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 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States class aircraft carriers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• This is a single ship class. Single ship classes are handled at Category:unique aircraft carriers 132.205.45.148 23:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request. What does Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships say? --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for input from WikiProject Ships per Dhartung above. David Kernow 03:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from Wikiproject ships: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Update on category fixing single instance ship categories are deleted in favor of the unique ship category. 70.51.8.235 05:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I am from WP:SHIPS); this is not a unique ship, but rather a member of a five-ship class, all of which were cancelled. Putting it under "unique aircraft carriers" is inappropriate. See Category:Montana class battleships for another example of a five-ship class where all ships were cancelled. Eventually a class article should and will be written, but at the moment we only have on article. TomTheHand 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per TomTheHand above. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:20, 7 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 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Airports in Canary Islands to Category:Airports in the Canary Islands
• Category:Buildings and structures in Canary Islands to Category:Buildings and structures in the Canary Islands
• Category:Sport in Canary Islands to Category:Sport in the Canary Islands
• Category:Islands of Canary Islands to Category:Islands of the Canary Islands
• Category:Political parties in Canary Islands to Category:Political parties in the Canary Islands

• Rename, prefix Canary Islands with "the". Tim! 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (Speedy) rename all per nom. (However, does anyone else find "Political parties in [a country]" rather than "Political parties of [a country]" a little odd...?)  David Kernow 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC), +query 03:18, 6 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, by overwhelming consensus. El_C 09:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Allegedly anti-Semitic people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, POV magnet, like Category:Anti-Arab people, but with extra "allegedly" POV. What counts as a credible allegation? —Ashley Y 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is a way to separate the usage of Category:Anti-Semitic people from being used to apply to people who have been so alleged. Important distinction. -Ste|vertigo 10:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per Ashley Y. --BrownHairedGirl 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete altough at times such allegations may be discussed in the article, I fail to see why this should form the base for a category. As the nom implies in his question, it is just too fuzzy. gidonb 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Ashley Y -- weasel words tend to attract POV. --Gutza ^T 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete ridiculous! I would like to the A-S people cat deleted as well. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per the attempt to rename Category:Anti-Semitic people previously: if weasel words in articles are bad, they are much worse when applied to category names. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete For the love of God delete! It's Ludicrous! as is Anti-Semitic people, Anti-Arab people etc! who made us judge and jury??!? or instead delete that POV rule! --Yas121 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, in general agreement with the reasons given above. - Jmabel | Talk 22:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quite rediculous for an encyclopedia. Kaldari 22:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category cannot be, by definition, neutral; it is exposing one of the POVs only. Unlike Category:Anti-Semitic people, I don't think this deserves a place. This is one of the things that semantici Wikipedia might do for us in the future, but it ain't as if we can't live without it. Taragüí @ 08:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Heptor _talk 09:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, So many people fall under this category. Oftentimes there is controversy, speculation, and/or conspiracy behind their anti-Semitic actions, words, affiliations, etc. Louis Farrakhan, for example. As well as many, many others. Shamir1 03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper Taragui.--Mantanmoreland 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with prejudice. Utterly ludicrous. Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The closest I'd recommend venturing to this category would be one set aside for "Self-Proclaimed Anti-Semitic People". Otherwise this cat becomes a weapon.--Beware of Cow 17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Inherently subjective category LaszloWalrus 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, POV pushing Matthew Fenton (contribs) 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This could be a useful category for future reference. Allegedly, these people are against Israel and it's presence in the world. If they have done things considered hateful that was news worthy, let this be the category to classify such individuals (as alleged of course). Could prove useful in future articles on middle-east conflicts. JungleCat talk/contrib 05:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. I know you had good intentions with this, Stivertigo, but it just doesn't work. "Allegedly anti-Semitic"? Sorry, but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic. I suggest if people have been accused to just detail it in their bios, but we don't need a separate cat. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Avi 05:54, 7 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 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users involved with WikiProject Tropical cyclones to Category:WikiProject Tropical cyclones participants

• Rename. kingboyk 17:46, 4 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 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding [abbreviations] as usual. --Mereda 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Jerry Browne per nom. - EurekaLott 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:08, 4 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 17:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Authors of Featured Articles to Category:Wikipedian authors of featured articles
• Category:Authors of Featured Lists to Category:Wikipedian authors of featured lists
• Category:Authors of Featured Portals to Category:Wikipedian authors of featured portals
• Category:Wikipedian autobiography to Category:Wikipedian autobiographies
• Category:Authors of Deleted Articles to Category:Wikipedian authors of deleted articles
• Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia users to Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedians
• Category:Known Vandals to Category:Known Wikipedian vandals
• Category:Wikipedia tipsters to Category:Wikipedian tipsters
• Category:User edits to Category:Wikipedians by number of edits
• Category:Wikipedia user intervention to Category:Wikipedians who required user interventions
• Category:Users not currently active to Category:Wikipedians who are not currently active
• Category:Users partially active to Category:Wikipedians who are partially active
• Category:Wikipedia Donors to Category:Wikipedian donors to Wikipedia
• Category:Wikipedians in need of a better Userpage to Category:Wikipedians requesting help improving their user pages
• Rename all - Note that some of these categories may serve administrative purposes that I don't know about. If so, please point those out. --Cswrye 15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename only those that don't start Wikipedia or Wikipedian The others are probably fine at the moment, but we should try to separate category pseudonamespaces. --ais523 15:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure why you don't think that the ones that start with "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedian" should be renamed. If anything, the new names will place them in the correct pseudonamespace. --Cswrye 16:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all except delete "User edits". They all seem to be administratively useful names. The user edits one seems to be the sole survivor of the CfD that killed all users-by-number-of-edits categories.--Mike Selinker 20:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Authors of Featured Articles and Category:Wikipedian authors of featured articles are both incorrect names for this category. Featured Articles do not have authors. I nominated an article for featured status. I was not its author. I wrote a few sections, and edited it to bring it to featured status. Even if I had been the only contributor, once an article reaches featured status it still changes. This is a wiki. We don't take credit for authoring articles. I would'nt mind this being renamed to Category:Wikipedians who contributed to featured articles or something similar. Otherwise it should be deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a discussion that belongs elsewhere, maybe on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles. Samuel has a good point, and I think I agree with him, but people who are concerned with category management shouldn't be making this decision for people concerned with featured articles.--Mike Selinker 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Wikipedia user intervention. This cat is for more than past tense usage, changing to Wikipedian is fine, but adding the "who required" makes it a past tense action. This category is also used for current and future user intervention. Either way is fine, just commenting, as I won't be around to argue the point :) «»Who?¿?^meta 07:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Category:Wikipedians requiring user intervention?--Mike Selinker 14:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about that too, but that name seems to imply the need for action (that is, the people in this category need intervention, but that has not been done yet). I'm not sure if either name conveys the true meaning correctly, so other suggestions are welcome. --Cswrye 13:56, 9 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 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:User pg to Category:Anonymous Wikipedians
• Category:User pg-0 to Category:Anonymous Wikipedians
• Rename - These two categories appear to be identical. The new name better reflects what the categories are. --Cswrye 14:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd prefer to rename to Category:Static IP Wikipedians, since if you think about it, the IP editors are the least anonymous of us -- they're the only ones for whom we have hard evidence about their meatspace location. --M@rēino 17:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Personally, I prefer "Anonymous Wikipedians" because that's what they tend to be called in practice, but I don't have a problem with "Static IP Wikipedians". --Cswrye 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do. Anonymous describes how they post, not whether we can find them afterward. Rename as nominated.--Mike Selinker 20:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "Static" would be really true for all of them, what about "Established IP users" or something like that? 68.39.174.238 17:03, 5 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 reverse merge Category:Cognitive intelligence into Category:Intelligence --Kbdank71 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This previously had military intelligence mixed in. I moved those things out, and now it seems to be redundant with Category:Cognitive intelligence, into which I think it should be merged to avoid future ambiguity. -- Beland 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Category:Intelligence is easy to find, while :Cognitive Intelligence is not, and it also seems redundant. Suggest the reverse of this merge proposal, with a disambig note left in the :Intelligence category pointing to :Military Intelligence. Outriggr 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Category:Cognitive intelligence into Category:Intelligence and leave a {{for|military intelligence|:Category:Military intelligence}}, per Outriggr. David Kernow 18:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per David Kernow. It's the best answer for now. And give a similar pointer {{for|emotional intelligence|:Category:Popular psychology}} to help readers find their way around science and contested fringe topics. --Mereda 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge I have expanded the category--Tstrobaugh 17:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DABIFY this category, with links to Cognitive Intelligence and Espionage. And protect this category so that nothing can be categorized in it. 132.205.45.148 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge Category:Cognitive intelligence into Category:Intelligence --Ancheta Wis 07:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There is more to this problem. First Category:Cognitive intelligence has Artificial Intelligence items in it. Second there are Category:Artificial_intelligence and Category:Cognition that have many overlaps. There may be more that I don't know of. I think the top level category should be Category:Intelligence with some subcategories under it. I don't think AI should be mixed with HI at all. That is a possible goal in a thousand years or so but it's science fiction now.--Tstrobaugh 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge After discussion, Intelligence (trait) was considered the primary usage and moved to Intelligence with a disambig at the top. Artificial intelligence is properly, as it is now, a subcat within intelligence. Intelligence is properly, as it is now, a subcat within cognitition. --Nectar 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Category:Cognitive intelligence was not tagged for the reverse merge, so I'm relisting this for another 7 days. Original discussion here. --Kbdank71 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge, with disambiguation links to Category:Espionage, Category:Military intelligence and Category:Cognition. -Sean Curtin 21:39, 5 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 17:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Traditionalist Catholics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• A category with two people, one group and one general article; there are also three subcats. I think the subcats should be moved ot a more generic category. Notable traditionalist (i.e. Vatican II-dissenting) Catholics are few and far between; also, recent debate surrounding the article on traditional Catholic indicates some disagreement as to what a traditionalist Catholic is. Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; this is the top-level category, the sub-sub-cats (Category:Living Traditionalist Catholic Bishops and Category:Deceased Traditionalist Catholic Bishops) are rather populous. Since "traditionalist" is very disputed, though, I would support a rename of this and the Bishop sub-cat and sub-sub-cats to Category:Anti-Second Vatican Council Catholic Bishops, Category:Deceased Anti-Second Vatican Council Catholic Bishops, Category:Living Anti-Second Vatican Council Catholic Bishops, and Category:Anti-Second Vatican Council Catholics. --M@rēino 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. QuizQuick 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least for now. I see no harm from this classification even if there is a dispute about about what to call it. Maybe when the larger 'who is a Catholic issue' is resolved we can revisit this. Vegaswikian 22:53, 8 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 Foo from Luxembourg --Kbdank71 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Luxembourg artists to Category:Luxembourgian artists
Category:Luxembourg politicians to Category:Luxembourgian politicians
Category:Luxembourg painters to Category:Luxembourgian painters
Category:Luxembourg art to Category:Luxembourgian art
Category:Luxembourg football clubs to Category:Luxembourgian football clubs

• Rename, All of the above take the adjectival form for other countries. The adjective for Luxembourg is 'Luxembourgian'; see Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and others. With the launch of WikiProject Luxembourg (which is currently a two-bit operation), this ought to be standardised. Bastin 10:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are actually several competing adjectives for Luxembourg, so this is not the straightforward matter you present it as, but I don't want to get any further involved. Chicheley 13:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all as Luxembourgian is ghastly: Luxembourgeois or Luxemburger or Letzeburgish for me. Given the variety, sticking with Luxembourg seems less trouble. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename occupations to "X from Luxembourg" as below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all We just finished getting rid of the likes of Liverpulians in favor of Category:People from Liverpool. See, for example, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 24#Canadian city demonyms. Let us not go down that -ian path again. If we need to rename then Category:Painters from Luxembourg, etc. Bejnar 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename occupations to "X from Luxembourg" per above. According to List of adjectival forms of place names, "Luxembourg" is the country's adjectival form, so retain the current art and football club categories' names...?
  Abstaining per Bastin below. David Kernow 00:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC), updated 03:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm all in favour of adopting the standard of 'People from Foo', but that isn't the standard currently adopted, and I don't think that anyone is seriously proposing that it be adopted in the near future. Currently, the categories for people by nationality use the adjectival form, and to create an exception for Luxembourg seems a tad off; cities are one thing, but countries are something else.

Furthermore, that list is simply wrong; 'Luxembourgian' is the standard in both British and American English. The only dictionary that I have found that gives 'Luxembourg' as an adjective also gives 'Luxembourgian': Cambridge bilingual. Furthermore, having read extensively on Luxembourg, I can't say that I've found one book or source that consistently uses 'Luxembourg' (some consistently use 'Luxembourgian', some 'Luxembourgish', but never 'Luxembourg'). The CIA has a lot to answer for. Bastin 12:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

People from Finland make a sharp distinction between "Finnish" (pertaining to the Finnish language) and "from Finland" (the country). The 6% Swedish-speaking minority in Finland refuse to call themselves Finnish. Extrapolating from this, "from COUNTRY" is the less problematic pattern. --LA2 12:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it would be. However, 'Luxembourgian' is not a language; the analogy explains only why 'Luxembourgish' should not be used as the national adjective. Bastin 12:58, 5 August 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 delete --Kbdank71 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete, it's too ambiguous to be a redirect (look at Central). RobertG ♬ talk 10:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:19, 4 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 17:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glasgow Subway tube stations to Category:Glasgow Subway stations

• Rename, "Subway tube station" would be like saying "subway subway" station. You wouldn't say "London Underground tube station". Besides, the term "tube" isn't used in Glasgow. RFBailey 09:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 13:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. the wub "?!" 09:57, 6 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 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ABC 5 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Associated Broadcasting Company ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge Category:ABC 5 to Category:Associated Broadcasting Company. The Associated Broadcasting Company is still formally known by its complete name (unlike KFC). I mistakenly created Category:Associated Broadcasting Company when I was submitting this request. --Howard the Duck 07:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A notice of this discussion has been added to the Filipino Wikipedians notice board. --Howard the Duck 07:57, 4 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 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bird Pokémon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Can't ever have any but two entries, neither of which is definitively a Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: This cat has been emptied by a merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 5 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 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Amalgam Comics supervillain teams ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Amalgam was a short lived comic imprint. There doesn't need to be a category for it's teams. RobJ1981 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Viridae^Talk 04:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This parallels category:Amalgam Comics superhero teams nicely. Given its special place between DC and Marvel, both of which have a similar subcategory, this seems harmless.--Mike Selinker 05:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Above. Also, For such a short lived imprint, it had a surprisingly large stable of teams, because of the way each one shot was written as though it were in the middle of an already established series. -That's why I did your work 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A cat with two entries that won't ever have any but two entries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Amalgam Comics entries are being expanded constantly and I'm sure that in the future this category will house more than two entries. -Meweight 03:26, 8 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 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages containing IPA ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• This category is metadata and should not be present in the article space without a compelling reason, and I can come up with none. There was a previous CFD in 2004 which kept the category, however I think a second look is worthwhile. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the same category being populated with talk pages, but even that seems like a waste of time. As it stands it should be deleted. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is similar to Category:Templates using ParserFunctions. It may come in useful some day if for some reason some change needs to be made automatically to all IPA-using pages (for instance, if the official IPA standard changes and all the pages need to be updated accordingly, although this is quite unlikely), and it isn't doing any harm. --ais523 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It has a substantial difference from the template you mention, in that it appears as part of the encyclopedic content. It disrupts the encyclopedic purpose of the category section, which is to "[list] all the categories to which the topic of the page belongs." (from WP:CAT) To achieve a professional, reliable appearance we should strive where possible to present a complete, clean encyclopedia article; this goal is disrupted to whatever extent our maintenance processes intrude onto the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, it appears that there is {{IPA}}; without knowing much about it, I would think that the "what links here" of that template could be used in the contingency you describe. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on that, conditional delete, conditional on an alternative being provided (like the IPA template). --ais523 12:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, self-referential and potentially limitless - ideally all articles will contain IPA. Just zis Guy you know? 19:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please no! It is useless to most people, and achieves nothing other than to make us feel ignorant. ReeseM 01:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self-referential and untidy. ReeseM 01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or provide alternative, I've been going through this category last month or so from A toward Z seeing if I can edit any of the pages that contain IPA (I'm on W right now) and in the process found several pages worth my improvement and monitoring. If there's another way of going through such pages in a similar way, then the category is redundant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeusoes1 (talk • contribs) .
  • There are many alternatives, including the template's "what links here," or using a bot to move the category to the talk page (where many other meta-categories reside). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Aeusoes, I think that the list at Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:Infobox Language/IPA notice mentioned above should provide what you need. - EurekaLott 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this useless category before it grows. Osomec 14:17, 10 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; empty --Kbdank71 17:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Surname pairs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, arbitrary and totally useless. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. David Kernow 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CrazyRussian. Viridae^Talk 04:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - I created this category mostly for fun. I don't think it's entirely useless, but I have no strong argument for keeping it either. To "listify" would be ok with me. I thought lists were something that belonged to Wikipedia's early days, and that they had been replaced with categories and WikiProjects. Are there any policies for how to create and name lists? Should I just go on to create list of surname pairs? --LA2 09:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify Lists haven't been abandoned; for instance, see Wikipedia:Featured lists! I'm not entirely sure the list would survive AfD (WP:NOT indiscriminate), but it would probably survive if something encyclopaedic was written along with it about surname pairs. --ais523 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Don'tlistify, another fine pair :-) Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CrazyRussian. See Wikipedia:Categories vs. lists, LA2, but in this case I think that WP:NOT applies. What use does this serve, apart from amusement? --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, the category is now emptied and can be removed. No list was created to replace it. It's gone. --LA2 09:57, 5 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 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bear vs. Shark ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Unused; duplicate of category Category:Bear vs. Shark albums which does have content. — MrDolomite | Talk 00:49, 4 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 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Colonial Flags to Category:Flags of British overseas territories
Relisted from July 25. Most flags in the category link to the Commons, so suggest straightforward rename as above. (Prefixing "Images of" seems unnecessary.)  David Kernow 00:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 00:30, 4 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.