The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename both. the wub "?!" 08:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photographic terms to Category:Photography terms
Category:Photographic equipment to Category:Photography equipment

• Rename, More common/less awkward, IMO. Plus it's easier for me to remember which it is if it just matches its parent category (that is, Category:Photography). Recury 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Postdlf 00:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and I created them --Hooperbloob 01:15, 15 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. The template is a self reference. the wub "?!" 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as unused. However it doesn't qualify for {{db-catempty}} because of the template. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has a subcategory, but one that is basically a duplicate. The issue is which one shoudl be kept, and this one seems preferable to me. Olborne 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Alpha Kappa Alpha members. If no consensus, Delete. - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 18:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Violator Management to match Violator Management. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a bad idea to have a specific category for an individual company and its clients. Celebrities might interact with hundreds of companies, and if those companies had individual categories you'd have hundreds of categories in those celebrities' articles. Delete the category, and if desired include a bullet list of important clients in the main article. Dugwiki 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Dugwiki has made a good point. George J. Bendo 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is better served by a list article than a category. -/- Warren 10:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dugwiki. Hawkestone 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and add a list to the main VM article. --- RockMFR 16:17, 18 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional Misses, Mrs., and Ms. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As with the noms below, delete as inane and pointless trivia. The only useful function these categories serve is to prove that similarities in the names of fictional characters does not establish any other meaningful relationship. Compare Mrs. Robinson, Miss Piggy, Ms. Pac Man, and...Mrs. Butterworth. Postdlf 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Please see my comments below. (Is Mrs. Butterworth a fictional character or a real syrup?) George J. Bendo 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's a plastic bottle golem, of course. Postdlf 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sub-trivial. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These categories are of no conceivable use. Olborne 21:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful for marketing studies, perhaps should be divided into fictional characters from literature vs. marketing. dml 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overbroad and cluttersome. Piccadilly 05:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Fictional female characters which the author/creator preferred to call by Misses, Mrs., or Ms." - Imagine a related category: "Fictional pirates referred to by mister". Or even "Fictional dogs named Rover". - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional Misters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, absurdly trivial and trivially absurd. Unless you think that there's a point to collecting together Mr. Slave, Mr. Bean, and...Mr. Coffee. Postdlf 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This could be even more inane than the Fictional Aces category. (Besides, Mr. Coffee is not fictional.) George J. Bendo 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sub-trivial. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful for marketing studies, perhaps should be divided into fictional characters from literature vs. marketing. dml 09:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Horrendous. Delete. Alai 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - (per my comment in the above nomination) - Arrrgh, me hearties : ) - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Aces ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, extreme and arbitrary trivia for all fictional characters named or called "Ace." Completely and egregiously pointless, as illustrated by its grouping of Ace the Bathound and Ace Ventura. Next will be Category:Fictional Andys, so the significant connection between Raggedy Andy and Andy Sipowicz can finally be brought to light. Postdlf 18:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Categorizing fictional characters by name is inane. (At first, I thought this was a category about fictional playing cards.) George J. Bendo 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't want to see this spread.--Mike Selinker 05:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; Ace (disambiguation) is more suited to the task. -/- Warren 10:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Another Fictional dogs named Rover : ) - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:State governors of the United States. the wub "?!" 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Women state governors of the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom (although I think the convention is "Women" as opposed to "Woman"). Female heads of government are a legitimate sex-based categorization. Otto4711 20:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I'll fix my nomination as suggested. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Female heads of subnational governments are not remarkable. Piccadilly 00:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Because their numbers are so remarkably high, especially as a percentage of the total number. Please. Female governors of US states amount for less than 1% of the total. When the number of female governors begins approaching the number of male governors in the US, then maybe female governors won't be notable. For now, of course they are. Otto4711 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Don't delete. --- RockMFR 03:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:State governors of the United States. Vegaswikian 05:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:State governors of the United States. It is no longer possible to make a convincing case that women are at a major disadvantage in U.S. politics when two of the main political offices are held by women and a woman is probably favourite to be the next Presidency. Otto4711's argument implies waiting at least another 200 years before deleting this category, which is surely a little over the top. Hanbrook 07:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please don't misrepresent me or my argument, thanks. I said nothing about whether or not women are or are not disadvantaged in the current US political system. Whether they are or are not is irrelevant to this cat or to any other categorization by sex. What I said was that the number of women governors is so small as compared to the number of male governors that women governors remain notable. Otto4711 13:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge, overcat. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, better handled by list. Postdlf 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge - gender specific category isn't necessary. List would be sufficient if desired. Dugwiki 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify 132.205.93.19 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge, better handled by list. Mairi 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. We have a list article on this subject at List of female state governors in the United States. -/- Warren 06:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge to Category:State governors of the United States per previous consensus many, many times. - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as recreated content. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy, recreation. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, duplicate of Category:Compositions by Pyotr Tchaikovsky. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There is no need to listify as there is already a superior structured list in Tchaikovsky's article. Hanbrook 07:50, 15 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Life coaches. the wub "?!" 16:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Life coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:British life coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:English life coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Having three categories to hold the grand total of one article seems a little over the top Tim! 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a new but real occupation so why should it not have a category? It is the defining category for a person who works as a life coach, and he or she cannot be properly categorised without it. There are probably other articles floating around. Hanbrook 07:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the latter two as overcat. Keep the first one iff it can be populated. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please see a previous related discussion Casinos in England that failed. If the British and English subcats are deleted than that old nomination probably needs to be considered again. Vegaswikian 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Life Coaches", Delete "British life coaches" and "English life coaches" - Categorizing people as "life coaches" makes sense, since it is a real profession. Categorizing people by nationality or location, however, leads to category clutter. People who want a list of life coaches do not want that list subdivided by nationality. George J. Bendo 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Categorising people by nationality reduces category clutter. For example category:English life coaches stands in place of both Category:Life coaches and Category:English people and category:Life coaches. Without cross-categorisation by nationality and occupation Category:American people would be a useless swamp of circa 100,000 articles. Olborne 21:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the last two. I would have no objection to the last two categories if there was a need to reduce the size of Category:Life coaches and after it was recreated, Category:British life coaches. But at this point in time they do not appear to be needed. Vegaswikian 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first, delete the last two. We don't need three categories just for one person, whose Englishness is already directly testified to by two other categories. Alai 16:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all There is no minimum category size and accurate categorization is just as desirable at the bottom of the article about a life coach as at the bottom of an article about someone who belongs to a profession that has thousands of articles. Piccadilly 05:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Life coaches (per Life coaching). No need for the additional sub-categories to disambiguate by nationality. - jc37 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC) [modified to make target plural. - jc37 12:46, 26 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish trade unions to Category:Trade unions of Scotland

• Rename, Consistency with other subcategories of Category:Trade unions by country. Tim! 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It stands out at the moment. --Mereda 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Regan123 18:02, 20 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to "Name poems". the wub "?!" 16:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have several competing standards, all of which are reasonable. Poems by Writer, Poetry of Writer, Poems of Writer, Writer poems, and Poetry by Writer. I don't see how this is any different than Category:Operas by composer ... I think any of the above are acceptable, but would like to standardize on one of them. Once we've made a decision, speedy rename should become valid for issues like these. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If we go with "Poetry of," that would make the category open to articles on individual poems as well as on poetry collections, for what that's worth. Postdlf 19:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely "Name poems," to parallel "Name songs," "Name paintings," and everything else.--Mike Selinker 05:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Mike. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per MS. There's a difference between the specific work, and a collection of the author's works. (However, to be honest, for the format standard, I think "work by name" fits the Wikipedia standard better.) - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to "Name novels". the wub "?!" 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The great majority of these are the form Writer novels, for example Category:Kurt Vonnegut novels, and a smaller percentage are of the form Novels by Writer, for example Category:Novels by Thomas Pynchon. I think both of these are perfectly good, but we should pick a standard and live with it. Consistency is more work for us, the editors, but it's good for the users. Note, I'm not nominating anything, I'm just suggesting we discuss what the format ought to be. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Name novels has the advantage of compactness, so would probably be my favoured form. Tim! 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely "Name novels," to parallel "Name songs," "Name paintings," and everything else.--Mike Selinker 05:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Again "Name novels" is the way to go for all the reasons above and that is is self sorting in the parent category by the Authors name. The only issue then would be if the first name is used and would we then sort on "parent cat|surname, firstname novels". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "work by name". - jc37 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Name novels", per above. (I still feel that "Work by name" is a better standard, but that should be nominated for all such cats, not just isolate one.} - jc37 12:50, 26 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arjuna awardees to Category:Arjuna Award recipients
Category:Padma Shri awardees to Category:Padma Shri recipients
and the rest at Category:Indian honours system accordingly
Rename. Better name. - crz crztalk 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Better name. Consistent with other categories. --MarkS (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem Most of these nominated categories have not got the proper cfr notice on them yet, and the one for Padma Shri does not route automatically to this Arjuna section heading.--Mereda 08:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 's ok, I'm sure the gods of CFD can figure it out... - crz crztalk 13:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They seem to be tagged now? - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Friedrich Schiller plays, convention of Category:Plays by author. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. --MarkS (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The format of the over cat (Category:Plays by author} should be the standard for the subcats. ("work by name") - jc37 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain, per my comments above under poems and novels. - jc37 12:52, 26 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Churches to Category:Churches (buildings)

• Rename, this category and its subcats are a semantic mess mixing Church(e.g. look at the tree for Category:Churches by denomination!) and Church (building) (e.g. Category:Churches by country, Category:Cathedrals). Most subcats should be renamed too.
  A possible compromise is category:Protestant Churches for denomination and Category:Protestant churches (existing duplicates) for buildings Circeus 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also category:Roman Catholic churches vs. category:Christian denominations for an existing example. Circeus 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, after some thought I support renaming. If this does get carried out then we should rename the subcats too. --MarkS (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not Category:Churches (buildings)? Is there a reason the disambiguator should be singular while the category name is plural? Postdlf 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't come to my mind, mostly because I hadn't seen a plural cat with disambiguation mark yet. Circeus 20:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm still trying to understand the current layout. My current thinking is to not rename Category:Churches and move the demonination information to Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements under Category:Religion. Vegaswikian 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The proposed remedy, while tempting, is inadequate. I agree that articles about denominational groupings (e.g. Christ's Commission Fellowship) should be moved out and perhaps most of the articles in the root should be moved into Category:Types of churches, but the key problem as I see it is that most of the articles are not about buildings, but about congregations. For every Christ Church, Windhoek which is about a single physical structure, you'll find a St Mary's Church Wimbledon, which covers a parish that has had several successive buildings in the same location, or Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle, which has moved, or a Hillsong Church, which occupies a whole campus of buildings. To simply recast them as buildings would be equivalent to categorizing United Nations under Category:Skyscrapers in New York City. Local church is ambiguous (see Local churches) but parish is not denominationally netural; would "Local Christian congregations" do? For the time being then, I think a general cleanup, with explicit category descriptions, is preferable to a rename, especially because whatever term is adopted should be used throughout Category:Churches by country and it will be easier to have them all done at once. -choster 22:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, not perfect but still an improvement. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split Create a sub-category at the proposed current title Category:Churches (buildings). Until just this week, the main article for the category was Church, not Church (building). The typical reader will think of church first as an organization (denomination or local congregation), second as a building, and possibly third as an event (fortunately, we don't need articles for this sense of the word). We should restore the old main article as part of this split. Most of what is currently in the category is organizations, so most of the current contents should not go to the proposed new title, it should instead go to Category:Churches (organizations). Not a building (or group of buildings). The only items in the current category that I'm sure should move to Category:Churches (buildings) are Category:Church architecture, Category:Stave churches, Church (building), List of tallest churches in the world, List of churches and Category:Images of Churches. The following probably should be in both new categories, or could be kept here if this remains the parent of the new category: Category:Cathedrals, Category:Church stubs. GRBerry 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements and Category:Churches (organizations) interact? Vegaswikian 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Church" as an organization has two sub-senses; denominations and local congregations. Denominations belong in Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements, probably by being in its subcategory Category:Christianity, or even mostly in Category:Christian denominations which is a sub-category of that. Local congregations probably belong in a category for churches of their denomination/movement category (which would be in both the denominational sub-category of Category:Christian denominations and in Category:Churches by denomination), unless the local congregation is or is on the cusp of becoming the mother church for a denomination, in which case it could sit a level higher.
    • Category:Cathedrals Are Cathedrals primarily viewed as structures or as the seat of a bishop? If both, they need to be in two places, if only one, where that one ought to be listed. Our article on cathedrals is written from a canon law bias, so it makes it looks like being the seat of a bishop is the primary meaning, and any architecture is an incidental. If this is right, then it should not go to the buildings sub-cat.
    • On this split structure, Category:Church stubs should clearly stay at Category:Churches. It's only sub-category is denominational, which is confirming evidence.
    • The trouble with my original thought of splitting was what to do with Category:Churches by city, Category:Churches by country, Category:Churches by denomination (all three of the preceding with their numerous subcategories), Category:Megachurches, and Category:Churches in the Caribbean. These are neither building/structure oriented nor denominationally oriented. So they should not go to Category:Churches (buildings), instead they should stay in Category:Churches. We should make the new Category:Churches (buildings) a subcategory of Category:Churches, and move almost everything else into one of these categories.
    • Finally, we probably should make Category:Churches by city defunct and move all its city specific sub-cats into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Churches by country. GRBerry 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Churches by country states 'This category contains articles about church buildings.' so it should stay in the building category. Deleting Category:Churches by city may not fly since it is common to have Category:Foo by city. At the local level, one could agrue that an article is always about the building and the demonination. I'm not sure what a detailed study of the articles would or would not prove. In any case I think it is safe to say that whatever is done needs to be well thought out before any major move of articles. I wonder if the simple soultion to is simply leave the current category alone and dual list the sub categories that are about both the building and denominations? Vegaswikian 07:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, though concur with Choster that the target's not ideal. Alai 11:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Target name is not ideal, no need to perform a rename until a good name is decided upon (if a rename is even needed at all). --- RockMFR 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It makes more sense to rename categories for religious denominations as appropriate as a more flexible range of terms is available. Piccadilly 05:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I like the reasoning used by Piccadilly. Let's move the existing sub cats into the correct parents and then if we need to rename this one, bring it up again. But I suspect that moving the sub cats will fix most of the problems. Vegaswikian 00:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This needs fixing, but I don't think renaming it (atleast as proposed) is the way to go. Piccadilly's solution seems better. Mairi 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Surely most readers will think of a church as the building, primarilly? If the article also describes the congregation that meets there, then that is an incidental. Most of the articles, for Category:Churches in England at least, describe the buildings as their main focus. Congregations that are not based around a specific building, and/or exist in more than one English county, have been moved to Category:Churches in the United Kingdom (at least for now!). I make these points on the back of a concerted attempt to sort out the mess of categorisation for all the articles describing English churches (including chapels and cathedrals, etc). They are now arranged by the county in which they are located. Each 'Churches in (county)' cat is also a subcat of the 'Buildings and Structures' category for the county, in the same way that 'bridges', 'railway stations', 'historic houses', etc, are. (It's a 'work in progress'!!). I suggest that any articles describing 'churches' that are not building-focussed should be placed in cats with more-specific names. (Incidentally, most English cathedrals ARE also noted for their architecture, and all appear in their own right in the appropriate county's 'Buildings and Structures' cat.) -- EdJogg 13:14, 21 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Religious work to Category:Religious occupations

• Rename, For consistency with category:Occupations. Circeus 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, plus "X work" doesn't necessarily mean "X occupation". David Kernow (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Mairi 04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Imagine, me agreeing with some of you on this one!?! Pastorwayne 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Will miracles never cease : ) - jc37 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per above. - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Apple employees to Category:Apple Computer employees
• Category:Failed Apple initiatives to Category:Failed Apple Computer initiatives
• Category:Apple hardware to Category:Apple Computer hardware
• Category:Apple services to Category:Apple Computer services
• Category:Apple software to Category:Apple Computer software
• Category:Apple typefaces to Category:Apple Computer typefaces

Rename (Apple Corps v. Apple Computer)--Sjeunz 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Would be consistent with the article (Apple Computer) and the category Category:Apple Computer --MarkS (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hanbrook 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. -/- Warren 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. —Down10 ^TACO 05:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spouses of Chinese national leaders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category will be impossible to define -- and already, the subcategories that are added are questionable, as some empresses' husbands were arguably not "national leaders." Category:Leaders of China was deleted back on September 13 for the same reasons (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_5). Having "national leaders" does make it slightly less ambiguous, but it's still ambiguous. (Not only that, but "spouses" may actually be ambiguous as well; certainly, I don't think Category:Chinese imperial consorts belongs because those were not wives.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having read why Category:Leaders of China was deleted then it makes no sense at all to have a spouses of Chinese national leaders section.
• Delete per nom; better to address purely through unambiguous, narrower categories such as Category:First Ladies of the Republic of China, than to impose a vague and inaccurate attempt at a parent concept. Postdlf 19:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, being married to a famous man is not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete George J. Bendo 19:49, 15 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 16:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:World Championship Wrestling alumni ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as an improper categorization based on "former" status or Rename to Category:World Championship Wrestling roster. Otto4711 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:World Championship Wrestling roster, although I think it went bankrupt. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WCW is now defunct, so anybody who was with WCW by default will be former/alumni. To make a roster is not valid because that would imply they are currently affiliated with a defunct group---as compared to their actual organization.Balloonman 19:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Balloonman. There's no longer a WCW organization, even in WWE storylines. — Dale Arnett 08:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "wrestlers", "former employees", "personalities", or anything that doens't make unencyclopaedic use of "alumni". Alai 11:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the preceding arguments. The WCW-as such-no longer exists. "Alumni" is an apt categorization. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:World Championship Wrestling wrestlers per consistancy with Category:American professional wrestlers and subcats. - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge/rename. the wub "?!" 16:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:M94 group to Category:M94 Group
Category:Canes Venatici Cloud to Category:M94 Group

• Merge/Rename - Originally, this was created to include galaxy groups that lied within a region designated the "Canes Venatici Cloud" by Brent Tully in a 1982 paper. However, the term "Canes Venatici Cloud" has not been used in that sense since the 1980's. Currently, the term is used to refer to the M94 Group (NGC 4736 Group), as a search for "Canes Venatici Cloud" in the ADS Abstract Service or the Simbad Astronomical Database will reveal. Both Category:M94 group and Category:Canes Venatici Cloud should be merged together under the name Category:M94 Group. The first letter of the word "group" should be capitalized because the object is a proper noun (a specific place).

(Note: The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) lists the "Canes Venatici Cloud" as an alternate name for the NGC 4631 Group. Based on the papers returned from the ADS Abstract Service, this designation is probably incorrect. Part of the problem is difficulty in identifying group membership near NGC 4631, as indicated in the NGC 4631 Group article. NED relies on the LGG catalog for group identification, which lists Messier 94 and NGC 4631 as part of the same group. Most other galaxy group catalogs list these two galaxies as belonging to separate groups, so the results from NED are probably inaccurate.)

GeorgeJBendo 15:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Christian ministers, or at least Rename to Category:Preachers of the Christian Gospel. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename is fine, presuming there are other "gospels," i.e., that other religions also have "gospels." Or is gospel a word unique to the Christian faith? Pastorwayne 22:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All Christian ministers are "preachers" of the Gospel. No merge is needed - the two people in the category are already sorted appropriately. --- RockMFR 23:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but not all ministers are "preachers." Preaching is a specific task of ministry to which not all ministers are called or engaged. Only preachers preach. Ministers minister, which may include preaching (but not necessarily). Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Splitting "ministers" into "preaching" and "non-preaching", rather than (or more to the point, as well as) by denomination is a non-solution to a non-problem. Alai 16:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a viable way of splitting Christian religious leaders, cuts across current subcategories without adding significant information. Mairi 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mairi and Alai. Postdlf 04:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is already List of preachers (which probably also needs renaming). WHich handles this all better. The category would seem to be confusing as named. - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least Rename to Category:1851 religious leaders. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is the only YEAR religious leaders category we have. --- RockMFR 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as most leaders will have a term stretching over many years, this doesn't seem a practical category scheme. Tim! 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tim!. Postdlf 19:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we already have lists of religious leaders by year (eg. List of religious leaders in 1851) which seem much better suited to this sort grouping. --MarkS (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an example of a category-clutter generating category type. Piccadilly 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Per all above. And shuddering at the thought of Category:624 Religious Leaders, Category:1517 Religious Leaders, Category:1963 Religious Leaders, etc. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categorization by year is inane and unwieldly. George J. Bendo 14:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All of the above (what about the last Pope, would he get 26 separate cats?), plus the category is unutilised. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 01:57, 20 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, empty, and currently context-free table of sporting results. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See Rugby League State of Origin. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there are some articles which can be added to the category. Tim! 17:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete It looks like the creator wanted to create an article listing these games rather than a category, but there is already a list in the established article. Piccadilly 00:27, 15 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disney actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
"Actors by Company They Have Worked For" is not a good categorization scheme. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 13#Category:Pixar voice actors for related discussion and excellent reasoning for deletion. Also, please consider the subcategories of this category; I suspect they also should be deleted but the case isn't quite as clear. Powers ^T 14:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless all of the subcategories are deleted, which seems unlikely. Tim! 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I think there was more of a "studio system" in the classic Disney era then there is now. I think it's possible, maybe even likely, that there are actors associated with Disney but not other studios. If I'm wrong on that I'll change my mind--T. Anthony 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking to weak keep, but my reasons have changed. It's useful as a parent category and some of the subcats might still fit what I meant.--T. Anthony 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and per comments in CFD for similar Pixar category. Above comments supporting the category suggest this is somehow more narrowly defined than it is; it includes anyone who has ever acted in at least one film produced by Disney, which is trivia. Postdlf 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even in the studio system days many stars worked for several studios over their careers, and that era was a long time ago. Most of the actors with articles are more recent. As a precedent this could promote a lot of category clutter on articles that really don't need any more. Piccadilly 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a defining characteristic, just like films by actor and actors by film aren't appropriate. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Creating specific categories per company a person works for is a bad idea. Prolific actors might have worked for numerous companies, and if each of those companies had a distinct category it would lead to numerous categories in that actor's article. Dugwiki 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and as far as the subcategories, they should be simply be removed from this parent category. If that leaves the subcategory with no parent, it should either be placed in a different appropriate parent category or nominated for deletion. Dugwiki 17:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and have a very hard look at the subcats: I don't see Category:Disney voice actors as having much merit, either, nor the Disney Channel cats, even if (and I say if) the by-programme/by-film cats are OK. Alai 17:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per several previous similar nominations. - jc37 10:01, 22 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venues of the Curtis Cup to Category:Curtis Cup venues

• Rename, to the form used by the other two categories of this type category:Ryder Cup venues and Category:Solheim Cup venues. Hoylake 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Olborne 21:12, 15 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Param Vir Chakra to Category:Param Vir Chakra recipients

• Rename, to what it is - a category of recipients of a medal. It would bring it into line with general usage, like Category:Medal of Honor recipients and Category:Victoria Cross recipients. Mereda 10:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The proposed name provides a clue to the purpose of a category which is presently a mystery. Hanbrook 07:57, 15 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genres of Indian Art to Category:Genres of Indian art

• Capitalization fix; "Indian art" isn't a capitalized term. Crystallina 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Eligible for speedy renaming. Piccadilly 08:50, 14 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete those nominated. the wub "?!" 11:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Playboy models ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Model by magazine, per precedent set by deleting Category:Playgirl models. Also nominated: Category: Playboy Coeds of the Week, Category:Playboy Cyber Girls and Category:Playboy NSS models for the same reason. Otto4711 04:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Playboy is an incredibly notable publication, much more than Playgirl. I don't even think the Playgirl models category should have been deleted. --- RockMFR 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Category:Playboy Playmates is not nominated. Otto4711 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As long as we have dozens of articles about models whose only notability is being in Playboy, we should keep these categories. If being a model in Playboy is not notable enough to have an article here, then the articles should be deleted before the categories are deleted. --- RockMFR 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except Category:Playboy Playmates, which is something the women are for a period of time rather than simply a photo spread. Piccadilly 08:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agreeing with Piccadilly's delete comments. - jc37 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem I have here is that some of the people in these categories are notable only for being in Playboy. Totally at random I clicked on Category: Playboy Coeds of the Week and then Jessica Betancourt. Ms. Betancourt we are told "is an American model. She was Playboy's Coed of the Week for the 2nd week of September 2005. She is also featured in Playboy's Hot Shots 2006, Playboy's Lingerie April/May 2006, and Playboy's Hot 100 of 2006." That's it. If being a Playboy model (but not a "Playmate") isn't sufficiently notable, the articles should be nominated too. If it is sufficient, I think the category should stay because it's clearly career defining in Ms. Betancourt's case (and remember, I picked her at random). --kingboyk 11:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If the person is known only for being in Playboy (and not a "Playmate") then the article should be deleted for failing WP:BIO. I didn't have the time to go through several hundred articles checking for notability but if choosing one at random yields nn then the articles probably should be checked and nominated as needed. Otto4711 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support that. I'd say the Playmates (the centerfolds—Miss [month], [year]) are per se notable, though we could probably do some merging on the stubs into list articles; the other models? Nowhere near as prominent or well remembered. It's common (and a common sitcom joke) for someone to recognize "Miss June, 1986" years later, and they're always referred to as "former Playboy Playmates." The role has a lot of pop culture significance. It doesn't quite work with "Coed of the Week for the Second Week in September." Those should be deleted if that's all they've accomplished. Postdlf 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started trying to cull through some of this herd and nominating some of the non-notables (which includes everyone in the Coeds of the Week cat except for the above-mentioned Jessica Betancourt since someone got there ahead of me with a prod, which, man, that reads dirty doesn't it) but I found myself in the middle of List of Playboy Playmates with big breasts and had to flee screaming. Otto4711 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh, what a horrible list. It's been AFD'd not so long ago and I'm in a rush so I'm not gonna nominate it but I have at least moved it to the less subjective sounding List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts. Oh by the way it was me who prodded the Co-Ed of the week. Sigh. --kingboyk 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, We've done this before. Eventually it became useless, one model (I forget her name) was in over 70 categories, the most categories in all of Wikipedia. Currently Hank Aaron is the top of that list. We ended up killing almost all the model cats. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. All of these are much less significant to the subject than the Playmate category. Postdlf 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the main category. There are a huge number of articles whose entire claim to fame is being Playboy models. This gets my vote for being an elite sorority, like category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models, category:Page Three girls, and nothing else. (On the other hand, some of those subcategories seem really trivial.)--Mike Selinker 05:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Playboy Playmates are an "elite sorority," and that category is not nominated. Look at the actual root-level contents of the "Playboy models" category and you'll see that this is vastly more inclusive, and not categorically career-defining—it does not distinguish between those who are only known for modelling for the magazine, and those who posed for a pictorial but whose notability is tied to their career in other areas. Postdlf 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - What is your response to the up-debate assertion that if the person whose entire claim to fame is being in Playboy that they fail WP:BIO and should be deleted? Otto4711 16:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That for me is the key issue. We should definitely keep the Playmate cats (per Mike Selinker) but I'm not sure about these girls for whom Playboy was clearly career defining because they haven't done anything else of note. --kingboyk 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the main category per Mike Selinker. Being a Playboy model (without the subcats) is notable enough for its own cat. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that categories and notability are somewhat independent. For example, there are lots of notable actors who only fall under the generic categories for film actors or television actors, with no specific categories for exactly what makes them notable. Likewise, Playboy models can easily all be categorized under the generic model categories without requiring a specific category for Playboy or any other magazine they may or may not have modelled for. So specific article deletion due to notability is basically a completely seperate topic from categorization of articles. Dugwiki 18:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Playboy Playmates] and delete the others. Playboy models who were not playmates really don't merit articles unless they are notable for other reasons, eg acting work. Olborne 21:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Playboy Playmates of the Month and sift. A "Playmate" is not as exclusive as the PMOM, IIRC. PMOM and a subcategory Category:Playboy Playmates of the Year should be kept. (Although there is an argument for Category:Playboy Celebrity Playmates... they've published a book on them too). 132.205.93.19 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IIRC, a Playmate is a Playboy model that appears in the magazine (not the specials, not other publications)... this includes the PMOM, Celebrity Centerfolds, and others. 132.205.93.19 02:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, only the monthly centerfolds are "Playmates." "Celebrity Centerfold" is a product brand name for the celebrity videos. Naomi Campbell did not become a "Playboy Playmate" by posing for the magazine; no one refers to her as a "former Playboy Playmate," and she shouldn't be categorized as a "Playboy model" because of one magazine shoot out of thousands in her career. That's the issue here. Postdlf 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Playboy calls them PMOM and PMOY, since all PMOY are PMOM... why not use it? 132.205.93.31
    • That also gets us to interesting cases such as Marilyn Monroe, and Pamela Anderson, both noteworthy outside of Playboy (though Pammy got PB to launch her career)... and cases where celebrities are also defined by appearing in Playboy ... (say Joan Collins, at a ripe old age ; or some Romanian gymnasts) 132.205.93.31 04:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so you've made an argument for renaming Category:Playboy Playmates to Category:Playboy Playmates of the Month. But I think you're confused about what category we are actually considering. Category:Playboy models contains the Playmates category (which is already "sifted" to include only the PMOM) as a subcategory. The "models" category just includes everyone else who ever posed, without regard to whether they have been "defined" by it. Trivia for which we already have lists. Postdlf 15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply having appeared in a magazine with thousands of models is not a defining moment, and does not justify a category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:16, 20 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. the wub "?!" 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Underground railroad locations to Category:Underground Railroad locations

• I think this should be renamed per capitalisation at Underground Railroad. user:Qviri 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename'. Would make it clearer that it is not a typical railroad. Vegaswikian 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --- RockMFR 06:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It isn't appropriate to categorise places by things that happened in them in this way as it is not a defining characteristic. Piccadilly 08:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but only a weak keep, per Piccadilly's comment (BTW, this should not be confused with the Piccadilly that is an Underground railway station ;) Grutness...wha? 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some of these places are quite large so this isn't close to being a defining characteristic of them. Olborne 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Underground Railroad sites or perhaps Category:Underground Railroad historic sites and thus exclude the cities etc. I would usggest "landmarks" but I fear that would be misused as well. --Dhartung | Talk 12:46, 21 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches named for St. Dunstan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete Irrelevant, will never be properly populated. And if we keep this, do we have to create categories for all churches by saints? Circeus 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list in the Saint's article (which should as a matter of course be linked to from the article about each church) is the way to go. Piccadilly 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that a list in the saint's article is more appropriate. Except for the name, the churches named after St. Dunstan probably share little in common with each other. (The list of articles in the category is as inane as I expected it to be. Churches named after St. Dunstan: St. Dunstan's, St. Dunstan's, St. Dunstan's, the Church of St. Dunstan, St. Dunstan's...) George J. Bendo 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteBalloonman 22:35, 15 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social networking to Category:Online social networking (or Category:Online social networks)

• Rename. This category is currently used for articles related to online social networking. Category:Social networks is the "parent" category which deals with social networks in general. --- RockMFR 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Online social networking as that option is more inclusive or any articles there may be now or in the future that are in this subject area but are not about a specific network. Piccadilly 08:55, 14 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Transportation companies of Spain to Category:Transport companies of Spain

• Rename, in line with previous decision to use "transport" for European transport categories. Honbicot 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Darwinek 10:41, 18 November 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 section.