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 all. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Debi Derryberry-potrayed characters
• Category:Kevin Michael Richardson-potrayed characters
• Category:Clancy Brown-potrayed characters
• Category:Hynden Walch-potrayed characters
• Category:Lex Lang-potrayed characters
• Category:Jess Harnell-portrayed characters
• Category:Richard Horvitz-portrayed characters
• Category:Christopher Lee-portrayed characters
• Category:Julian McMahon-portrayed characters
• Category:Tara Strong-portrayed characters
• Category:Dave Wittenberg-portrayed characters
• Category:Billy West-potrayed characters

This sort of information is best conveyed in the article, not a category. See also the CfD for a similar cat here. CovenantD 23:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking the liberty to combine these and add more. Yes, I love Hynden Walch's Starfire voice too, but these are terrible categories. They all need to go.--Mike Selinker 01:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify in articles per nom. David Kernow 05:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. By all means, this is excellent content, but I'd rather not see it be a category. Luna Santin 08:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. These should be covered in articles along with the characters that don't have their own articles. ×Meegs 11:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what the others have said. - LA @ 16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I see this as pure fancruft that is intended to get a voice actor/actress noticed. -Adv193 16:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 16:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 23:33, 16 July 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 found deleted --Kbdank71 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Match usual conventions of Category:Footballers by club. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Luna Santin 08:56, 13 July 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 to Category:Steaua Bucharest players --Kbdank71 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match team name. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Also matches main article. Luna Santin 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Steaua Bucharest is the usual English name. The article should be moved too. Chicheley 10:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As ever, Chicheley's grasp of the naming conventions seems impeccable. TheGrappler 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Steaua Bucharest players to match other Category:Footballers by club. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Steaua Bucharest players as above. Honbicot 18:49, 13 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Indian classical vocalists to Category:Indian classical singers
• Category:Carnatic vocalists to Category:Carnatic singers
• Category:Hindustani vocalists to Category:Hindustani singers

These three should be renamed for consistency with parent cats and all other singer categories. --musicpvm 23:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. All the parent categories I checked used "singers." Isn't "vocalist" a little ambiguous, too? Luna Santin 08:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Chicheley 10:23, 13 July 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 relisting here, category:Fictional companies wasn't tagged. --Kbdank71 17:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from speedy. Why does this category exist? It's a subcategory of category:Fictional companies that leads nowhere else. I say merge into category:Fictional companies.--Mike Selinker 22:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it could be a parent for fictional bars, restaurants, stores, etc? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Fictional companies. --musicpvm 23:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into businesses or companies as long as there aren't two separate categories. --musicpvm 00:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The articles are about businesses which are very likely not companies. Chicheley 10:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I haven't seen the incorporation papers, I'm going to guess that Mega Lo Mart is a company. But that's a good point, since these things don't have real-world legal statuses. It's fine to merge category:Fictional companies and category:Fictional Businesses into a correctly capitalized category:Fictional businesses instead.--Mike Selinker 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mike Selinker. - LA @ 16:03, 13 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this feebly populated category directly in Category:Sports. I've moved it to Category:Professional sports leagues, which is itself a neglected corner of the category system. Adding the word "national" just doesn't add anything that justifies all the pitfalls that arise. What about leagues with a few teams in another country? What about leagues that aren't really fully national? Merge Twittenham 22:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Chicheley 10:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merger per nom, and note that Chicheley's vote makes no sense to me.--M@rēino 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've amended it. It was just a cut and paste mistake. Chicheley 18:52, 13 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Duplicate. Nationalparks 22:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. -- Infrogmation 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 05:16, 13 July 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 found deleted --Kbdank71 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I transferred this from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories - 132.205.64.80 21:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no reason given for this category to exist - attempts at questioning creator have returned nothing

July 12 2006 16:12

prodded by User:God of War

• Suggest these images recategoriz/sed using approproriate Category:Astronomy images subcategories. David Kernow 05:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support David Kernow's suggestion. Luna Santin 09:02, 13 July 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 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Law enforcement agencies. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the articles with this cat were already included in Category:Law enforcement agencies from being in an included cat. Some were not agencies but parts of agencies that were included in Category:Law enforcement agencies. I cleaned these up and that left this cat empty so it can be deleted. Vegaswikian 00:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. David Kernow 05:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Honbicot 18:52, 13 July 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, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a little overdone to to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ReeseM 21:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; arbitrary intersection of two unrelated traits, like Category:Presbyterian poker players. Anyone who thinks this should be kept should write a full paragraph in support explaining the recognized significance of Irish-American models as a discrete academic topic. 23:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per gender/race/sexuality classification guidelines; there's no recognized phenomenon of Irish-American modelling as a cultural topic in its own right. Bearcat 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 16:13, 16 July 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, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference?? Most of the current names are in both categories. Ciociabasia 21:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Entrepreneurs create and run their own businesses, but many business people don't do that. There are 16 nationality varieties in Category:Entrepreneurs by nationality, so it is a well established category type. Ideally entrepreneurs should not also be in the parent category if they have only ever worked in their own businesses, but if there is some duplication I don't think it matters all that much. ReeseM 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree (Merge) - Create a new category called Irish businesspeople and entrepreneurs and include all names. The difference between businessperson and entrepreneur is simply too niggardly and hair-splitting as to merit separate categories. Common sense.Rosemary's Baby 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Tight call. It can be hard to distinguish the two. The really big question is: is it helpful for article-finding purposes to split the biographies this way? Will people end up looking in the wrong subcat? TheGrappler 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are two well established and separate hierarchies and any changes should only be discussed on an all-country basis. Honbicot 18:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All entrepreneurs are businesspeople but not all businesspeople are entrepreneurs. Golfcam 16:35, 14 July 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 17:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this category for adult females or females regardless of age?? Georgia guy 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Category:Women can still exist in the Category Re-directs, like hundreds of category names now are. Georgia guy 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Interesting argument, but I prefer it as is. I don't have any problem with girls appearing in a category for women.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what reason?? A "woman" is an adult female person. Georgia guy 01:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the reason I said: I don't have any problem with it. When given a room full of people and told to divide it into men and women, I don't become paralyzed by an inability to figure out what to do with the 15-year-olds. And if this were really a problem, a large portion of the population would never be able to figure out which restaurant lavatory to use.--Mike Selinker 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, look at the introductory sentence of the woman article. Any appropriate edits so that it can talk about the term as if its meaning were just "a female person", regardless of age?? Georgia guy 13:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure. The first paragraph could end with, The term "women" is sometimes more globally applied to females of all ages, as in the phrase "women's rights."--Mike Selinker 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike's "room full of people" argument.--M@rēino 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do we need to rename? Simply remove all articles on non-adult females from the category, create a category on Girls, and move them there. Problem solved. Of course, it can't remain as it is; it makes no sense to miscategorize girls as women. Kasreyn 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Mike Selinker's above comment. Georgia guy 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with Mike. Colloquially, yes, one may use "women" to refer to women and girls, but I feel readers expect more accuracy from our categories. To put girls in the "women" category is unacceptably inaccurate. Colloquial use has nothing to do with it; category inclusion should be based on strict definition. Kasreyn 22:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. I removed Girl and Flower girl from Category:Women (and Boy from Category:Men). --Usgnus 23:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also removed Boy soprano. Now neither category contains any articles about girls or boys unless those articles are also about adults. --Usgnus 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kasreyn. We can use the existing Category:Children instead of creating Category:Girls. --Usgnus 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is no similarly existing Category:Adults. Georgia guy 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's subdivided into Men and Women, whereas Girls and Boys are combined into Children. --Usgnus 23:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought the Men and Women categories were created to specify gender, not age. Georgia guy 23:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know what the motivations of those who originally created the categories were, but if they wanted them to simply indicate gender, they would have been more accurately named "Male Humans" and "Female Humans". Cheers, Kasreyn 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it's time now to decide whether this category should specify gender only or gender and age. Consensus as of this moment?? Georgia guy 23:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that Usgnus and myself are the only ones watching this discussion. Please, any other Wikipedians?? Georgia guy 00:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be clear from my above comment, but I say gender only, and the current terms are all we need to do that.--Mike Selinker 00:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category says "women", it should only have women in it, not girls. If it says "women and girls", then it should have both. I really don't care which way it winds up, it just shouldn't include incorrect articles. I oppose the colloquial use of "woman" for girls in categories. Kasreyn 01:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How about instead we move this to Category:Female humans then it can include articles on both women and girls. Helicoptor 03:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would take as read that girls may be included. Golfcam 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Golfcam. Bluap 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not category female people — Preceding unsigned comment added by God of War (talk • contribs)
• Comment. The question where you draw the line between women and girls is very compicated and subjective (biologically? legally? traditionally? in which culture/law?). I'm not sure the distinction is sufficiently clear-cut to be used as a category on wikipedia. --194.145.161.227 13:32, 16 July 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 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] — Instantnood 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. ReeseM 21:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per effective withdrawal by nom below. 02:11, 18 July 2006 ReeseM 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't consider myself nominated this category. I just referred it from its talk page to this page. — Instantnood 19:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 05:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would it be a precedance to other British rule in Foo categories? — Instantnood 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Guess so. Seems to make more sense to me to make the subject of the category (in this case Singapore) the first word of the name. Regards, David Kernow 00:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would expect for the original title only entries related to British rule, e.g. military it stations there, colonial governors. The suggested title would cover anything related to there when it was under British rule, related or unrelated to British rule, e.g. foundation of a Taoist temple, activities of secret societies. The British rule in Foo categories other than the one for Singapore seem to have taken the narrower approach. — Instantnood 20:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if not a precendent, certainly something doubtlessly awaiting future CfD debate!  Best wishes, David 02:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Narrow the scope of content to fit the title. — Instantnood 05:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to improve the flexibility of the category. Twittenham 12:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current name matches the similar categories for Hong Kong and India. Olborne 23:06, 17 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will bring the category in line with the "main article" for the category, Simon Property Group. The article was previously renamed from the "Melvin Simon" name, but the category was never renamed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 05:22, 13 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following should be renamed based on previous discussions.

• Category:United States magazines to Category:American magazines (consistent with other cats in Category:Magazines by country)
• Category:United States newspapers to Category:American newspapers (consistent with other cats in Category:Newspapers by country)
• Category:United States media by market to Category:American media by market
• Category:United States media by state to Category:American media by state (both consistent with parent cat Category:American media which was recently renamed)
• Category:United States music festivals to Category:American music festivals (consistent with other cats in Category:Music festivals by country)

--musicpvm 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nornal usage for consistency. Osomec 19:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong objection. Developing consensus on Commons is to have "(subject) of (name of location)", and I think we should follow suit; eg "Magazines of the United States". -- Infrogmation 00:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somebody wants all the subcategories of Category:Magazines by country to be changed to that form, then all will have to be nominated for renaming. At the moment, 50 of the 51 categories do not have that form, so there is no reason this should be inconsistent with the others. --musicpvm 00:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't commons, and consensus here has been moving the other way for a long time. Sumahoy 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose American means so many things. There are two whole continents full of nations with citizens who can rightly call themselves American. Keep United States for specificity. We citizens of the United States don't have exclusive rights to American. - LA @ 16:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what is the correct adjective for the United States? "American" is the accepted naming convention at Wikipedia to describe the U.S. There are hundreds of categories that use it, so these should be no different. --musicpvm 17:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, good point... at one website I frequent, with users from many countries, the joking adjective "USian" has been coined to avoid calling U.S. citizens "Americans"... Who knows, maybe some day it'll catch on.  ;) For now, American will have to do. Kasreyn 02:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. The fact is the policy simply states that "nationality x" is used for media. There is no reason for american's stuff to be unique. American and United States are both used depending on the standard for the category. Both are acceptable based on usage which in this case is American. Vegaswikian 01:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. There was mass renaming of these things a few months ago. - Darwinek 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all "American" is the correct adjective. Golfcam 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Sumahoy 16:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "United States" describes it better in this context. -- User:Docu
• As "U.S." seems to be Wikipedia's standard abbreviation for "United States", maybe policy should specify that "American" means "(person) of the United States" on Wikipedia...?  (Unless, I guess, "U.S." isn't policy...)  Regards, David Kernow 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - categories seem to be moving towards the "Bars of Foo" organization. No need to recat this sucker twice -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't the case at all. Some types of category take one form and other types take another. These categories take the adjectival form and the correct adjective of the United States is American. Chicheley 22:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Chicheley 22:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Hawkestone 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for consistency with many other categories. Twittenham 12:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Nonomy 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Calsicol 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Nathcer 21:25, 17 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Batman storylines, to match other Category:DC Comics storylines. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge.--Mike Selinker 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - LA @ 16:06, 13 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems premature to me. However, we might want it back some day... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral It's not a bad idea (quite a good one, in fact), but there are quite a few UK roads that would have to be categorized this way. If somebody could be persuaded to take this task on, then I'd have no complaints about it staying. TheGrappler 17:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I think we will end up doing this (or something like it) someday. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into category:Transport in Warwickshire. As all major roads begin with A or M they are effectively sorted in the country transport categories anyway. Osomec 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into category:Transport in Warwickshire as in other counties. Agathoclea 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into category:Transport in Warwickshire Nathcer 21:25, 17 July 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 found deleted --Kbdank71 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consequence of here. David Kernow 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Abstaining pending discussion. David Kernow 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC), updated 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Second thought: Category page's text states "These articles have been identified as high quality food-related articles by the standards of Portal:Food. Please see Portal:Food/Featured articles for details", so perhaps "Selected articles" should be "Featured articles"...?  David Kernow 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, portals arent't permitted to use the term "Featured" to refer to any articles that arent actually FAs. I would suggest renaming this to Category:Selected articles on the Food Portal to make clear that this is referring to a specific portal rather than any portals in the subject area. Kirill Lokshin 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...in which case, what do you make of this nomination...?  Thanks for your input, David 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems somewhat unrelated. There's generally a distinction made between categories for a subject area (e.g. Category:Culture WikiProjects) and categories used by specific groups for internal work (e.g. Category:WikiProject Comics). Kirill Lokshin 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, have relisted this as a speedy rename to Category:Food Portal selected articles. Thanks for your help, David 05:30, 13 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Category:Roads in Israel, to match other Category:Roads by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move irrelvant articles back to roads. Revert 'highways' article to be sub-cat of the Roads of Israel cat. --Shuki 20:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Category:Roads in Israel. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - though while there aren't very many articles to be categorised yet, there should still be a distinction made between roads and expressways/highways (Ayalon vs Allon). -- Tewfik^Talk 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree, only highways 2 and 6 in Israel are freeways, there shouldn't be a category just for them. Highways 1, 4, 5 and 20 are part-freeways also, but even that makes just 6 in total. There is nothing wrong with having them all under one category. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if and only if highway is not a different class of road in Israel. — Instantnood 15:15, 15 July 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 defenestrate. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I don't see this as being useful. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, that's not a real window! Move to Category:Delusional Architecture delete.--M@rēino 14:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If the category were "Fictional Windows", well... Chuckle, David Kernow 00:20, 16 July 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, and convert Category:Saskatoon, Saskatchewan to category redirect per ProveIt. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to match Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and local convention for city cats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, I suppose, but my impression was that the city category convention was to use the province name only if it was necessary to disambiguate this from another Saskatoon. As it happens, there's only one thing in the world called Saskatoon that's notable enough to merit its own dedicated category, making disambiguation unnecessary. Accordingly, I'm of the opinion that the category should stay as is, but I'm willing to change my vote if somebody can prove to me that category conventions require the province name whether it's necessary for disambiguation or not. Bearcat 03:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I would rather the city article be moved from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan to Saskatoon. There are other city categories in Canada that have a different name from the city: Category:Calgary, Category:Winnipeg, Category:Halifax Regional Municipality, Category:St. John's. --Usgnus 04:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Now, I realize I might be a little bias, as I'm from Saskatoon, but I don't think we need to move everything. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it ain't broke. No one else want to use the Category:Saskatoon, so there is no point in moving it. The disambiguation page for Saskatoon lists two other items: the Saskatoon (the berry) which is also known as the juneberry, and an old electoral district. Neither need their own category. Seeing as the only people that call the juneberry the Saskatoon are from Saskatoon, we could change the article name to Saskatoon, as it already redirects to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. -Royalguard11^Talk 05:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whichever one is kept, please keep the other as a redirect. Otherwise someone else will just recreate it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:08, 13 July 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 withdrawn/keep --Kbdank71 16:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:FCU Politehnica Timişoara footballers. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since FCU Politehnica Timişoara is a football (soccer) club, wouldn't the name "FCU Politehnica Timişoara footballers" be akin to the name "My Favorite Football Club footballers", i.e. doubling the use of "football" in the name...?  If so, suggest reverse merge. Regards, David Kernow 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just trying to match the other Category:Footballers in Romania by club. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acknowledged – hopefully it won't be "Footballers" → "Footballers (soccer players)" next!!  Regards, David 05:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn it seems the convention is to call them players, See Category:Footballers in England by club. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:09, 12 July 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulated and unnecessary seeing as Some guy from tennessee turned out to be the North Carolina Vandal. -- Francs2000 15:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as category no longer serves a purpose. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Michael 05:20, 15 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently sub-cats of Category:Foundations by country use the "of country" wording. This is ambiguous. For example, the U.S. Constitution could be interpreted as one of the "Foundations of the United States". Switching to the wording "based in", as is used for this category's parent Category:Organizations by country (Ex Category:Organizations based in the United States) would address this problem. The following renamings are proposed:

• Category:Foundations of Canada to Category:Foundations based in Canada
• Category:Foundations of Germany to Category:Foundations based in Germany
• Category:Foundations of the United Kingdom to Category:Foundations based in the United Kingdom
• Category:Foundations of the United States to Category:Foundations based in the United States
• Category:Foundations of Venezuela to Category:Foundations based in Venezuela

--Kurieeto 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Osomec 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Hawkestone 23:37, 16 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current wording does not have enough detail (it is a category for images) and is poorly worded. Proposed new name is precise, clear, and closely follows the wording format of Category:Flags by country contents (Ex Flag of Monaco). Kurieeto 14:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC). Added "s" to "coat" as per David Kernow below. Kurieeto 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Images of flags and coats of arms of Monaco (i.e. pluraliz/se "coat"). David Kernow 17:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Images of flags and coats of arms of Monaco Calsicol 15:28, 19 July 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 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some cats for concert tours, but this seems to be a one-at-a-time thing. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 21:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rosemary's Baby 04:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 05:21, 15 July 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Dams in Ohio, to match other Category:Dams in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 17:52, 12 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history is the history of a country at war, basically; there's no need to have two nested categories here. It might be useful to create a standard Category:Wars of Norway as well, but that's a separate point. Kirill Lokshin 13:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I agree with the nomination. Inge 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Intelligent and well-reasoned nomination. TheGrappler 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge—and I'm usually strongly against mergers. If the Norway at War category dealt with issues like culture and experiences of the general population during the wars it would make sense to keep them separate. It doesn’t, so it’s redundant. Williamborg 01:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I see I created the Category Norway at War originally. No idea why I'd use such a strange form. Merge it. Merge it soon. Williamborg 01:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Honbicot 18:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The kind of things mentioned by Williamborg would belong in Category:Home front in Norway, which would be a subcategory of this category and Category:Social history of Norway. Golfcam 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Josh 20:48, 18 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects, all city by country categories should be named "in country" (Ex Category:Cities in the United Kingdom and Category:Cities in the United States). The following renamings are therefore warranted:

• Category:Images of cities of the United Kingdom to Category:Images of cities in the United Kingdom
• Category:Images of cities of the United States to Category:Images of cities in the United States

--Kurieeto 12:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 12:06, 17 July 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 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for better style and to match the U.S. category. Chicheley 10:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:History of Japanese foreign relations (and "History of [United States/American] foreign relations") to avoid double "of"...?
  Rename to Category:History of the foreign relations of Japan, not "History of Japanese foreign relations" as this conflicts with parent category's format. See also here for similar amendment to Category:History of foreign relations of the United States.
  David Kernow 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC), updated 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:History of Japanese foreign relations per David Kernow Cloachland 19:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom because then it will be consistent with the American category without bring up the American/U.S. issue. Golfcam 16:40, 14 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Dominican boxers --> Category:Dominican Republic boxers
• Category:Dominican basketball players --> Category:Dominican Republic basketball players
• Category:Dominican baseball players --> Category:Dominican Republic baseball players

• Rename all. Adjective "Dominican" is very confusing as it refers to two countries in the Caribbean, Dominica and the Dominican Republic. This is the same situation as with the adjective "Congolese". - Darwinek 10:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems like a wise idea.--Mike Selinker 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 15:29, 19 July 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 14:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is ignored. It was created in 2004 but contains 14 articles and zero subcategories. "Leaders" is vague, and the category is unnecessary as there are many other options for categorizing military people. Chicheley 10:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom. Chicheley 10:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deleting this was previously discussed by the Military history WikiProject, and it was correctly pointed out that for much of human history, this is the only usable category, as formal ranks were non-existent. This needs to be properly populated, obviously (which will probably happen simultaneously with a massive cleanup of the other "military people" categories, when we get to it), but there's absolutely no reason to delete it. Kirill Lokshin 12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Alexander the Great can be classified as a general, or whatever. Cloachland 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  And Aristotle can be classified as a quantum physicist, I suppose? Kirill Lokshin 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think that is a good analogy, you are the one who needs to spend more time with a dictionary. Cloachland 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What does a dictionary have to do with it? The concept of a "general" didn't emerge until the 16th century (although "Captain-General" may have been used as early as the 14th); applying it to an Ancient Greek is anachronistic—and just plain wrong. (I'll admit that perhaps "quantum" wasn't the best choice for an analogy; but I think my general point is somewhat clear regardless.) Kirill Lokshin 20:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As mentioned above the Military history WikiProject has a plan and will populate it and start subcategories. There are plenty of historical military leaders who don't have a rank. Inge 15:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Krill. TheGrappler 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Military leader and military people are in no way synonymous. Krill's analogy is more apt than you might think (maybe physicist is more apt though). Otherwise, Lyndie England and Alexander the Great could be lumped together in a merged Military people category, since no distinction would be made.--Nobunaga24 09:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (oppose merge) per the comments above, particular those by Kirill Lokshin. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:02, 14 July 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand for clarity. This concept isn't as high profile in all countries as it is in the U.S. Chicheley 10:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Chicheley 10:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 20:05, 12 July 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to conventional form. Chicheley 10:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Choalbaton 13:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 18:02, 12 July 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 (already listified at Time Team). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would make a wonderful list, but is a lousy subject for a category. Grutness...wha? 07:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable enough of a characteristic to deserve a category. --musicpvm 07:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How is this notable? Michael 07:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Trivia. --Mais oui! 09:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 10:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - those reading pieces that were included will find a lead back to something they might not have known about. And what exactly is the criteria for deletion being used? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 12:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete transitory and trivial. Choalbaton 13:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just not specific enough; many, many UK TV programmes will visit Manchester in some form, whereas categorising the particular site excavated in Manchester might be useful. Aquilina 17:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Manchester does not get a category based on one episode of one TV show.--Mike Selinker 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. David Kernow 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into list This is NOT trivia. Time Team do make the effort to complete the archaeological documentation, hence this provides a reference of readily available archaeological research. Viv Hamilton 22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list as given here does not give a reference of research at all. Time Team went to Manchester once, so what? Where did they dig? Why? What did they find? Far more detail is required - as it stands, we have the trivia without the encylopaedic detail. Saying that somewhere in Manchester there is somewhere of archaeological merit is neither notable nor encyclopaedic - it's just obvious Aquilina 23:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And hence a list should be used rather than a category, as a list can give supplementary detail such as the exact location, nature of the site and reference of the programme. Change it to a list and the community can complete the detail Viv Hamilton 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. It seems like the Time Team goes to already notable places, rather than making places notable by sheer virtue of visiting them. That means list rather than deletion or categorization.--M@rēino 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify excellent point about what makes them notable per Mareino above -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is already a list in the Time Team article. Hawkestone 23:38, 16 July 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are the recently created subcategories of Category:Categories named after people.

• Category:Artist categories named after people to Category:Categories named after artists
• Category:Musician categories named after people AND Category:Singer categories named after people to Category:Categories named after musicians (I think they should be merged back into one cat.)
• Category:Politician categories named after people to Category:Categories named after politicians
• Category:Scientist categories named after people to Category:Categories named after scientists
• Category:Writer categories named after people to Category:Categories named after writers

--musicpvm 06:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all for better style. Chicheley 09:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. At some point we should convene the people categories discussion so we're not playing catch-as-catch-can with these.--Mike Selinker 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom & Chicheley. I agree with Mike Selinker, too. This was prompted in part by the William Shatner CfD. But I would like to see WP put together some criteria for when someone merits a category. Also, I am not sure what the folks over in Tolkein land are doing, but the 2 categories read more like they are written to editors and encyclopedia users and I for one cannot necessarily draw the distinction they are trying to make with the 2 categories. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per above. David Kernow 05:37, 13 July 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 poach in an emulsified butter sauce. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Seems like someone was goofing around or something. --awh (Talk) 06:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonsense. --musicpvm 06:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, Can't sleep, clown will eat me's private joke, and a spectacularly unfunny one at that. JIP | Talk 06:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I would have said it was his private joke too, but he wasn't the one who created it. Still, he's the only member... --awh (Talk) 07:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It was created by User:Kitia, who wrote "This user does" in it but didn't add him/herself in the category. That's weird. JIP | Talk 07:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  But Can't sleep, clown will eat me *did* add himself to the category, as seen in his user page history. Quelle bizarre. --awh (Talk) 08:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I saw this earlier today and thought of proposing it for deletion. Michael 07:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 10:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wouldn't every member of said category be considered a vandal? 132.205.64.80 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. I don't think either Kitia or Clown will take it personally if we delete this as a WP:BEAN violation.--M@rēino 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What on earth is WP:BEAN? --awh (Talk) 02:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not, 132... what if the user only edited Lobster? :P Kasreyn 05:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Lobster. I mean, delete. Shame, though...I was amused. Peeper 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy lobster. Mareino is correct, this was not intended to be a serious category (obviously) and I have no issue with it being deleted outright. I would prefer to leave things as-is as far as my userpage is concerned, but if that is in any way problematic, it can be removed from there as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:55, 14 July 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 articles already merged, delete --Kbdank71 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the cat, expect Max Vieri, they all played in Serie A. Players only at Seire B in all-time usually not notable and no one create article. And Category:Serie A players should spilt into current player and cat include current and past players, just like Category:English Premiership players Matt86hk talk 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are clearly some structural issues here. Might it be an idea to work out the entire new category structure that is intended to be switched to? TheGrappler 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I change my mind, just rename to Category:Current Serie B players, it is waste of resource to cat player in both Serie A & Serie B (if both include past and present players) , because many players played both. If players currently in Serie A, i think just put it in cat Serie A and Curreent Serie A; if players currently in Serie B, just put it in Serie A & Current Serie B. Matt86hk talk 06:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Okay, all that were in the old serie B category are now in a new current serie B category, which will actually end up being a little bit larger than the old one, before long. I'm also still working on updating all of the current serie a players into that new category. Unfortunately you can't just rename categories, they have to be moved then deleted, so whoever has power to, please delete the now empty category of Category:Serie B players. KingPenguin 14:15, 14 July 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely and totally unencyclopedic and impossible to classify. Description mentions that people listed "went barefoot in situation where others wouldn't"? I.e. if someone performed a concert barefoot once, they are in the "Barefooters" category? What possible encyclopedic value does this have? Mad Jack 05:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nod Mad Jack 05:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No possible encyclopaedic value.--Iorek85 05:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom plus Barefoot also has other meanings, for example, a person who uses an unamplified CB radio is considered barefoot. - LA @ 05:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I saw this cat on Katharine McPhee's article and thought it was weird. It's really pointless. Michael07:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 09:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. At least some people in this category are not even mentioned as going barefoot in their article. Silly and unencyclopedic. User:Angr 09:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Possibly the most worthlessly trivial category for people that I have ever seen. Postdlf 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but redefine. We're not bound by the current (very stupid) definition that allows Kelly Ripa, Julia Roberts, and other people who have been once spotted shoeless in. There should be a cat, however, for people who are/were habitually shoeless, like Johnny Appleseed or that Ethiopian runner guy whose name I can't remember.--M@rēino 19:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redefine as above. Should be defined to include people who are NOTABLE for going barefoot. Julis Roberts is not. Sandie Shaw is. EuroSong ^talk 02:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redefine, as above. I agree with the above two comments. People such as runners, Zola Budd and Abebe Bikila (that's the Ethiopean one!) are noteworthy. So is the fact that singer, Cesária Évora, appears on stage barefoot in homage to the poor people of her native country. Also, this is a sub-category of Human Appearance, which also includes categories such as nudity. Are we also to delete a category which contains people who are notable for being naturists? --Portnadler 07:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is basically Category:Notable people who have been barefoot which is not appropriate as 1) barefoot is not a nationality, profession, religion, etc., and B) categories which start "Notable", "Controversial", etc., have a non-WP:NPOV connotation. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Kill it. There is no need to categorise by every hobby and pose and fashion choice and coincidental similarity. Indeed doing so could make the whole category system unusable. Hawkestone 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It wouldn't benefit Wikipedia to put Katharine McPhee and Mahatma Gandhi in the same category called Category:People with two legs and it doesn't help to put both of them in this category either. If it is necessary to qualify a category with "notable" or "famous" it is sure to be a bad category. Golfcam 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a diverting miscellany of trivia. Osomec 11:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 12:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic knowledge, and NPOV is difficult to achieve.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music DVDs is for home videos/DVDs released by musicians (the ambiguously-named Category:Video compilations was serving the same purpose, but I merged it into the former). These categories should not be confused with Category:Music videos which should only be used for articles that are about actual music videos (the ones that air on TV rather than the home releases). Some of the older video collections have only been released on VHS or other videotape formats while others have been released on VHS and DVD, so a new category name should incorporate both formats. I think Category:Music videos and DVDs would work. This type of name is already being used for other categories including Category:Videos and DVDs and Category:Disney videos and DVDs. --musicpvm 04:45, 12 July 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 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality. From what are these animals liberated from, humans? Intangible 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. The movement calls itself the animal liberation movement. That is the most neutral term because some of the people and groups support the concept of animal rights, and some do not, but they all support the notion of animal liberation. However, I have no strong feelings either way about the name. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is for the more militant types. I wouldn't expect to find the RSPCA in it, and indeed it isn't in it. Choalbaton 13:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there already exists a cat Category:Animal rights groups. This doesn't make the cat Category:Animal liberation movement more neutral though, especially if it is to categorize militants who might use force against humans or property. Intangible 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's your own POV that's showing through here. The AL movement is simply the name of the movement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the "official" name of the movement it should be renamed as Category:Animal Liberation Movement, since that would constitute a proper noun. Intangible 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if you just call it Category:Animal welfare movement and Category:Animal welfare groups? Welfare can be construed as a dolist pampering of indolent indigent masses... or as genuinely humane respectful action... 132.205.45.148 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. Category:Animal welfare movement is concerned with morality, Category:Animal rights movement with ethics. Intangible 20:05, 16 July 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 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems essentially redundant with Category:Disasters in France. It is also less clear what it means: air disasters over France, air disasters involving Frenchmen or French property. Urhixidur 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Disaster categories for major countries like France certainly require subdivision, as does the aviation disasters category. The meaning should be flexible; any air disaster with French involvement belongs here. Chicheley 09:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which means it could not be a sub-cat of Category:Disasters in France, since some of the entries could conceivably be over other territories. It'll need to be prefaced, like Category:Canadian air disasters, which is a sub-cat of Category:Disasters in Canada. Urhixidur 13:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obvious category. No sensible reason for deletion mentioned. Choalbaton 13:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this category needs to be kept but I agree with the nom. What exactly is this category for? Does it make sense for this to be a subcategory of "Disasters in France"?TheGrappler 17:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes enough sense. It certainly wouldn't make sense to create more than one set of national disaster categories. Planes don't confine themselves to national borders, but if a French airliner crashed in Germany I would expect to find it in the French category as well as the German one. Osomec 20:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Osomec 20:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename LDGE 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC): France was one of the first countries to have an aviation industry, and there have been a number of air disasters in France which are significant in the economic and technological history of civil aviation. For example, the R-101 crash in 1930 effectively ended the British rigid airship programme, Turkish Airlines Flight 981 first raised the long-running safety concerns over the DC-10, The 1988 A320 air show crash first raised public concerns over the Airbus 'fly by wire' technology and the Concorde accident in 2000 marked the beginning of the end of supersonic passenger transport. However, Urhixidur makes a valuable point in that the category title, 'French air disasters' is ambiguous and not very helpful (not least because the term 'disaster' is emotive and implies a PoV). Both the R101 and the Ermonville Forest DC-10 were disasters that took place on French soil but involved foreign-registered and operated aircraft; yet the Air France A340 which crashed at Toronto is not linked to this category, even though it was a French built, registered and operated aircraft. I would, therefore, suggest renaming it to 'Air accidents in France'.[reply]
• Keep. If anything, this should be a subcategory of Category:Disasters in France, but I don't see it as something that is necessarily redundant. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Air disasters in France to become subcat of Category:Disasters in France and Category:Air disasters by country -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the best possible form. Twittenham 12:08, 17 July 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does one begin? Hype, self-aggrandizement, notability, the sheer impracticality and lack of usefulness in creating a category for every single minor actor's list of roles. Tenebrae 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!Keep: Minor? Steven Blum is one of the most prominent anime VAs in the industry. How can you call anyone that voiced nearly hundreds of characters throughout his career "minor"? I say we keep it. Cat's Tuxedo 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. And bad spelling to boot. Cats like this should all go.--Mike Selinker 05:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are now all nominated for deletion above.--Mike Selinker 01:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If people want to read a list of characters he's played then they should read his article. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Huh? His article has a list of all his roles, and that list is more complete than the category.--awh (Talk) 06:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Michael 07:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 09:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The spelling error needs to be corrected, but otherwise I don't see a problem with it.Raymondluxuryacht 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is what article text is for, not categories. Postdlf 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom. Peeper 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See Mel Blanc as an example of voice actor categorizations -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 16:13, 16 July 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.