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. Conscious 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This a category for newsreaders, actors and TV presenters who made guest appearances on The Goodies. None of them had a regular part in the series, and a guest spot on a 30 minute TV show isn't really a useful way to categorise them. JW 21:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Restrict use - listify guest stars (effectively already done at The Goodies (TV series)#Famous guest stars) and restrict use to those who produced and starred in most episodes, ie. the actual Goodies: Tim Brooke-Taylor, Graeme Garden and Bill Oddie, as already done at Template:TheGoodies. Carcharoth 08:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the category exists it will continue to be used for guest stars as it is now. As there is already a template for the three Goodies, there's no point in having the category as well. JW 15:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if there is appropriate guidance on the category page. If this is deleted, then you will need to put a notice up at Category:Actors by series to say that some series are covered by templates and some by categories, and can people please not recreate a Goodies category five years later... Either use templates and categories, or just templates, or just categories. Having a mixture is just confusing. Carcharoth 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Famous people appear on multiple tv shows every year, no need to let categorization get out of hand. - Tutmosis 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully suggest that only the guest stars get deleted from the category - the actual Goodies should not be deleted from this category. See my comments above. Carcharoth 18:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Conscious 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to conform with by country conventions. Please see also a relevant discussion on the implementation of this set of categories at WikiProject Military History's Talk Page -- Andrés C. 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after comment Syrthiss 15:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Merge with Category:French military personnel matching others in Category:Military people by nation --William Allen Simpson 09:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Somebody emptied the category. Just delete it. - EurekaLott 23:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Conscious 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV category. One sides's decisive victory is the other side's humiliating defeat! --JW1805 (Talk) 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Decisive" is a term with fairly variable meaning that is appropriate for use in the context of a more elaborate description of the outcome in an article, but not as a simple yes/no classification via a category. Kirill Lokshin 18:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. That page is intended to be a database of pivotal military battles (i.e. decisive military victories) throughout world history, even for lesser-known wars, and so what if it's the other side's humiliating defeat? That's the whole point of a decisive victory. WhyNotFreedom 18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subjective category; who says any one battle is decisive? Ziggurat 19:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subjective. -Big Smooth 22:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subjective. ReeseM 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inherently POV classification. MCB 05:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify - to allow references to sources that describe these battles as decisive, or massacres, or pivotal, or whatever. This could be the beginnings of an interesting list, but the battles desperately need to be placed in context so people can see why they are considered that way. This is mostly covered in the articles themselves, but an article should only be added to the list if the article describes the battle as decisive/pivotal/key or whatever. This would be helpful for people wanting to browse through battles without having to pick their way through the smaller battles. Though this could also be listed as part of a discussion at the WikiProject for Military History - which battles would they submit as the 50 major battles people should read about? Carcharoth 08:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nomination. POV category. Wikipedia should give the facts, not colourful adjectives. - Tutmosis 16:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Aldux 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. but a list would have good potential. TheGrappler 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Conscious 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political theories is already active. --Puzzlet Chung 16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The two categories don't have the same scope, but I doubt we have enough articles about the concept of a political theory to have separate cats for the concept and the theories. If somebody who know more about the topic can find several general articles, then perhaps Category:Political theory should be a parent of Category:Political theories. SeventyThree^(Talk) 00:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Investigate - I looked for Political theory and found it redirects to Political philosophy. There is also a Category:Political philosophy. I agree that it is best to separate the articles about specific political theories from the general articles on political theorising, but there will always be a lot of overlap. So I agree - merge (see below). Carcharoth 08:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Political theories and Category:Political theorists - I've already manually added the three articles (Alexander Lee, Timothy Stanley, The End of Politics) to the relevant categories, so I think all that is left to do is to check that no more articles have been added to this category, and then to delete this category, or preferably implement a soft redirect, as unintentional recreation is likely. Carcharoth 08:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 Speedy merge to Category:BBC per creator. ×Meegs 17:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made this, not realizing that Category:BBC existed. // ^The True _Sora 16:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 alternate rename/merge. Conscious 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:University-preparatory schools -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have only heard the term 'College prep school' used, never 'University prep school'. So, maybe this cat should stay? As I recall, subcats are allowed for Universities and Colleges when that is the correct name in various countries so maybe that applies here? Also should Category:University-preparatory schools be renamed to Category:University preparatory schools? Vegaswikian 17:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, it is the more common term, at least in the United States, see Category:College-preparatory schools in the United States. I don't know what they call it in Europe. I originally created this one before I found the other. If it stays then probably the 'P' should be lowercase. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like the terms are only used in the US and Canada. 95 College in the US and 21 University in Canada from the entries listed in each category. Maybe the main article also needs to be renamed, but that's a different issue. I think the following changes are in order with Category:Preparatory schools being the parent of the other two cats:
  • Rename Category:College Preparatory schools to Category:Preparatory schools
  • Rename Category:College-preparatory schools in the United States to Category:Preparatory schools in the United States
  • Rename Category:University-preparatory schools in Canada to Category:Preparatory schools in Canada
  • Merge Category:University-preparatory schools to Category:Preparatory schools

Vegaswikian 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds very good. One possible change might be to name the children Category:Preparatory schools in Canada and Category:Preparatory schools in the United States... plus other countries added as needed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds reasonable. I modified my proposal. Vegaswikian 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If memory serves, a "preparatory school" in the UK (and perhaps other Commonwealth countries) is a school for children aged 6 to 11...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dab article Preparatory school kind of covers this. So maybe the top level should stay but college and university need to be in the US and Canada cats. Vegaswikian 05:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Conscious 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the cats aren't precisely the same, the actors were not guests, their characters were; this is therefore the more appropriate title, per other Category:Actors by series Ziggurat 10:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Either rename per nom and add regular cast members, or rename to something like Category:Actors appearing as guests in Fawlty Towers. David Kernow 12:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As previously established, guest star categories are not helpful and have the potential to clutter up the articles on many actors. - EurekaLott 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The actors in this cat are those who only had minor or one-off roles in the TV series (the main cast are bizarrely just in Category:Fawlty Towers). As per EurekaLott cats for people who appeared in a series once or twice (what are called guest stars in the US although this terminology doesn't tend to be used in UK TV) are unnecessary clutter. Valiantis 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as EurekaLott said. Athenaeum 14:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename it has not actually been established that these categories are unhelpful. Tim! 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this were to become standard, many actors would gain a huge number of categories. I think that's what's considered unhelpful. SeventyThree^(Talk) 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to deal with guest actors is to have a list in the TV series article, and to mention it somewhere in the actor's article. Someone also needs to go through such lists and add the information to the actor's article if it is not already there. Carcharoth 08:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - categorising actors by one appearance in a TV series isn't remotely useful. This kind of thing belongs in the Fawlty Towers article. JW 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EurekaLott and SeventyTree. redfox 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Outriggr 08:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my arguments here. But please, do not delete without first preserving the information!! The Goodies article has a list of guest stars. Turn this category into a list of guest stars and add to the Fawlty Towers article or a separate article. Carcharoth 08:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because it is useful information, that doesn't mean a category is a good way to present it. Hawkestone 00:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 Category:Republican Party (West Virginia) to Category:West Virginia Republican Party members and make a child of Category"West Virginia Republican Party. Vegaswikian 06:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For conformity. --Rockero 10:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move per nom. Conformity with the other categories in Category:Republican Party (United States) by state, I presume? SeventyThree^(Talk) 00:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Initially I thought so, but right now it is the only state Republican Party that has a category, and is currently being used to hold politicians from the state party. I think I may change to recommending that it be moved to Category:West Virginia Republican Party members, instead.--Rockero 10:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's for the state party, rather than national party in that state? If so, that needs to be made clearer in the category header, and we probably need a name which makes that clear - certainly not the same format as the others. And probably reverse my re-categorisation as well. SeventyThree^(Talk) 09:22, 4 June 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 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. Conscious 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per naming conventions. -- Longhair 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. ReeseM 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Conscious 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category name uses an abbreviation, which should be avoided. Furthermore, "OFCLA" is never used as an abbreviation for the Office of Film and Literature Classification (it is generally abbreviated as OFLC) --James 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Category:Office of Film and Literature Classification (Australia) logos - no capitalisation of "logos" needed here. SeventyThree^(Talk) 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: updated nomination per SeventyThree's comments --James 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Conscious 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't orignally listed here. Been tagged since February 2, 2006. -- Longhair 04:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- agree with move. - Longhair 04:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Certainly not by itself. There are dozens of these categories, and if renamed, they would leave out the concept that someone commits a murder and then dies before trial.--Mike Selinker 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike Selinker Chicheley 10:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Perhaps you mean is charged with murder and then dies before trial? I thought articles avoided claiming that people commited crimes, and stuck to he said/she said/was convicted for. A mass-rename might be better, so we can enforce any decision over all the related categories. SeventyThree^(Talk) 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Changing opinion - see below. SeventyThree^(Talk) 17:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name matches the format of the other categories in Category:Mass murderers by nationality. - EurekaLott 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Apart from people who died prematurely this category might also contain articles about unidentified mass murderers. Honbicot 19:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I hadn't thought about unidentified mass murderers. I still don't think that unconvicted people belong in the category, even if they didn't go to trial - but I can't think of another name which includes unidentified mass murderers. SeventyThree^(Talk) 17:40, 5 June 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 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. Vegaswikian 06:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:History of German cities to Category:Histories of cities in Germany
• Category:History of Indian cities to Category:Histories of cities in India
• Category:History of Mexico by city to Category:Histories of cities in Mexico
• Rename: 3 more to conform to previous rename decisions. --William Allen Simpson 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename--Aldux 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Vegaswikian 06:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unnecessary article to match the format of other categories in Category:Ohio State University and Category:Faculty by university in the United States. - EurekaLott 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; perhaps removing/adding articles might become a speedy criterion... Regards, David Kernow 12:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Vegaswikian 06:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syracusians (New York) was manually emptied and redirected to Category:Syracusans, and neither name is very good. When a city name requires disambiguation, demonyms have generally not been used, eg. Category:People from Albany, New York, Category:People from Birmingham, Alabama, and Category:People from Toledo, Ohio. - EurekaLott 01:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The original reason for this move was because the term Syracusian is not used for those from Syracuse, New York. I had however found many uses in old literature for it being used for the Sicilian city. So, I came to the conclusion that Syracusan refers to the New York one and Syracusian to the Sicilian one. It should be noted that while there's virtually no presence of Syracusian for Syracuse, New York, there is presence of Syracusan for Sicily, so I suppose the nom idea might be a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newkai (talk • contribs)

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. Vegaswikian 06:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to more comprehensive and better-named category. - EurekaLott 01:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Chicheley 10:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "area" necessary?  David Kernow 12:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course, as if it is not the category can be interpreted as being restricted to the City of Los Angeles, which is about one sixth of Great Los Angeles. Honbicot 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds as though you're suggesting Category:Street gangs of Greater Los Angeles... Regards, David 23:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I think "area" is necessary because there are many streetgangs in the Greater Los Angeles Area that are not in LA proper, and there are gangs who are active over areas that extend beyond LA city (and even county) limits.--Rockero 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood; thanks. David 07:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Then doesn't it have to be Category:Los Angeles-area street gangs? :-) Outriggr 08:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - so Wikipedia is covering street gangs now? Interesting. Carcharoth 09:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Of course there are articles about the major gangs Carcharoth, they are world famous and are major issues in Los Angeles history and American society. Honbicot 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Vegaswikian 06:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match siblings in Category:American politicians by state -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate 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. Vegaswikian 06:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless category with only one user. Pretty subjective. Should be deleted since it's not a template, but a whole category. Voretus the Benevolent 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair 04:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 02:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GentlemanGhost 05:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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