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 proposed -- Drini 01:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:People of Bihar to Category:People from Bihar
• Category:People of Goa to Category:People from Goa
• Category:People of Gujarat to Category:People from Gujarat
• Category:People of Karnataka to Category:People from Karnataka
• Category:People of Kerala to Category:People from Kerala
• Category:People of Madhya Pradesh to Category:People from Madhya Pradesh
• Category:People of Maharashtra to Category:People from Maharashtra
• Category:People of Meghalaya to Category:People from Meghalaya
• Category:People of Orissa to Category:People from Orissa
• Category:People of Rajasthan to Category:People from Rajasthan
• Category:People of Tripura to Category:People from Tripura
• Category:People of Uttar Pradesh to Category:People from Uttar Pradesh

This is the straightforward bulk of existing "of" names for people from Indian states, following up from the recent renaming of Category:People from West Bengal [1]. Reasons for nomination are the usual standardisation on "people from X" and avoiding confusion with categorization of ethnicity. The categories that need more work to disentangle, like Category:People of Assam and Category:Punjabi people, are not included here. --Mereda 11:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Kurieeto 14:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Twittenham 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. musicpvm 17:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Michael 03:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 03:45, 31 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 -- Drini 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Rename to the usual "People from X", and consistency with naming of others in Category:People by Indian city. The other odd one Category:Bangaloreans has already been nominated July 26 [2] in the demonym cleanup. --Mereda 10:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Kurieeto 14:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 15:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 01:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:45, 31 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 -- Drini 01:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Royal Dynasties ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, This category was created as a subcategory of Category:Royal families and subsquently was populated with categories already categorized under Category:Royal families. It has been depopulated as it is an unnecessary category (and also uses a capital 'D' in the for dynasty). Charles 22:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unnecessary. Noel S McFerran 00:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 09:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 03:26, 31 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 -- Drini 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we recently decided against categorizing athletes by ethnicity. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, They are already categorized by nationality (Veneuzuelan, Mexican, etc) so this category is redundant and unnecessary. "Athletes" is also misspelled. --musicpvm 23:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – one of the three players in here was born in the U.S., so this isn't completely redundant to nationality cats. I'm not defending this cat though. I've always wondered about Category:African American sportspeople and its enormous, but still extemely underpopulated subcategories. Provelt, can you find a link to that discussion? ×Meegs 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a bit of searching, I did find it. Is there a good way to search old discussions?? In any event, I had the details all wrong, it was Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_15#Category:Latin_actors_and_Category:Latino_actors. However note that Category:Hispanic American actors has since replaced it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Wikipedia needs yet another overlapping ethnic category system like it needs Siegenthaler in charge of its bank account. Chicheley 09:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete U.S. centric. Twittenham 15:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's U.S.-centric -- the U.S.A. is basically the only place with a large Latino population that isn't a Latin American nation! Keep. --M@rēino 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete monotony... Michael 01:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 12:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep other non- or sub- and cross-national and ethnic groups exist: Category:African American sportspeople, Category:Lutheran sportspeople, Category:Catalan sportspeople, Category:Welsh sportspeople, Category:Basque sportspeople. Why single out Latinos? Carlossuarez46 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They haven't been singled out. Wales, Catalonia and the Basque Country are places, not ethnic groups, and I am going to nominate Category:Lutheran sportspeople for deletion. African Americans are a specific ethnic group, not an umbrella group whose members can be more accurately ethnicity-categorised like this one. Landolitan 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Lutheran sportspeople doesn't exist. I was already in edit mode when I wrote by last comment. Landolitan 21:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are ethnic categories for all of these people to already. Landolitan 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misspelled. Does not represent an important intersection of categories. Sumahoy 22:21, 2 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 -- Drini 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_12#Category:Fictional_characters_by_actor_and_subcategories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Captain Tightpants doesn't need a category. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gnrlotto

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 -- Drini 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:CFL teams to Category:Canadian Football League teams[reply]

• Rename, Every other Canadian Football League related category uses the full name and not the acronym "CFL". Qutezuce 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 09:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Royalbroil 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. heqs 03:28, 3 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 until needed --Kbdank71 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:South African film directors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as obvious. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that there is occasional overlap between the subcategories of Category:Directors, it would be a useful to create "[Country] directors" categories as parents for the "[Country] [medium] directors" categories. For instance, Category:American directors would contain Category:American film directors, Category:American television directors, and so on. -Sean Curtin 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like quite a lot of work, but if you want to take it on, I'm happy to withdraw my cfd. However, the good part about keeping it as a redirect is that if someone ever creates Category:South African television directors we can just convert the redirect into a true parent. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This shouldn't be keep just to keep Sean Curtin's proposal open, and indeed it is not necessary for it to be kept for that to be the case. Chicheley 09:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects help the user quickly find what he is looking for. The fact that this category got created in the first place means that someone couldn't find Category:South African film directors. If delete it, it can just come back again someday. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at times {country} director is already the parent category to {country} film directors. I do not see why that should not be the case for South Africa. Do I understand correctly that the nominator does not really object to a director category? gidonb 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know if the category system includes any other kinds of director, but the redirect would assume "director" implies "film director", so I'm not sure how wise it would be... Is there such a thing as a category disambiguation page...?  Regards, David Kernow 03:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are, see Category:Disambiguation categories. However, sometimes they can go wrong, see Category:People from Georgia. There are also several different kinds of Directors, but as I pointed out earlier, the redirect can converted later. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:50, 1 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 -- Drini 01:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convention for members of Category:Film directors by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --musicpvm 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 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 14:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both categories are for radio personalities in the UK and contain many of the same articles. Category:British radio personalities follows the naming convention used by the subcats of Category:Radio personalities by nationality, so the other should be merged into this one. --musicpvm 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong oppose British radio has a much wider range of high-profile programming than that in some other countries, and there are vast numbers of British radio personalities who are not DJs. "DJs" and "Radio personalaties" are both legitimate categories and are not the same thing at all. Chicheley 09:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. From the DJ article: A disc jockey (also called DJ, or deejay) is an individual who selects and plays prerecorded music for an intended audience. As probably most radio programmes play music, that must be a big proportion of the people who host radio programmes and therefore presumably make up most of "Radio personalities". Jll 13:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Please read BBC Radio 4 and much of the rest of the coverage of British radio. There are hundreds of articles about British radio personalities who have never played a single music track on air. Twittenham 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I never stated they were the same thing, but all Radio DJs are also radio personalities and as there is currently much overlap between them, the categories are very confusing. It should at least be renamed to Category:British radio DJs. Also, what is Category:British radio presenters? Is it any different from Category:British radio personalities?
• Oppose All radio DJs are radio personalties, but not all radio personalities are DJs. The "Radio personalities" category needs to be subdivided, and indeed it already has several subcategories. Piccadilly 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and Rename to Category:British radio DJs. Assuming that I don't step on any British toes here. Category:British radio personalities is already large. Adding additional entries would make this category more unmanagable. So keeping Category:Radio DJs in the UK but renamed to Category:British radio DJs makes sense. If there are duplications between the main and the various subcats, someone needs to clean this up. The way to do that cleanup is not to delete a subcat. Vegaswikian 18:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:British radio DJs per above. gidonb 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:British radio DJs (which doesn't give rise to any British English/American English issues). Landolitan 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:British radio DJs per above. David Kernow 02:03, 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 delete -- Drini 01:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a bad idea to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Ridiculous. --FuriousFreddy 17:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spit-take. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but come on, the category is not ridiculous nor does it elicit a spit-take. We were all newcomers once. ×Meegs 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, not necessary. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His article can cover this. Sumahoy 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. RainbowCrane 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 20:49, 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, see [3] --Kbdank71 14:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Churches in Vancouver, a member of Category:Churches by city. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom; better yet, delete both or merge into Category:Churches in Canada. The only other church in Vancouver with an article (being Christ Church Cathedral, Vancouver) is under that category. Both Category:Vancouver Churches and Category:Churches in Vancouver only have one entry, both same article (Canadian Memorial Church & Centre for Peace). The Canadian Memorial Church article itself is of dubious encyclopedic value and I wonder if it could survive an AfD. Any category limited to Vancouver churches would be fairly empty. I can't really think of many notable churches in Vancouver. I know of the Canadian Memorial Church I wouldn't say it's notable. Agent 86 01:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Churches in Vancouver to encourage thorough categorization of churches. Twittenham 15:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow up I have now made the nomination I suggested above. See the discussion here. Agent 86 21:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Churches in Vancouver. Vancouver is a major city, and if it doesn't have many major churches that is a point of interest in itself. Casper Claiborne 12:58, 1 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 category redirect --Kbdank71 14:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Steaua Bucureşti. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:23, 29 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 category redirect --Kbdank71 14:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Fictional schoolteachers. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Agreed, keep as redirect.--M@rēino 15:56, 31 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 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this in error SP-KP 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We all make mistakes from time to time. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 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 -- Drini 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Medici to Category:House of Medici[reply]

• Rename, The Medicis rose to grand ducal status, and a Medici daughter was considered suitable to be Queen of France, so I guess they qualify to be a "House of X" rather than an "X family". Chicheley 12:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 02:20, 31 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 -- Drini 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Far right leagues ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Duplicated by the more specific Category:French far right leagues; as you can see from the category's main article, this was meant to address the French context, and the reason for renaming was given by the fact that other leagues which may be described as "far right" do exist in other countries (so as to avoid inclusion of those in a specific cat). Dahn 11:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 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 -- Drini 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Historical bears to Category:Famous bears[reply]

• Merge, into Category:Famous bears in line with the other categories in Category:Famous animals. Landolitan 09:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. ×Meegs 23:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Twittenham 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Michael 01:51, 31 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, Caliphate was not tagged for merging. --Kbdank71 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both these categories exist, Caliphates however had only 2 entries and was listed under Caliphate. I moved the two entries to Caliphate leaving this one empty. Its an obvious duplication.--Tigeroo 09:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge By convention, category names are plural. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Caliphate is the Muslim name for the period when Islam was collectively ruled under one caliph. In a sense Caliphates might refer to the few recognized historical caliphates, but Caliphate is a category something like Category:France. Let me think about this one a bit more, I don't think it's exactly wrong, but it is potentially confusing. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted WikiProject Islam for their input. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about Category:The Caliphate, with brief explanation for name along the lines above on the category's page...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. There is a category:Rashidun with the deals with the specific Caliphates of early islam, after there are just the Omayyads and the Abassids, and various others who claimed it as well such as the Fatimids and Omayyads in Spain etc. even the Ottomans claimed the title for a good while. I think we can place the article caliph in there to explain the history etc. --Tigeroo 04:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge There have often been several contending caliphates, as there have been several popes. Keep and soft redirect. Septentrionalis 22:29, 2 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 found merged --Kbdank71 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was populating Islamic dynasties, however it seems folk prefer Muslim dynasties and moved my population and I agree with the term Muslim as it covers more than Islamic, and there is no need for having two cats that practically duplicate each other. Maybe we need a redirect to keep them from getting confused.--Tigeroo 09:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've alerted WikiProject Islam for their input. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're still waiting.. I'll wait a couple of days more. -- Drini 01:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like the move has already occurred... Regards, David Kernow 02:05, 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 found merged --Kbdank71 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For consistencies sake with the above makes it easier to keeps terms across similar. I have also noted that generally the term is shifting across wiki from Islamic to Muslim when dealing with the people and their social institutions. Plus the only religious ones are covered under the sub-category Rashidun as a designation for the special type of Caliphate that had specific religious implications.--Tigeroo 09:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've alerted WikiProject Islam for their input. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting, i'll give it a couple of days more. -- Drini 01:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like the move has already occurred... Regards, David Kernow 02:05, 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 13:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't object to a change to Category:Fenerbahçe footballers. Rationale: Fenerbahçe have merged their basketball operations with the former Ülkerspor club, and the merged team is now known as Fenerbahçe Ülkerspor. Since there's now the possibility that "Fenerbahçe players" can refer to more than one sport, it should be changed to "Fenerbahçe footballers". There's precedent for this; other clubs with multiple sports (e.g. FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, PSV Eindhoven) use "footballers" for their football player categories. — Dale Arnett 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re FC Barcelona etc, there have been a few "...footballers" categories renamed to "...players" recently as this appears to be the standard... but I don't know/mind, maybe "...footballers" or even "...footballers (soccer players)" will keep most people happy. Regards, David Kernow 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from July 19 for more discussion. Tim! 09:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Footballers seems to be the norm for these categories. It would match Category:Footballers in Turkey by club. If this one is renamed, then so should all of the other sub cats for Category:Footballers in Turkey by club. Vegaswikian 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are now some nominations the other way here... Regards, David Kernow 02:08, 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 killed and spam removed as well -- Drini 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Yet another joke category populated by a joke userbox. Delete. - EurekaLott 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Conan O'Brien. That's what the joke is from. --M@rēino 19:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from July 19 for further discussion. Tim! 09:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vegaswikian 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Michael 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Category:Alligator-fearing Wikipedians. Leave people alone. Septentrionalis 22:31, 2 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 to Fictional characters in children's television -- Drini 01:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Remove abbreviation as per usual. Hawkestone 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Hawkestone 12:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest rename to Category:Children's television fictional characters, or Category:Fictional characters on children's television. This would clarify the purpose of the category by excluding real people like Bernard Cribbins, Kenneth Williams, Tony Robinson and John Noakes to give four examples of people who fit one meaning of the word character, and who have often appeared on British children's television! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to Category:Fictional characters in children's television as it trips more lightly off the tongue than Category:Children's television fictional characters. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Her Pegship's suggestion would be OK by me. --RobertG ♬ talk 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Pegship, but Category:Fictional characters in children's television should be a subcat of Category:Children's television characters. Powers 13:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from July 19 — there seems to be a consensus to rename, but not to which name. Tim! 08:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional characters in children's television, for general consistency with Category:Fictional characters. I couldn't find any non-fictional characters, here, though I suppose there might (eventually) be some. Luna Santin 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters in children's television. If there are non-fictional "characters" that is perhaps a subcat called "Personalities" (Mr. Rogers?) --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters in children's television. Twittenham 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 01:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters in children's television. Vegaswikian 00:32, 2 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 -- Drini 02:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) All other FIFA World Cup categories and articles put the year first. Grutness...wha? 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for naming consistency with other FIFA categories. Luna Santin 13:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 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 Category:Asian pirates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, there is no obvious need for a pirates category by the huge Asian continent, as all pirates are now categorized by nationality. gidonb 02:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree with Gidonb--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 09:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apparently deprecated by or redundant to Category:Pirates by nationality. Not a bad category, per se, but I don't think we need continental subdivisions until we have quite a huge lot of articles. Luna Santin 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Cswrye 06:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 02:19, 31 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.