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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Fictional cattle --Dtcdthingy 3 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

• LOL! Also, rename. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:24 (UTC)
• Oppose while laughing. These are individual fictional cows, not fictional herds of cattle. Whig 6 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
• OK, explanation: "Cows" refers to female cattle only, whereas there are several bulls in the category --Dtcdthingy 6 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
• Oh dear...rename. Somehow the only thing more silly than having the category is to pedantically correct it from "cows" to "cattle". Perfect. Guettarda 6 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
• Rename to Fictional bovines or Fictional cows and bulls, because Dtcdthingy and Whig both have valid points. —Blotwell 8 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
• Moo-name well, cow can refer to elephants and whales as well, dont think that's what were going for. → Category:Fictional bovinae. As "bovine" would be the correct term, but spelled Bovinae. <>Who?¿? 8 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains article text, has no articles, misnamed. New used misunderstands categorisation process. Delete. JFW | T@lk 3 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably a new user test so a word on their talk page (including directions to 'no original research') may be a good idea. David | Talk 3 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

• Delete. There are likely to be so few genuine time travel experiments (are there any?) that this category is likely to be useless. An article on the subject might just pass muster. Francis Davey 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people in this category can be confirmed as pedophiles. Many are child molesters or child sex offenders (for which we already have a category: Category:Child sex offenders), but it lacks actual, verified pedophiles. Though in many cases they are, child molesters are not always pedophiles. There is many other possible motives: for example, child molestation -- and murder -- is probably considered one of the most horrific crimes by society, and thus it may be commited by someone who wants to cause outrage, fear or digust; alternatively, it could be done as revenge to either the child or the child's parent. And, even if it was done for purely sexual reasons, we have no way to know that that person's primary interest is in children -- perhaps that's just a sidedish for them (a "pedophile" is defined as one who is primarily sexually attracted to children -- note that it does not imply that they have committed any crimes or hurt children). I ask you to not just throw my argument out the window because you find pedophiles and child molesters disgusting: remember that Wikipedia is here to teach people knowledge, not morals or potentially false information. Unless we can get a psychological report that the person is a pedophile, or a confession that they are (a good example for evidence to add the category would be this, for example, in which "Dr. Oda" examined the criminal and found him to be a pedophile). If we can not come to our senses and remove people who may not be pedophiles -- remember, we're presenting this as if it were a fact that we know, absolutely -- this category should be removed from Wikipedia. See also my talk page. Thank you. 24.224.153.40 (User:24ip) 3 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)

• Delete. Pointless category. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
• Keep It's useful to have a category listing people with convictions for sex crimes against children (and this may include people notable for other things plus people only infamous because of their crimes). The category should, however, only include people who have been convicted of paedophile crimes or have freely admitted their sexual preference, jguk 3 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

  We already have a category for that, it's called Category:Child sex offenders. The word pedophile means people who have convictions for sex crimes against children as much as the word heterosexual means people who have convictions for raping adults. And what is a "pedophile crime"? Pedophilia is not a crime. If a heterosexual male rapes a grown woman, we do not call it a "heterosexual crime" and we do not put them in a Category:Heterosexuals; we call it a sex crime. Again, you don't seem to understand what the word "pedophile" means. 24.224.153.40 (User:24ip) 3 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

• Delete, an article on renowned pedophiles would be useful, but categorizing them as such is not (if kept anyway, rename it to 'convicted pedophiles' to keep POV/insults out). Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

  Pedophilia is not a crime, though, so pairing it with "convicted" makes no sense -- it would be better to use something like "convicted child sex offenders", but that would be redundant. 24.224.153.40 (User:24ip) 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

• Delete, since superfluous to Category:Child sex offenders. However, I think that category is ambiguously named. Are the offenders children, or is child-sex the problem? A better name would be Category:People convicted of sexual crimes against children or something shorter. -Splash July 3, 2005 23:20 (UTC)
• Merge/delete, redundant with the sex offender category. -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 00:21 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant and poorly named. Concure with Splash about renaming Category:Child sex offenders → Category:People convicted of sexual crimes against children or something shorter (different Cfr i guess). <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 04:46 (UTC)
• Delete Misleading and largely unverifiable. CalJW 5 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifable. I fully agree with the nominators points. DES 5 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
• Delete. Whig 6 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nom. --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has gone to CfD multiple times and been deleted at least twice before. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Eccentrics Here it is again ... --Tabor 3 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

• Delete. Inherently subjective and POV. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of categories are subjective. It's categories like this that make Wikipedia fun to read. David | Talk 3 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
• Delete, too vaguely defined for a category. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't agree the category is too vaguely defined, (I've added a link to Eccentricity to further clarify), and I agree with Dbiv that a category like this is a part of the unique character of wikipedia. Hiding 3 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't tell what should go into such a category and what should not. Why is Roy Chubby Brown an eccentric? Or are all comedians eccentrics ex officio? Users can collect their own personal lists of eccentrics on their own pages far more fruitfully. Francis Davey 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
  • We have a List of people widely considered eccentric. What's wrong with the same thing as a category? David | Talk 3 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)
• Keep. Unusually for me, I don't like too much silliness. But if we can have the list, we can have the cat too. Maybe we should take the list to VfD and then come back to this CfD? -Splash July 3, 2005 23:26 (UTC)
  • Lists and categories serve different purposes. A list works one way, a category works both ways. Thus it is useful to go from Eccentric to a list of people with that trait; but since one such eccentric person has little in common with another eccentric person, there's no point in the category. Imho. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:16 (UTC)
    • Surely the commonality is the trait? Hiding 4 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
• Delete, the list can provide context better than the category can. -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 00:21 (UTC)
• Keep, I rather like it. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Delete, entertaining but POV. 24 @ 4 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
• Keep as per jdforrester. Harmless fun. SchmuckyTheCat 5 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. How about Category:Crazy people? Nah. Whig 6 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. If this was discussed and deleted already, why are we having this conversation? --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
• Delete If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? NO, as each biographical article would be up to the interpretation of the reader to determene whether they thought the subject was an eccentric. It is totally speculative POV. One group may see as eccentric, another may see as an obsessive-compulsive disorder, yuppy nudist, happy-go-lucky, just weird, etc... <>Who?¿? 8 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, redundancy for Category:Greek cinema. --Tabor 3 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

• Interesting... why does the naming convention for cinema cats work entirely opposite to that for economy/history cats? Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

• Comment Weren't we moving away from "cinema" in general with the previous Cfr to rename Category:Cinema → Category:Film. As I currently have a Cfr for Category:Cinema actors. Any thoughts on this? <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 04:49 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer them all renamed to Category:Film in (country)

(last comment accidentally not signed by User:Radiant!

• • • I can agree with that; Category:Film in (country). Now it looks like another umbrella Cfr coming. Category:Cinema by country and subs. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
• See Cfru on all "Cinema of foo". <>Who?¿? 5 July 2005 06:31 (UTC)
• Delete Cinema of Greece as it is empty. --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)
• Delete. There is also Category:Greek films, in a large parent category of Fooish films. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems problematic -- in general, the consensus I have seen on VfD has been that either people are sufficiently famous in their own right or the articles are merged to the one for the famous spouse; simply being related to someone famous is not generally considered sufficient in itself to establish notability. A little unsure on this one and would like to see some comments. --Tabor 3 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

• keep I created this category after German example. Some people are only famous because they were the wife, partner, husband of a famous person, e.g. Hitler's wife and mistress (Eva Braun), Thatcher's husband, Einstein's wife, Rembrandt's wife etc. These spouses have their own articles. Andries 3 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
• Delete. Some (rare) spouses have their own articles, but this is not a defining trait that connects them. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• No vote yet, but there is some weight to Andries's argument since the cat of spouses famous only for being spouses is presumably fairly small. That most of these go down on VfD is probably an indication of the encyclopedic note of those that don't. However, as the nominator says, the bulk that survive VfD are more often merged into their more-famous other halves' articles and so don't warrant a category. -Splash July 3, 2005 23:14 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 00:21 (UTC)
• Delete. I almost vote keep, only for the fact that their could be a great deal of people to place, lack of articles or content is not a cat problem. However, they would be cat'd together with no more similarity, other than they have famous spouses. Not a useful cross reference, as you wouldnt really know who they are, unless you came from the famous spouses article, where they should be referenced. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
• Delete. There must be a better way of categorizing Bill Clinton. (just kidding) If they aren't notable they don't belong here. If they are notable, then the comparison to their spouse is not needed. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 05:24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 13:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just shudder thinking about a list categories for every county a railroad passes through at the bottom of every railroad article. Possibilites (not exclusive): Make into a list, add information to San Diego County, California, merge with parent Category:California railroads. --Tabor 3 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

• Delete and merge as suggested above. As a certifiable railfan I'd have to agree that a separate category for each county is still a Bad Idea. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misspelling that was detected in early June.

• the new category Category:Pharmaceutical industry has already been created
• all articles and subcategories of the misspelled category have been transferred
• the only discussion associated with this misspelled category is that about how it is misspelled

Please delete as non-controversial; I did not go through the renaming process because I was sufficiently annoyed when I saw this that I just wanted to take care of it right away.
Courtland July 3, 2005 19:05 (UTC)

• Speedy move as misspelling. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the speedy rename section?-Splash July 3, 2005 23:25 (UTC)

• I explained that this is not in the speedy rename because the new category already exists and this, the bad category, is empty and can be deleted. Therefore, renaming shouldn't take place. An attempt to re-create the right category won't blindly go ahead, will it? Courtland July 4, 2005 19:04 (UTC)

• Speedy, yes. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Mulattos below. Also see related talk on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion --Dr31 3 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't imagine that such a broad category would be useful. Currently 0 articles under this category; I wonder if it was created to make some kind of point. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 3 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with all the above. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
• Delete. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Delete and see comments on other Cfd mentioned above. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

See comments on Cfd People by race/ethnicity and all subcategories below. <>Who?¿? 5 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

• Delete--Rogerd July 5, 2005 03:03 (UTC)
• Delete. Whig 6 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)
• SPEEDY delete. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. --FuriousFreddy 8 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have to categorize people by race? What purpose does it serve? Besides, that term is often considered offensive. There is already a List of multiracial people. Why have this category? --Dr31 3 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename - In multicultural societies, it is not sufficient to acknowledge nation of origin only. People are not colorless and raceless. However, offensive terminology should be avoided if noted. I recommend Biracial. This would differentiate from Multiracial (meaning more than two). Also I would recommend only those entries where citations note independent confirmation of a persons biracial identity, and if such a person has publicly claimed African and European ancestry. I went to university in Michigan near where Derek Jeter, for example, played high school baseball. He was in the local news frequently as a high school star, and they repeatedly noted Jeter was adopted, and his background was Pacific Islander, not African/European.
  • Comment - preceding text was posted by 38.118.43.2 (talk · contribs) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 6 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Dr31 is absolutely correct. There is also Category:Hapas and related categories. Mulatto is not only offensive to some, it would also require use to make judgements on the racial make-up of people. Almost all African Americans would fit into this category, but many of them probably would not be happy being categorised thus. Guettarda 3 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with Guettarda. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 3 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
• Delete this and all other racially-based categories. Identity politics POV. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
• Delete — I agree with all the above. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

  Why, incidentally, is there a drive to populate the category? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Comment - I had wondered the same thing, though that's how I noticed in the first place (the Ronnie Spector article is on my watchlist). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 4 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I found it too. I removed the request to populate from the category. --Dr31 4 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

• Delete. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Delete. --tomf688^(talk) July 4, 2005 03:53 (UTC)
• Delete--Rogerd July 5, 2005 03:03 (UTC)
• Delete - just another inane list of no import whatsoever. deeceevoice 5 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)
• Strong Delete an potentially very insulting category of no apparrent usefulness. Francis Davey 5 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)
• Delete. Whig 6 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 12:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've recently got rid of a number of the pointless terminology categories, such as Category:Computer terminology, Category:Military terms, and Category:Economics terms. This one should also go, with its contents merged into Category:Water transport. - SimonP July 3, 2005 16:50 (UTC)

• Keep. There are a multitude of nautical terms which deserve to be categorized separately from lists of ships, histories of canal-building, and the like. While some of the other ones like "Economics terms" can be rather dicey, in this case it just seems obvious to me that this category is important and appropriate. LordAmeth 3 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
• Keep as per LordAmeth. A useful nagiational and informational aid. Hiding 3 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Listify, agree with SimonP, and previous Cfd's. Reference "List of foo" on relevant articles. <>Who?¿? 4 July 2005 04:56 (UTC)
• Listify. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:32 (UTC)
• Keep. This category was created specifically to keep these articles out of Category:Water transport. Gdr 7 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 12:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories about TV shows should be named with the show's full name, not inside-knowledge acronyms. Bearcat 3 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

• Concur. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Rename as stated above. --tomf688^(talk) July 4, 2005 03:55 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 17:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been nominated for deletion (note Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/TV shows about law enforcement) in June, and then never voted on because it was listed at VfD instead of here. Stated grounds for deletion is that it duplicates the existing Category:Crime television series. This is just a procedural/cleanup nomination; I offer no vote. Bearcat 3 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful category. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
• Merge with Category:Crime television series. Useful to have one, not two. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Merge. -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 00:21 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated by WP:TFD. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted#Template:Justmerged. -Frazzydee|✍ 3 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

• Then we don't have to discuss it twice :) just get rid of it. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 17:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Gryffindor House, or maybe House Gryffindor or maybe even Members of House Gryffindor although I'd say the latter is too long. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 10:04 (UTC)

• Do not rename. These are the names by which the (fictional) people that belong to these houses are almost always referred to in the books. -Splash July 3, 2005 15:13 (UTC)

  That is correct. However, the rename I suggested is more easily understood by people unfamiliar with the books, and Wikipedia aims for the wider audience. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

  Yes, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says we should "[u]se the most common name of a person or thing" and the current cat names are certainly those. Anybody who's read the books would expect to find them where they are now, and anybody who hasn't read the books is far less likely to be searching for them in the first place. I'd support the first option in your rename if there were other articles relating to the four Houses, but their current contents are only people, so the names given to that class of person seem more appropriate. I suppose the articles on the four Houses could be put into your renamed cats, but then I'd want to see subcats for the people in each house anyway so we'd be back here. -Splash July 3, 2005 23:11 (UTC)

  • That may be true for article names and article text. However, Wikipedia:Categorization says about category names, "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 08:32 (UTC)

• That is true. I think the existing names do stand alone but I see what you mean. IMHO, these renames would only stand alone to the extent that the current names do; they don't add any mention of Harry Potter or Hogwarts so don't help to provide context. Also, the alternatives are all rather tangly expressions that are rarely, if ever, used in the books (though I realise they are still valid suggestions). Perhaps, if the best available renames are this tangly, it's better to leave them alone. -Splash July 4, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

• Rename. Radiant's suggestions sound more formal and appropriate. LordAmeth 3 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
• Delete - fancruft. Do we really need cats for characters in fictional works? Dear God, do they all have articles?!!! Could have a field day on VFD! Guettarda 3 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

  Good luck with that. Please read WP:FICT first. Fiction is a firmly established field on the 'pedia. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

  I know. I wasn't serious. I was just floored by the fact that there are separate entries for Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort...and yet there are debates on VfD about notability of real people with real achievements. As for WP:FICT - there are lots of minor characters with their own articles in here. Guettarda 4 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

• Delete. Embarrassing; is this an encyclopædia or a children's comic? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure it's an encyclopedia, actually. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have an article on Charlie Brown (OH NOES EMBARRASSING LOLWTF), or are you just one of those people who thinks we should act like Britannica? The aim of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge of every and all sorts, not to exclude anything you find "embarrassing". What kind of reasoning is that? 24 at 4 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that there should be no article on Charlie Brown, though an article on the Peanuts series would be OK. I'd also excise all Pokemon characters, Lord the Rings characters, etc. We don't collect all knowledge of all sorts; I doubt that there's an article on you, or your parents, or the person who collects your rubbish, or your first teacher, or the street on which you live, or the house in which you were brought up, etc., etc. The huge number of fan-articles in Wikipedia are responsible for much of the failure to take it seriously as a reliable reference work. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

  Nobody wants to know about the street I live on, or the guy who collects my garbage, though, so there is no article about them, and there never will be (unless I move to main street or Tom Cruise starts collecting my garbage). There is over a million Google hits for "Voldemort" so obviously many are interested in consuming knowledge regarding them, so we have an article on Lord Voldemort. It's helpful to plenty of people. Why should we exclude it? 24 at 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

  How is it helpful? Either one has read the books 9and thus will know who the character is) or one hasn't (in which case one is unlikely to care). Of course there are Google hits; the world is full of children who like to talk about their favourite books, films, etc., and who have Web pages. The question is whether a would-be respectable encyclopædia should imitate them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

• No, WP shouldn't imitate them, but it should list such phenomenally successul books as these, some of which have been made into highly successul films. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

• The books deserve articles, even the main characters do. But there should never be enough articles on characters in the books as to require four categories (and these four aren't all the cats that exist). Guettarda 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

• Keep, no rename. Fine as they are. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Keep without renaming. 24 at 4 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
• MERGE into Category:Harry Potter students and alumni 132.205.45.148 4 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
• Keep Greater formality is not helpful or necessary. Harry Potter is not just any set of books. CalJW 5 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

  Er, what is it then? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

  Specifically, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is the best selling book on Amazon at the moment, as have been the other releases. If that isn't notable then I don't know what is. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

• Keep. Don't rename. The current names are shorter, simpler and better than the suggested alternate names. Sjakkalle (Check!) 5 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename using two words: "Health care". Maurreen 3 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

• Comment. The main article is at "health care" so this rename would make sense, if that spelling is more common. "Healthcare" yields 80 million results on Google compared to 100 million with "health care". If it is decided to be renamed, surely all subcategories should also be? --TheDotGamer ^Talk July 3, 2005 06:27 (UTC)
• Keep, healthcare is a perfectly valid spelling. - SimonP July 3, 2005 16:43 (UTC)
• Keep, healthcare is a word and a widely used one. Between 80million hits and 100million hits, it doens't really matter which name is used, so we shouldn't fix what ain't broken.
• Rename. -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 00:21 (UTC)
• Rename. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see the imperative to rename given that it is a valid and used name. However, if someone could give a more functional reason why to rename, that would be useful and would very likely bring me to switch my vote. For instance, if the language has shifted so that the common usage used to be "healthcare" and is now "health care", then the move would make lots of sense. Such shifts do occur, and could be documented by looking at the creation and/or update date distribution for the Google hits (umm, not ALL of them, but a sampling) if someone is so inclined. Courtland July 4, 2005 19:08 (UTC)
• Keep One word as far as I'm concerned. CalJW 5 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
• Keep. Healthcare is valid. --Kbdank71 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is a duplicate of Category:Defunct computer companies. --Wernher 3 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)

• Delete. Duplicate, unused category. --TheDotGamer ^Talk July 3, 2005 06:18 (UTC)
• Delete Bubba73 3 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• COMMENT it's not quite the same thing, since some "Former computer companies" are no longer involved with the computer industry but are not defunct... 132.205.64.154 6 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
  • That's true. There are companies that used to make computers but don't anymore, but the company is still around, e.g. RCA and General Electric. Bubba73 July 6, 2005 01:49 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but the title as such is a bit ambiguous; some might interpret it as 'defunct' (even if that's not exactly correct), while others would understand it like you describe. An unambiguous title would need to read sth like "Companies formerly belonging to the computer industry"... (nope, not a very pleasing title). --Wernher 6 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
      • I still vote to delete "Former", although "defunct" may need to be renamed. Bubba73 July 6, 2005 20:57 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Someone put a CfD tag on this without listing it here. Seems an obvious delete: if "Terrorist Organizations" is not a valid category, then certainly this one isn't -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Delete--AI 3 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
  • Comment. Doesn't the CFD policy call on editors to wait until the CFD is resolved before emptying categories? To do otherwise would be to prejudge the outcome. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 18:54 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently subjective and POV. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)
• Delete, similar cats were similarly deleted. Radiant_>|< July 3, 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 4 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)

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