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, but renaming per choster as current name malformed. David Kernow (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spider-Man Movie Images ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Yet another category by Creepy Crawler. It's an image dump, and matches any number of other categories and userpages revolving around Spider-Man 3 he's been making. His edits are up on Admin/RfI, as well. (I put the request up.) ThuranX 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I honestly don't see anything wrong with this category. Just because a user is making other pages that might be unnecessary doesn't mean that every creation is unnecessary. There are other categories that are similar to this one and I don't see any policy or guideline that states it should not be done. --Pinkkeith 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Spider-Man images pending review of contents. There are many Spider-Man images which the user in question did not post which could be included in the more general category, making them centrally accessible, including all the comic book covers and movie posters in the main article.-choster 15:49, 30 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 redirect LGBT studies to Queer studies. David Kernow (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT studies to Category:Queer studies

• Rename, I created this category, but didn't realize that there is already a Queer studies article out there already. It is also refered to as LGBT studies. I redirected that LBGT studies to the Queer studies article. Pinkkeith 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Checking Google and my own intuition, I would say "Queer studies" would be more useful. Haiduc 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I'm pretty sure "queer studies" is the more common term. --Alynna 02:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the rename; "queer studies" is certainly the more typical name for academic/sociological study of LGBT issues. But keep Category:LGBT studies as a {{categoryredirect}}. Bearcat 01:38, 1 December 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 Timelines of spaceflight per Tim!  David Kernow (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of spaceflights by year to Category:Timeline of spaceflight

• Rename, all the "List of spaceflights by year" articles were recently renamed under a proposal, discussed at WT:LSY, to convert them into a timeline of spaceflight. All the moves are now complete, and the templates used on the articles have been configured to put the articles, which were previously in Category:Lists of spaceflights by year, into Category:Timeline of spaceflight, which does not currently exist. Therefore, the category should be moved to correspond to the new location of articles. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename though I think this should be a speedy. siafu 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Timelines of spaceflight or Category:Spaceflight timelines, it ought to be plural. Tim! 18:31, 30 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 – I think – merge with Christmas characters. David Kernow (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Christmas characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Yes, Virginia, there is a Frosty the Snowman and Ebenezer Scrooge. They exist as certainly as imagination and tradition exist... (Let's leave the fiction/nonfiction distinctions out of it; if subdivisions are necessary, there must certainly be firmer dividing lines than this. Existing entries in category should be put back with Category:Christmas characters) jengod 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --theDemonHog 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge, many of the "non-fiction" characters in the parent are at best semi-historical to begin with, and the category is not overwhelmingly large. -choster 16:01, 30 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 keep as named. David Kernow (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norwegian academics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Duplicates Category:Norwegian scientists. Is the title even valid English? Punkmorten 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not all academics are scientists and vv. Academic is used as a noun here, as it is throughout Category:Academics by nationality and its related categories. -choster 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This nomination is complete nonsense. Please look up "scientist" and "academic" in an English dictionary. Piccadilly 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Alynna 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; not all academics are scientists. Bearcat 01:40, 1 December 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 re deletion, so renaming to Mortal Kombat terms to remove ambiguous abbreviation. David Kernow (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MK Glossary to Category:Mortal Kombat terms

• Rename, expand abbreviations, fix capitalization, and to match the other subcategories of Category:Terminology ("terms" or "terminology" instead of "glossary"). Recury 19:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Animedude 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. None of these have anything to do with MK. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the existence of articles to populate this category merely shows that there are too many articles on computer games and films. Ten subcategories to Category:Mortal Kombat is way too many. Otherwise rename per nomination. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting the articles would be a better course of action than deleting the categories in that case. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you either. Recury 16:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and nominate all contents for deletion - even if these articles were not game-based, they would still violate the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:38, 30 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. David Kernow (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galaxy subclusters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Astronomers do designate regions of groups and clusters of galaxies as "subgroups" and "subclusters". However, these subregions should be listed in their corresponding groups' articles, not in this category. The subgroups themselves have no meaning out of the context of their groups. It would be like have a "Category:Regions of U.S. States" that includes things such as "Northeast Iowa", "Western Connecticut", and "Texas Panhandle". Since the category only contains four categories that are already listed in Category:Local Group and the article subcluster itself (which is a stub that should probably be merged with galaxy groups and clusters, the category can be deleted without needing to move its contents to another category. Dr. Submillimeter 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, we have Category:Counties of the United States, so why not have a category to group every subgroup/subcluster. Texas Panhandle itself is in a less useful than galaxy subcluster category right now, Category:Panhandles. See panhandle for its informality. 132.205.93.32 01:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regions of the United States 132.205.93.32 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Panhandles for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 15:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; this is not a logical organization. Subcluster categories should be parented by the category for their respective clusters. siafu 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 00:38, 10 December 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. David Kernow (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kaiju Defense Organizations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - and listify. Empty category. I'm not exactly sure what the creator of this category was going for, but all the information on the page is in the text of the category and there are no articles in it. As such, this would work better as a list. If the category is meant to hold articles that are going to be made in the future, then this category can be remade after there is stuff to put in it. Animedude 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the category was created in April and is still empty six months later. I don't think that listification is needed, because the text and list is quite short, so it could esaily go in another article about whatever game or film this stuff refers to to. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't reffer to one movie or game it particular. It is a list of Anti-Giant Monster (kaiju) organizations in the Godzilla series and other kaiju films. I dont know where it would go on another page. (Animedude 18:04, 29 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colliding galaxies into Category:Interacting galaxies

• Merge to Category:Interacting galaxies - In professional astronomy, most if not all interacting galaxies are galaxies that are in the process of merging or that will merge in the near future (in astronomical terms). Having the two categories is redundant. The term "interacting galaxies" is used more frequently in professional astronomy, which is why I recommend merging to that category name. (Also, I would like to note that merging two categories about merging galaxies is just plain funny.) Dr. Submillimeter 19:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per main article title, interacting galaxies. siafu 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Collide agreed. WilliamKF 01:00, 7 December 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. David Kernow (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presbyterian cathedrals of the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A "cathedral" is a church with a "cathedra", a bishop's throne. A church with presbyterian governance lacks bishops in this sense. Category contains one church that bills itself as a cathedral. Carolynparrishfan 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The article should be at East Liberty Presbyterian Church. Cloachland 16:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY G1 as patent nonsense. "Presbyterian cathedrals" makes as much sense as "Papal condoms" or "Jewish bacon sandwiches". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:45, 28 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 Doctor Who universe as this category currently carries subcategories. David Kernow (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Whoniverse into Category:Doctor Who spin-offs

• Merge, Unnecessary category, duplicates the spin-offs cat. Tim! 17:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and as a truly ghastly neologism! Failing that, rename to Category:Doctor Who Universe or something similarly appropriate to the tone of an encyclopedia. Xtifr _tälk 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Tim! and Xtifr, or if kept, rename. Fannish and non-encyclopedic term, not even widely used in the programme's own literature. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:50, 30 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Queen's University of Belfast to Category:Queen's University Belfast
• Category:People associated with Queen's University, Belfast to Category:People associated with Queen's University Belfast
• Category:Academics of Queen's University of Belfast to Category:Academics of Queen's University Belfast
• Category:Alumni of Queen's University, Belfast to Category:Alumni of Queen's University Belfast

• Rename, the main article is now at Queen's University Belfast in line with the institution branding. The categories need to all use the same name. Timrollpickering 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question but the official title of the Uni remains "The Queen's University of Belfast". I support keeping the category and article names in synch, but is it really appropriate for Wikpedia to follow trendy rebranding? (Although I am aware that in raising the question, I risk cornering myself into implicitly recommending a renaming on the other side of the Irish border to create Category:Provost, Fellows and Scholars of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Virtually all UK university articles follow the current public name as the most common current formal form - see particularly Durham University (not "University of Durham"), Newcastle University (not "University of Newcastle upon Tyne"), Imperial College London (not "Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine") and my current institution Queen Mary, University of London (where "Queen Mary and Westfield College" is seriously out of date in day to day usage and both staff and students make a point of correcting it in day to day usage). Quite apart from having all the current QUB articles and categories using a single name form (currently the categories use two!) I think the current institutional name works best for UK institution - the official titles in charters and the like are arguably more akin to the official full names of countries (for instance we have Jacques Chirac's country at "France" not the "French Republic"). 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. OK, you've persuaded me, official name gets too confusing in some of these cases, and consistency between article and category helps. However, I do think that France should be renamed to something else if it would annoy Jacques ;) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:21, 28 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, but to Computer and video games with textual graphics as I believe "computer and video games" is the norm...  David Kernow (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Text computer and video games (graphics) to Category:Computer games with textual graphics

• Rename, To clarify the subject matter, which is text games as opposed to, say, interactive fiction or MUDS. I've omitted the usual '...and video games...' qualifier because all ASCII games are computer rather than console games. (Watch someone prove me wrong now!) Marasmusine 08:09, 27 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 a consensus to disambiguate by adding "(TV series)" (cf also fifth point here). In lieu of any objection to Mike Selinker's request below, have also merged Lost 2nd season characters accordingly. David Kernow (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Lost to Category:Lost (TV series)
• Category:Lost characters to Category:Lost (TV series) characters
• Category:Lost 2nd season characters to Category:Lost (season 2) characters
• Category:Lost crew to Category:Lost (TV series) crew
• Category:Lost directors to Category:Lost (TV series) directors
• Category:Lost episodes to Category:Lost (TV series) episodes
• Category:Lost episode images to Category:Lost (TV series) episode images
• Category:Lost writers to Category:Lost (TV series) writers

Rename--Rwoz 06:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete crew, directors,and writers, Rename the rest. The three categories I mentioned are a case of overcategorization. This information can be better handled by having lists. The remainder are probably useful as a recepticle for lost articles. -- Samuel Wantman 09:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, unnecessary. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all that are kept to remove ambiguity. No opinion on whether some of them should be deleted. Choalbaton 14:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - What is the reason for this, I don't see any point to it? It's unambiguous as is, no reason to change anything. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/delete per Samuel. Recury 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The main aricle is Lost (TV series) and the category should reflect this. --Pinkkeith 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all that are kept: I don't care which are kept or deleted, but they should have Lost (TV series) after them. Riverbend 22:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yeah right. This is unnecessary disambiguation. --theDemonHog 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as the primary meaning of the current names has little to do with the intended meaning. Piccadilly 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. 'Lost episodes' could easily be misinterpreted as a category full of episodes about which little information is known because nobody seems to have a recording, and disambiguation is equally required on the others. --ais523 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per ais523 Cloachland 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crew, directors, and writers per Samuel Wantman; rename all that aren't deleted, necessary disambiguation per Piccadilly and ais523. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, and delete crew, directors, and writers per Samuel Wantman. -- Wikipedical 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all that are kept. Disambiguation is necessary: if I saw "Lost writers" or "Lost characters" I would assume we were talking about writers or characters who were MIA. --Alynna 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Though it will make the category names longer, it looks like a reasonable change. --Elonka 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Completely unnecessary. There are other articles named Lost, which is why we have Lost (TV series). There are no other categories named Lost, so there is no ambiguity. –  Anþony  talk  00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Comparisons with article naming may not be appropriate. Categories exist to provide context for a group of articles; article naming does not. There may be an argument for disambiguating a category name that would not apply to an article name. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on main nomination, but please merge category:Lost (season 2) characters into whatever the Lost characters category becomes. That's a terrible differentiation that should be killed now.--Mike Selinker 03:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, there is simply no need. codu (^t/^c) 14:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Seems to be correct disambiguation although does not seem necessary yet. 15 years from now when the movie comes out we will be thankful :). TonyTheTiger 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Category:Lost episodes atleast definitely needs renaming, per ais523. And we do have atleast one category for such episodes, Category:Lost BBC episodes, so it is a real concern. Mairi 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "Lost" is a common word, but I have never heard of the television series. Hawkestone 16:07, 2 December 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. David Kernow (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Smallville to Category:Smallville (TV series)
• Category:Smallville characters to Category:Smallville (TV series) characters

rename--Rwoz 06:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, unnecessary. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Entirely sensible. Choalbaton 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We don't disambiguate unless we need to. Sinpler is better. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I can see where there might be confusion with "Lost", but not with "Smallville". Recury 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Rename per Timrollpickering. Recury 15:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: It should be consistent with how the show is titled, inmo. Riverbend 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What else could Smallville mean? --theDemonHog 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without a renaming these categories could encompass characters from the Superboy strips - is Professor Potter within the scope of these categories? Timrollpickering 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, no need to disambig here. (Radiant) 12:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as to elimiate confusion with the comic town of the same name. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as the series is named after the town there's a need to disambiguate from the comic Superboy strips set in Smallville. Timrollpickering 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Consistency is a good thing. --Elonka 23:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Completely unnecessary. There is no category relating to the Superboy comics, and it would be properly named Category:Superboy anyway. –  Anþony  talk  00:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — where is the ambiguity here? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these categories altogether. Everything in them will already be covered by broader Superman categories. Doczilla 08:10, 30 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Oz Episodes to Category:Oz (TV series) episodes
• Category:Oz screenshots to Category:Oz (TV series) screenshots

rename--Rwoz 06:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, unnecessary. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The latter at least makes me think of Australia first. Choalbaton 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I thought these categories would be related to the Baum works; I can't be the only one. -choster 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Recury 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -per nom. Riverbend 22:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not necessary. --theDemonHog 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -per nom. Very necessary. Piccadilly 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Oz can mean many things. And frankly the Wizard of Oz and all related items should take precedence. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but note that there's also some TV series about the Wizard of Oz and this isn't it. (Radiant) 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I know of Oz the place and Oz the movie and Ozzy and Ozzfest, but I'd never heard of the TV series before. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, to keep things consistent. --Elonka 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split. Oppose "Oz Episodes" as unnecessary. Category:Australia covers the country. Category:Oz covers all things related to the Wizard of Oz. There's no such thing as an "episode" of the Wizard of Oz. Support "Oz screenshots", as it could potentially refer to screenshots from the film. –  Anþony  talk  00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wasn't there a Wizard of Oz cartoon series? Timrollpickering 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because of the Wizard of Oz cartoon series, and because the L. Frank Baum Oz novels could be described as "episodic". There is ambiguity here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 13:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I've seen issues in the past arising from ambiguity as to whether an "Oz" category referred to Oz-as-in-Judy-Garland-meets-the-Wizard or Oz-as-in-Christopher-Meloni. Bearcat 01:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename This is a minor contemporary use of "Oz" that doesn't merit precedence. Hawkestone 16:08, 2 December 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battles of the Somme 1916 into Category:Battle of the Somme

• Merge, redundant categories; no idea why we have two. Kirill Lokshin 05:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wonder if some sorting is in order per Battle of the Somme (disambiguation).-choster 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one Battle of the Somme that needs its own category, though; the others are all single-article things. Kirill Lokshin 14:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - DAB page seems to indicate different Sommes. 132.205.93.32 02:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The 1916 category seems to be not a disambiguation (1916 Somme as opposed to other Sommes), but a division of battles in the 1916 Somme as opposed to other things surrounding Battle of the Somme (1916). Both categories say they're about the 1916 one; the former is about the battles. I see two issues: 1) Do we need to separate the battles from the other contents of Category:Battles of the Somme 1916? 2) Are these two categories named as well as they could be? --Alynna 16:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories are so small that I don't think a split is worthwhile (and the general convention is not to split this way; c.f. Category:Operation Overlord); but, even if such a split were to be followed, the name of the second category would need to be Category:Battles of the Battle of the Somme, as describing the subsidiary engagements as "Battles of the Somme" isn't correct. Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 2 December 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 "?!" 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Frogs of Australia to Category:Amphibians of Australia

• Rename, Inline with normal convention of these categories, and to be inline with the article: Amphibians of Australia. liquidGhoul 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question to avoid causing offence, shouldn't this be Category:French people of Australia? ;) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:41, 28 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. David Kernow (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Madonna albums to Category:Madonna (entertainer) albums
• Category:Madonna audio samples to Category:Madonna (entertainer) audio samples
• Category:Madonna images to Category:Madonna (entertainer) images
• Category:Madonna songs to Category:Madonna (entertainer) songs
• Category:Madonna tours to Category:Madonna (entertainer) tours
• Category:Madonna videos to Category:Madonna (entertainer) videos

rename as Madonna (entertainer). Rujwnxs 02:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I normally buy using the article title, this strikes me as overkill. There's no question who's recording these works.--Mike Selinker 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - Any of those could be about Mary (mother of Jesus), or at least works about her. However, I do wonder if "entertainer" would be the correct word. - jc37 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL and miaooow! :) --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mary did not record any albums. Tim! 08:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The images one maybe ambiguos though, I'll grant you. Tim! 08:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you like a list of Mary tours, Mary songs, etc.? For example, I believe that they've been touring with statues of her for some time (and I'm fairly certain that they give tours to/at Lourdes. : ) - jc37 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all At first I was going to suggest renaming only the images category, but if we do that it will look better if the others are consistent. Choalbaton 14:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We don't disambiguate unless we need to. Sinpler is better. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per ProveIt. --theDemonHog 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Madonna refers firstly to the mother of Jesus, not to a pop star. Piccadilly 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, no need in this case. No one will confuse the categories this "Madonna" is in with mary the mother of Jesus. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 02:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What makes you so certain that no one would be confused? I don't think we should presume that everyone knows who Madonna the entertainer is. As well-known as Madonna is, I would hazard a guess that Mary (mother of Jesus), is much more commonly known. - jc37 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly I don't think alot of people know that Madonna is another name for Mary. And I'm not just referring to the majority of the world's population that aren't Christian. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no need to disambig most of these. (Radiant) 12:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Opposition to this proposal is Western-centric, youth-centric and now-centric. In the long run, and in the future as well as the past Mary (mother of Jesus) is vastly more prominent. Cloachland 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the Virgin Mary recorded albums and released hit singles and embarked on concert tours, there's no actual risk of ambiguity. Bearcat 01:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per jc37 and cloachland. The titles are highly ambiguous to anyone who isn't immersed in pop-culture. Given the extent of the cult of the Virgin Mary, I'm quite sure that there are plenty of audio samples realted to the BVM, and no doubt sackloads of albums dedicated to the original Madonna (classical music alone includes oodles of Mary music). If Catholics were as busy filling wikipedia with everything remotely related to their religion as, for example, computer games fans are, then we'd have zillion of articles on the original Madonna. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories for that stuff wouldn't be titled this way. I'd expect Category:Images of the Virgin Mary or Category:Albums of Marian music, personally. Bearcat 01:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. While I'm cognizant of Provett's argument, the fact is that several of these do seem to need disambiguation (at the very least, images, and arguably a few others). And given that, the rest should be renamed for consistency. Xtifr _tälk 18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename . One Madonna is one of the most significant figures in world culture, while the other is just a successful self-publicist. The latter should not be given priority over the former. Hawkestone 16:10, 2 December 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. David Kernow (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of Eurasia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, This is a useless category. All the articles are either in Category:Flora of Asia or Category:Flora of Europe. It only contains these two categories (both of which can be accessed by the parent category, Category:Flora by continent). liquidGhoul 02:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Alynna 16:37, 2 December 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 "?!" 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Crash Bandicoot racing games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. I had blanked the two cats, but there were only four in the racing one (two of which were the same game and shouldn't have been separate). While there were several in the platforming game category, there's not enough non-platforming Crash games to warrant these categories. A Link to the Past (talk) 00:35, 27 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 "?!" 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Crash Bandicoot platform games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. I had blanked the two cats, but there were only four in the racing one (two of which were the same game and shouldn't have been separate). While there were several in the platforming game category, there's not enough non-platforming Crash games to warrant these categories. A Link to the Past (talk) 00:35, 27 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.