I'd say "Kobolds in fiction" identifies kobolds appearing in works of fiction, regardless of whether or not they do or did exist. I feel this is more clarification than hair-splitting...?  Thanks, though, for your observation. Regards, David Kernow 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, equally one could interpret there are also Kobolds in Reality. :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as nom. Nickieee 23:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all useful clarification. Eluchil404 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all and sub-sub categories (such as Category:Oh My Goddess deities -> Category:Deities ins Oh My Goddess!). I do not believe "clarification" is the issue. It means the same thing either way. "Bla in Fiction" sounds better to me. --Cat out 12:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all. This seems unnecessary.--Mike Selinker 16:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all. I fail to see the need for switching from "fictional" to "in fiction". On the contrary, the "in fiction" phrasing sounds wordier and less intuitive for search purposes. Dugwiki 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I noticed that Category:Vampires in fiction and Category:Werewolves in fiction currently already exist. I'd suggest merging them into Category:Fictional vampires and Category:Fictional werewolves respectively.Dugwiki 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Despite the attempt that has been made to explain why this renaming has advantages, I don't see that there are any. Cloachland 23:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further rationale: Some folk believe some of these creatures actually exist or existed, i.e. are or were not "fictional". (Cf remarks re "fictional" kobolds above.)  David Kernow 09:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • re: above rationale - Let's assume for a moment that a non-negligable number of people believe Werewolves exist. Then that simply means you should have two categories: "Fictional werewolves" (ie werewolves that are clearly fictitious), and make that a subcategory of "Werewolves" (which would include both clearly fictional and purportedly actual werewolves). Thus there still wouldn't be a need to rename the category "Werewolves in fiction" versus calling it "Fictional werewovles". Just my opinion. As another example, some people probably believe Big Foot is an actual, real life yeti. So Big Foot would possibly be an article that would fall under the category "Yetis", but not under the category "Fictional Yetis". Compare that to the big foot Harry in the John Lithgow sitcom Harry and the Hendersons, which would fall under "Fictional Yetis". Dugwiki 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Can you clarify if these categories are for just the characters or for the item the characters were in as well? - LA @ 09:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The above question implies to me that the amended names would be more ambiguous. Carina22 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Intriguing. I guess I'm discovering that "fictional" may mean "of works of fiction" before "not real" for more folks than I imagined!  Thanks for all the input, David Kernow 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I appreciate the motivation, but the suggested names are needlessly words. As Lady Aleena, I'm also concerned that the new names are ambiguous about whether the categories are limited to articles about the creatures themselves, or if, for example, a book containing centaurs can be included. ×Meegs 07:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood; in lieu of another format, I guess I'd prefer what I see as the less significant ambiguity of "Xs in fiction" to that of "Fictional Xs". Alternatively, I suppose separate categories for creatures and fiction featuring them is a possibility, but perhaps overcategoriz/sation... Regards, David Kernow 08:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree, we don't need to categorize books containing centaurs in these or separate cats. ×Meegs 23:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, unnecessary move. -- nae'blis 17:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Rename per nom. Read the discussion which prompted this. It's linked above. Simply put, calling things which are arguably already fictional by defintion "fictional" in the category title is redundant. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 17:42, 18 August 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 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT rights organizations into Category:LGBT organizations

• Merge, I'm certain that even LGBT groups whose primary purpose is just social or to provide community services would say that a part of their function is to advance LGBT rights. If a separate category for wiki-notable but non-political organizations is desired, though, I would suggest making that one the sub-cat, since they are far fewer than the activist organizations.
  At the moment we seem to just have two lists of the same thing arbitrarily separated. Dybryd 02:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While there is certainly an amount of overlap, there's quite a big difference between the NY LGBT Film Festival or Frontrunners (an LGBT running group) versus GLAAD and Stonewall (UK). And while there's some question as to which category I'd put PFLAG, I think the two categories are necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SatyrTN (talk • contribs)

What do you say to sub-categories for things like the running club and film festival such as "LGBT sports organizations" and "LGBT arts organizations"? The category (of wiki-notable ones, anyway) is much much smaller than the activist category, so it seems to me that ought to be the sub-cat--and most recreational groups will often do fundraising or promotional work for LGBT causes anyway.

Dybryd 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Keep The groups listed are not all about rights. I suspect the runners and singers rarely even talk about LGBT rights - any more than a Black Gospel choir would talk about Civil rights. Furthermore, there aren't "fewer" in either list - there are over 80 in each -- far more than the eight pages listed in Category:Fictional_ogres in the above discussion. If anything, Category:LGBT organizations should be reviewed so each organization is in the best category for that group - but Rights should stay it's own subcategory. SatyrTN 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Merge Sorry, I've been unclear. The present two categories are indeed about the same size. But the great majority of entries in both categories are in fact gay-rights organizations. For example, ILGA is in "rights organizations" but its sub-groups ILGA-ANZAPI, ILGA-Africa, ILGA-Asia, and ILTGA-LAC are all in plain old "organizations."

Further, separating out groups with a political purpose would be complicated and arbitrary, given that many orgs are not primarily political but do have some activist projects (for example everything the Imperial Court does is a benefit). However, separating out sub-cats by interest, like sports and arts organizations, would be easy and uncontroversial.

Meanwhile there is already a sub-category, "Political Advocacy Groups in the USA," for true lobbyist groups like the Stonewall Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans.

Anyway, sorry to carry on. Dybryd 22:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge! I cannot see big difference as they are all about rights and none is pretending to be about anything else (lefts,obligations). The above referred GLAAD and PFLAG are again about rights while the film festival and the running group as are described seem to be barely related to LBGT to justify separate category. -- Goldie (tell me) 12:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. If there is a need to classify these in some manner, then sub categories can be created. The one keep vote agrees that there is overlap so any difference is not clear using these two caegories. Vegaswikian 19:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The latter is for LGBT groups that are specifically activist over LGBT issues; the former is not. Saying "all LGBT organizations are LGBT rights organizations" is like saying "all women's organizations are feminist organizations". -Sean Curtin 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I invite the "keep" folks to take a moment to actually look at the two categories and tell me the distinction being made makes any sense, or how they would move particular organizations so that it did make sense.Dybryd 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Groups fall into four main categories: LGBT Rights/Political, LGBT Service, LGBT Commercial and LGBT Social. Although there is some overlap in some instances, they are not interchangeable. - Davodd 03:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. The analogy with women/feminism is poor. Many women are proud to be women but are not feminists, but all those who publically identify themselves as LGBT are making some sort of rights statement and deliberately contrasting themselves with the rest of society. ReeseM 22:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a homophobic remark if I've ever heard one. A person can identify as LGBT and not align themselves with the ubiquitous "Gay Agenda". And deliberately contrasting themselves with the rest of society? That's like saying that if one publically identifies as a Redhead one is deliberately contrasting themselves with the rest of society. SatyrTN 02:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. As pointed out earlier, there are plenty of LGBT organizations whose primary function isn't directly concerned with LGBT rights. -Smahoney 22:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as categories grow, it is natural and more efficient to sub-divide. Not all LGBT organizations are political organizations. Davodd 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, they have stood the test of time, while other debates raged around the topic. --William Allen Simpson 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep both. Rights organisations and social organisations are quite different animals. It's hardly like either category is woefully underpopulated or that the presence of the two categories is somehow bad for the Wikipedia. I see no reason to merge or delete either. — OwenBlacker 10:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per OwenBlacker. The two deal with different issues of one subject. Nickieee 23:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per OwenBlacker and William Allen Simpson. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, they're two different animals and shouldn't be needlessly conflated. There's enough of that going around already... -- nae'blis 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are important tax and election law distinctions with regard to advocacy groups. Normal 501(c)3 NPOs (in the USA) cannot do political lobbying and writing off contributions is not allowed for political lobbying groups. It should be possible to determine if a group is a 501(c)3 or another type of NGO/NPO (or non-US equivalent). --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 18 August 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 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bum Wines ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, POV; Category:Fortified wine pretty much covers them anyway. —tregoweth (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV. David Kernow 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 08:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as polemic. --M@rēino 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. ReeseM 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV, and probably non-global point of view. (I presume that "Bum" does not equal "Bottom" in this context) Bluap 05:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nickieee 23:43, 13 August 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.