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 Category:Psalters to Category:Illuminated psalters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Psalters to Category:Illuminated psalters Rationale: The intention is to create a sub-category that can also be a sub-category of Category:Illuminated manuscripts (or possibly a sub-category of that). Category:Psalters will be recreated as the parent category, and the few articles on non-illuminated books transferred there, plus some others added. The great majority of articles now in the category are on illuminated manuscript psalters. Johnbod 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support I initially thought that we adding too many minor categories in order to accommodate the 2 existing articles on printed (not illuminated) Psalters. However, in terms of art history, the distinction is important. I also thought it would have been better to create the new category first, and populate it, keeping the 2 articles in the parent category (bypassing CfD altogether). However, those minor things aside, I support this proposal.-Andrew c 01:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My count of articles for the parent category is currently 47; there may well be others now or later. Johnbod 03:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now 7 in fact. To be clear, they are: Latin Psalters, Metrical psalter, Irish bog psalter (I think), Psalter, Davids' Psalter,Bay Psalm Book & the poor stub Psalter (Roman Catholic). Some are now in Category:Psalms. As DGG says, there are 13 illuminated ones now in the category. Johnbod 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support In the category I see 17 pages--2 general articles, 1 particular translation, 1 apparently unilluminated archeological find, 13 illuminated ms. If additional articles are written, they are likely to be about particular illuminated psalters. There are many ways of dividing this up, and the proposed changes seems.DGG 04:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. You could have simply created Category:Illuminated psalters and moved up all the illuminated psalters from Category:Psalters, but this works too. Appleseed (Talk) 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True - I thought this would be less work. I won't make that mistake again, but it does give the matter (slightly) wider exposure. Johnbod 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Captain America television series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are none whatsoever, he merely appears in others. Delete per same rationale under which Captain America, Iron Man films etc. were deleted. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on what's been placed in cat so far it's a "Television shows that Character appeared in". Poorly constructed cat that creates trivial linkages. — J Greb 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Metamagician3000 11:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as 'television character-by-television show' categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above, a bad idea to categorize franchise characters by shows they have made guest apparances in. It's a bit like categorizing actors by the guest spots they've made on talk shows. Dugwiki 18:06, 28 February 2007 (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.--Wizardman 06:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blade television series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's only one, which belongs solely in the Category:Television programs based on Marvel Comics parent. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the more inclusive Category:Television programs based on Marvel Comics. Doczilla 06:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on what's been placed in cat so far (Category:Blade: The Series and Spider-Man (1994 TV series)) it's a "Television shows that Character appeared in". Poorly constructed cat that creates trivial linkages. — J Greb 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Metamagician3000 11:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and also recommend probably deleting Category:Blade: The Series This category has two items, one of which (Spider-Man) probably doesn't even belong in it in the first place. In addition, I'd recommend maybe nominating the subcategory Category:Blade: The Series for deletion as well, as it too appears to be an unnecessary eponymous category (everything being categorized there already either appears in other categories or in a list in the main article). Dugwiki 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as 'character by appearance', trivial and ill-considered linkage. --Xdamr^talk 20:33, 2 March 2007 (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 both. First one looks to have been taken care of already, second one can be done no problem.--Wizardman 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HSNUers to Category:The Affiliated Senior High School of National Taiwan Normal University alumni

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Eliminate abbreviation in category name and follow pattern of other categories of school alumni. BigrTex 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the rationale; however, I'm not sure about the definite article. The Wikipedia naming conventions on schools and definite articles at the beginning of a name both advise strongly against it, "even if the official name of the university uses the definite article". Thus, I would propose to rename to Category:Affiliated Senior High School of National Taiwan Normal University alumni instead. The name of the article The Affiliated Senior High School of National Taiwan Normal University would also have to be renamed to Affiliated Senior High School of National Taiwan Normal University. CounterFX 16:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per CounterFX's research. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:33, 6 March 2007 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedily deleted February 27th by User:Neutrality[1], presumably under WP:CSD#C1, but never closed. --tjstrf talk 11:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marshals of the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

empty cat which is not needed — MrDolomite • Talk 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty category. Doczilla 07:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 Category:Lasallian universities and colleges to Category:Lasallian educational institutions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lasallian universities and colleges to Category:Lasallian educational institutions

Nominator's Rationale: Rename to Category:Lasallian educational institutions (or Category:Lasallian schools). This would eliminate the need of having separate categories for "Lasallian high schools", "Lasallian primary schools", etc. If the proposal is accepted, the article Lasallian universities and colleges should also be renamed to Lasallian educational institutions (or Lasallian schools). CounterFX 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. For the reason mentioned above. --Mithril Cloud 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom Johnbod 00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Lasallian educational institutions, "Lasallian schools" would not cover everything except in American English. I don't see the harm in subcategorising this once it has been renamed. ReeseM 13:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination corrected per ReeseM's point. CounterFX 15:53, 4 March 2007 (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 Tim! 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Islam sentiment ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, inappropriate category in that it fundamentally violates WP:NPOV: no neutral, referenced definition of what exactly "Anti-Islam sentiment" is is given. I seriously doubt any such neutral definition that complied with WP:NPOV could be given. Furthermore, I have serious concerns about the way in which this category is being used: see [2] where I removed this category from a WP:BLP article, along with a host of completely unsourced and potentially libellous information: another questionable use of the category is at United Kingdom debate over veils. But most importantly, this category fails WP:NPOV. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please limit your comments to this page and not libellous non-related info on Jesse's page.

• Strong Delete - Another of the "stance" categories that are difficult verify in application, and are being seriously misuesed in BLP articles and in general to push POV. - Crockspot 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Antisemitism precedent. deleting this while keep the Antisemitism category makes no sense and would be more biased than keeping either. Wiki must be balanced and i have noticed these same people deleting this page wouldnt dare delete the hundred of people mislabelled with the antisemitic tag for merely voicing critic of Israel. So why allow that and delete this? I think also this is an illegal nomination as the verdict was reached in dec 2006. So are we saying Islamaphobic bigots should not be added to a cat?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a general rule, I am opposed to all "stance" categories, including "antisemitism". If it came up in CfD, I would vote to delete it as well. - Crockspot 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agreed: precedent is no guide for us at deletion discussions; see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CCC. Two wrongs don't make a right. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed too. Incidentally, the correct parallel for "Anti-Islam sentiment" would be "Anti-Judaism sentiment" - and it's possible to be against Judaism (a religion) without being an anti-Semite (e.g. Nietzsche). --Folantin 19:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hazy definition, insuperable POV concerns, potentially libellous. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX either. --Folantin 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, primarily because of the inherent NPOV. I continually have trouble with this category bumping up against the WP:BLP policy. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agenda-oriented category. Quatloo 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Major BLP concerns and duplicates ground covered better and with less POV by Critics of Islam. Kyaa the Catlord 23:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and the anti-semitism category too. CalJW 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CatJw if you can get that antisemitic cat deleted i would give my vote to delete this one, but you know that you could never do that.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Anti-Muslim" (more common term on google) and establish a similar guideline that antisemitism has for BLP. Just because this category doesn't have a BLP guideline now, doesn't mean we have to delete the category.-Andrew c 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This category is as equally valid as Category:Antisemitism. (→Netscott) 03:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - which should probably not exist either. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to keep this. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonsense, Netscott. The exisatence of antisemitism is undisputable, and a huge body of scholarly literature exists on this subject. "Anti-Muslim sentiment", by contrast, is a recent, and dubious, invention. Claims that someone harbors "anti-Muslim sentiment" can be sourced, of course, but these will be largely partisan smears. Beit Or 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So one editor here says "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" and another says that antisemitism exists and therefore its corresponding category is valid. Well hello? Since 9/11 you can be sure anti-Islam/Muslim sentiment exists in the world and rather prominently at this point. just like Category:Antisemitism this category is useful in that it allows editors to draw together articles that share the common theme relative to anti-Islam sentiment. (→Netscott) 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- (→Netscott) 03:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Netscott and arguments made in the previous AfD. --Aminz 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per my comments at the previous CFD:"Keep per the precedent set by cats like Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Protestantism, Category:Anti-Catholicism and others. furthermore, anti-Islam sentiment is far more prevelant and distinguishable today than for a number of the other cats. i see no basis for it being lumped with "criticism of Islam" (since when was hate-speech a legitimate critique?) or the ambiguous (and possibly euphemistic) reservoir that is "Islam-related controversy." regarding the precedent/CCC argument presented above, the other similar categories like Category:Anti-Catholicism have been around for around for over a year without once being considered for deletion. if a rename is warranted, so be it, though i see no justification for deletion when the community has accepted other such cats. ITAQALLAH 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everything in this category seems also to be in the parent Category:Islam-related controversies, which also has sub-categories with the same names as the sub-cats of this one. Plus many articles in the parent cat only could arguably be just as easily categorised here as articles that are so categorised. So delete as needless duplication. Johnbod 03:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in spite of its political implications, on the pattern of the similar cats. for other anti-religious group articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:51, 28 February 2007.
• Delete Very POV pushing article. There have been too many attempts to dismiss Criticism of Islam as racism by use of this category.--Sefringle 05:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category that inherently pushes POV and is also redundant to Category:Islam-related controversies. Doczilla 06:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per multiple precedents listed by User:Itaqallah. It would be POV to delete this as POV while keeping the rest. What message would that convey? That "anti-Islamic sentiment" is inherently a POV term that can't be applied to concepts in a neutral fashion, while anti-Semitism or anti-Catholicism can? Moreover, is it really controversial to classify Islamophobia, Persecution of Muslims, or Raghead in this category? If there are particular articles whose categorization here is controversial, that's a matter to be discussed on the talk page not CFD. It is not a reason to delete the entire category. -- Black Falcon 08:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Kyaa the Catlord 09:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am well aware of that tastefully-worded redirect. However, my argument is directly relevant to the other "crap" in existence: it would be one thing if we just didn't have an "anti-Islamic sentiment" category, but to single out and delete it once it exists is entirely different. Also, please also note the second part of my comment which makes no reference to other categories. -- Black Falcon 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV, incompatible with WP:BLP. Beit Or 09:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not neutral, and the WP:Point arguments that has been brought forward doesn't change that fact. -- Karl Meier 10:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now thinking about it - though there is some scope to misuse this, as with all such categories, it seems legitimate, and the wording does not seem offensive. I think it is quite possible to express anti-Islam sentiment without being some kind of bigot or racist. Should be kept on the understanding that it will not be applied indiscriminately - it could not be applied to the Jack Straw veil controversy as Straw was not opposed to Islam as such. However, on reflection, I don't seem why it could not be applied to trenchant critics of Islam itself, such as Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Their criticisms may even be justified, but they are still criticisms so forthright that they could be labeled correctly as "anti-Islam sentiment". Metamagician3000 11:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Such cases would be placed in the category Critics of Islam, of course. Kyaa the Catlord 11:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, good point. There is certainly a question about why we need both. Metamagician3000 11:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This category raises fundamental WP:LIVING issues. The name is troubling in itself: someone can have an anti-islam sentiment without ever expressing it. A very targeted category on people who have publicly denounced Islam itself might be acceptable if thoroughly policed. Sam Blacketer 11:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Black Falcon--Sa.vakilian 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the precedent set by cats like Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Protestantism, Category:Anti-Catholicism and others. // Liftarn

Comment Kyaa kindly reminds you of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Kyaa the Catlord 16:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but this is notable and not "crap". // Liftarn

Your argument is still a logical fallacy. Just because those other categories exist is no reason this one should exist. See the "don't pollute the pond" essay which illustrates this succinctly. Kyaa the Catlord 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid category on it's own and that simmilar categories exists proof that it is a valit type of category. // Liftarn

You are making false parallels. There's a difference between Anti-catholicism and "Anti-Islam sentiment", which is hopelessly ill-defined and as such is blatant POV. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also point out that any attempt to define this category has been meant with even more POV pushing, disregard for apparent consensus and (as shown on Ann Coulter's talk page personal attacks and more BLP infractions. Kyaa the Catlord 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plus categories can't be referenced. There is no way of adding footnotes to back up the POV allegation that X is "Anti-Islam sentiment". Anyone can slap this ill-defined label on any article they like. --Folantin 17:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick reading of the Ann Coulter article tells me there should be a a big red stamp saying "RACIST" all over her. The quotes listed are extremley hatefull. Calling her a "critic of Islam" is like calling Hitler a "critic of Judaism". // Liftarn

Comment If you get that simply by glancing at the article, why do we need to break WP:OR and WP:NPOV by analyzing it for you and placing a category at the bottom? Kyaa the Catlord 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because categories makes things easier to find. Say I want to investigate anti-Muslim racists it would be very nice to have them bunched together in a category. // Liftarn

Comment - That gives me a great idea for other categories to create - Category:Cut 'n run Democrats and Category:Moonbats to be rounded up and put into FEMA camps. Obviously, I'm joking here, but I don't think you are joking, and that's pretty frightening. - Crockspot 19:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False parallels? Why so? Anti-Catholicism and anti-Islam sentiment are two parallels (well, actually the parallel to anti-Islam sentiment would be anti-Christian sentiment). // Liftarn

Comment "Say I want to investigate anti-Muslim racists it would be very nice to have them bunched together in a category". That's exactly the kind of reasoning which shows why we shouldn't have this list. "Anti-Muslim racists"? By whose definition? And it's not like there are libel laws to worry about or anything...--Folantin 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the definition of a WP:RS ofcourse. The same goes for the other simmilar categories. // Liftarn

• Delete per nom. 132.161.33.98 19:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since a lot of people keep pointing at other anti-religion categories as precedent, and some people respond with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and other people reply by saying they should be deleted as well, can we all agree that the anti-religion categories are a block and we should either delete all of them or none of them? Can we repost this and add those other categories so everyone can consider those categories as a group? I was tempted to CfD those other categories as well, but that splits the discussion up to at least 4 different places.-Andrew c 21:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The precedent argument carries no weight. The idea that once one bad category in a field has survived with minority support all bad categories in that field must be kept forever is self-evidently a harmful one. Haddiscoe 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: i would agree entirely were it not for the fact that the analogy is slightly off: the other such categories like Anti-Protestantism and Anti-Catholicism have been around for years, without once being taken to a CfD. if anything, that clearly suggests community acceptance with such categories. therefore, citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is quite irrelevant when the "other crap" isn't actually considered "crap." as for other BLP and POV concerns, the solution is simple: use the cat only for those who are verifiably on record (i.e. from a reputable secondary source) for making anti-Islam remarks. ITAQALLAH 00:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep considering Category:Antisemitism, Category:Anti-Protestantism, Category:Anti-Catholicism exist, I don't think selective deletion of this cat make wikipedia more neutral. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 16:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of "anti" categories, I'm not sure why this one violates any policy. It looks to be fine. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename. Rename to something of Category:Criticism of.., this also goes for cats Category:Anti-Protestantism and Category:Anti-Catholicism. Category:Antisemitism should be on racial/ethnic issues proper, there should also be a Category:Criticism of Judaism, for theological issues. Intangible2.0 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and these cats should only be populated with "academic" criticisms. Not just any middle of the road person or (political) organization. Intangible2.0 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There already was a Category:Critics of Islam, which was deleted today under unanimous consensus for being POV and too broad. (See Feb 24 log). - Crockspot 17:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or make a subcategory for "People related to Anti-Islamic sentiment" as is done for Category:Anti-Mormonism. This should solve WP:BLP problems. Failing this, Delete, or make explicit that the category is not acceptable for living persons. Cool Hand Luke 02:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Antisemitism precedent values in here somewhere, does it not? NPOV? No.... Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for keeping the ecyclopedia neutral. Otherwise nominate Antisemitism and this together next time and I will vote for delete. --- 09:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALM scientist (talk • contribs).
• Keep per precedents presented above. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Easy to misuse, just like all anti-XXX stuff. And the fact that some articles in the category are Islamic related, in a way that it explains the "so-called" life in Islam has nothing to do with "anti-Islam". Imoeng 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Stance" category, difficult to verify in application. Seriously misuesed in BLP articles and in general to push POV DavidYork71 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this deletion would be hypocritical in light of Category:Anti-Protestantism, Category:Anti-Catholicism, Category:Antisemitism. I can't for the life of me understand why users would delete this category, but at the same time allow all the other categories to exist.Bless sins 14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is the same parameters applied to religion I instead of religion P or C. I (and at least a handful of others) would have no problem at all with the closing of this entire discussion with "no consensus" and then starting a new one (with a note here) that was an umbrella for all of these - then a note there telling people to view this discussion. But I firmly believe that they should all be treated equally. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a form of racism and/or discrimination, while it could be abused it need not be, it certainly seems relevant.--Caranorn 21:35, 10 March 2007 (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 Category:Notable graves of Aldershot Military Cemetery to Category:Burials at Aldershot Military Cemetery. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Notable graves of Aldershot Military Cemetery to Category:Burials at Aldershot Military Cemetery

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Categories should not start with "Notable". This proposed name follows the convention of Category:Burials at Arlington National Cemetery. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. 'Notable' implies a judgement and is therefore POV. --Xdamr^talk 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or, if kept, Rename per nom. Is Categorizing people by where they are buried something we want to buy into? I don't think so, it is mostly trivial and there are so many cemeteries, are we going to also have Category:Unburied people? Category:People who were cremated? Category:People buried at sea? etc. If this is kept, the rename is obvious: if they aren't notable they won't have articles either. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may not have noticed, but we already do. There are thousands of people that are categorised by place of burial. CalJW 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vast majority of dead people as near as I could tell from a non-statistically perfect review had no categorization of where (or even if) they were buried. Moreover, other than a few of the famous who even have templates for their offices, or a few recently-dead movie/tv star types, most articles don't even mention where (or even if) they were buried. Carlossuarez46 04:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention of Category:Burials. CalJW 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 22:11, 28 February 2007 (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 Category:Traditional Foods of the United States into Category:American cuisine. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American cuisine, Category:American cuisine by region as needed. Duplication of existing cats. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jsderwin 15:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge although I am not endorsing the content of the current category. TonyTheTiger 20:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom Johnbod 00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge // Liftarn

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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Diabetics.--Mike Selinker 08:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Diabetics, with only 6 members, its way too small to split. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, diabetes is rarely a defining characteristic. Otherwise merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Other "diabetics by nationality" categories were deleted following a 7 Feb 2007 discussion. Based on that discussion, the parent category (Category:Diabetics) should also be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, although the parent Diabetics cat is not under discussion here and wasn't under discussion previously. Otto4711 15:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Diabetics As above, the parent category isn't under discussion. However, that category is so small there's no reason to subdivide it by nationality. As an additional note, Dr. Submillimeter is incorrect that there was an implied consensus to delete Category:Diabetics. In fact, there were a number of people on the specific afd he cited that specifically recommended keeping Category:Diabetics in place for those articles where the person's diabetes is notably mentioned in their article. Dugwiki 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and merge per Feb. 7 precedent. Somehow this one got missed. Doczilla 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Diabetics for now. We can consider that category later. --Xdamr^talk 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per both doctors above. - Crockspot 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you know neither of the doctors who voted above are medical doctors? Gentgeen

  Gentgeen is correct. I only have a Ph.D. in astronomy. Dr. Submillimeter 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Still, nine out of ten doctors agree... — dr coelacan — 21:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Category:Diabetics should not be deleted, as there should be a category for people who are have made their diabetes status notable (like Wilford Brimley or B. B. King). Gentgeen 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is not too small. CalJW 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per dugwiki Johnbod 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CalJW. Size is totally irrelevant here at CFD, and is not a valid rationale for deletion or merging. This is just as valid as Category:Polish popes & Category:English popes. --Mais oui! 05:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, size is often quite relevant in these cfd discussions when splitting a category creates issues for readers trying to find information. For example, in this case you have a parent category that is so small that subdividing it means that readers would have to search through multiple subcategories to find the associated articles of the parent category. The question is whether or not the subcategory is hindering the search utility of the parent category, and the size of the categories in question are an important indicator in that discussion. Dugwiki 18:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there's nothing inherently "Irish" about being a diabetic. Going through some other subcategories of Category:People by medical or psychological condition at random, I've not found another that has subcategories by nationality. Additionally, most people, probibly the vast majority, who would be categorized here should also be categorized under some other category that would include nationality. Gentgeen 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's nothing Irish about diabetes, and the parent category is not large enough to be subdivided by arbitrary criteria yet (nationality is always arbitrary and I'm ready to start talking about other methods for all categorization, by the way). In addition, the parent category is trivial and should be nominated for deletion after this closes. — coelacan — 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 all.--Wizardman 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities in the UTC timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-12 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-11 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-10 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-9:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-9 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-8 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-7 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-6 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-4 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-3:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-3.5 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-3 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-2:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-2 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-1 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC-0:25 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC0 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+0:20 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+0:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+1 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+2 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+3 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+3:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+4 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+4:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+4:51 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+5 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+5:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+5:40 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+5:45 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+6 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+6:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+7 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+7:20 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+7:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+8 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+8:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+8:45 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+9 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+9:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+10 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+10:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+11 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+11:30 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+12 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+12:45 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+13 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+13:45 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cities in the UTC+14 timezone ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete this and all its subcategories as a misuse of categories per all the previous discussions on other variants. ReeseM 12:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - The previous general consensus at WP:CFD was not to use this categorization scheme. (Please list the subcategories here.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The subcategories need to be tagged. CalJW 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, non-defining category and overcategorization. Duja► 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, adding timezones to location articles is a good thing. Making categories for them is not. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Per previous discussions and this discussion. I'm also going to extend my delete comment to cover any future created UTC timezone based categories. We do not need to hash this out every time a new variation is created. If it is a timezone category, it gets speedy deleted. If someone develops a notable reason for a set of categories, they can discuss it on the talk page and if they can get consensus the categories will be created. Vegaswikian 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Just a really bad useless idea. Haddiscoe 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have removed this CfD template from category:Cities in the UTC timezone because it was located within the subcategory section of category:Cities in the DST UTC timezone. Please feel to follow proper procedure listing a category for deletion by observing WP:CfD procedures. Also, this is not the place to try and make a change to procedures of CfD please bring your concerns in an RfC and a discussion at the CfD procedures. --CyclePat 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are on about, but removing the template was misconduct, so I will restore it. LukeHoC 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per everyone else. LukeHoC 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I don't see the value added categorizing by time zone. RyguyMN 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Doesn't add anything except clutter. --CapitalR 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In light of the newly added information and the fact that the main category, including the sub-category is pretty much full of usefull information (The Cat has changed dramactically in the last 2 days), I request that this Cfd be relisted as a new Cfd. In fact I request that a discussion be held instead of a poll. --CyclePat 21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Perhaps we should also delete all the Category:Geography by place... or maybe I should add the category:Geography by time. Yah! If we could talk about this instead of doing childish poll I think we may end up somewhere. --CyclePat 21:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion, and you are asking for a ban from Wikipedia if you continue this disruptive activity when it has been emphatically rejected several times. ReeseM 13:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for closing admin CyclePat created another bunch of these on 2 March, even though it was clear by then that there is a consensus to delete all such categories. Please delete and block all variants, whether or not anyone has had a chance to tag them. ReeseM 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The repeated recreation of deleted content may be considered disruptive activity. It may be appropriate to discuss the issue with administrators at WP:AN or WP:ANI if this continues. Dr. Submillimeter 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making things all the more frustrating by creating bureaucratic tape and making people replicate a conversation which was already happening concerning category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone. (the direct link here) I don't know about you but I call that being a WP:DICK, specially for those that do not want to have a conversation repeated 10 times and who would just like to get to work at simply fixing some cities that are not using the correct infobox template or some cities that need to have a timezone. --CyclePat 01:44, 5 March 2007 (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. Vegaswikian 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Institute of Food Technologists fellows to Category:Fellows of the Institute of Food Technologists

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to match the layout and capitalisation of others in Category:Members of learned societies. 137.222.189.198 11:28, 27 February 2007 (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 but rename to remove capital P Tim! 09:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums Produced by Josh Abraham ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listify and Delete. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first blush, I am pro producer categories. However, now it seems albums are produced with indivual songs having different producers or with albums having long lists of producers. See The_Emancipation_of_Mimi. As a result producer categories will lead to category clutter. TonyTheTiger 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yeah albums produced by talentless people like Mariah Carey who need hit songwriters to help them have different producers for different tracks, but others do not. This guy works in heavy metal / hard rock though. LuciferMorgan 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Per above. M3tal H3ad 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fellows of the ACM to Category:Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to expand the abbreviation. No objection to this being done at speed, but it doesn't appear to meet the criteria. 137.222.189.198 11:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename so people will understand what it is for. Haddiscoe 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename since 'ACM' will not be familiar to most people. EdJohnston 07:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per above points and compliance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). CounterFX 16:09, 5 March 2007 (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 Tim! 09:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters who have the power of vocal persuasion ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Given the title, this category could include any fictional politician or debater. It is not useful. Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overly broad any way it's worded. — J Greb 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The creator immediately blanked the category,[3] so this may qualify as a speedy. CovenantD 11:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overly specific category seemingly created for Eden McCain. Defeats the purpose of the "by superpower" categories which are there to group similar characters by common tropes in superhero fiction.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as part of the overall superhuman powers scheme. While it may have been created for Eden McCain other fictional characters (notably from the Dune series) also have the power. If the entire category tree gets put up then my opinion may change. Otto4711 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Everyone has the power of vocal persuasion. Doczilla 17:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mutes don't. And these categories carry with them the implication that the power in question is of a superhuman level. If this needs to be renamed to "...with the superhuman power of..." I suppose it can be, but most folks are intuitive enough to get it wihout that level of specificity. Otto4711 19:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overcat and meaningless given the rationale by the nominator, with which I agree. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly legitimate given the meaningless rationale by the nominator. This category does not include politicians; it includes people with voice-activated mind control puwers. The difference is obvious. Cosmetor 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please suggest a better name then. Given the category's current name, editors could attempt to place lawyers and politicians in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 14:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Fictional characters with the superhuman power of vocal persuasion although given that there's been no rush to put Matlock in the category I find the idea it needs renaming rather silly. Otto4711 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with the power to influence the will of others where they can be grouped together with hypnotists and the like. If you really want to be a stickler about it, you could make it be "override" or "involuntarily influence". --tjstrf talk 11:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with the superhuman power of vocal persuasion per Otto4711's suggestion, as it seems closest to representing the idea of the category. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I explained the category's definition in the category itself. Is that clear enough? Cosmetor 03:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to administrator - This is a second vote by Cosmetor. Do not count this vote. Dr. Submillimeter 09:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This category is now part of a nomination to delete Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. The debate is located here. Dr. Submillimeter 18:33, 7 March 2007 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bosnian War to Category:War in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The main article of this category, Bosnian War was renamed fairly long ago; the category should follow suit. The longer title is more "official", the current, shorter, more colloquial. Just for consistency. Duja► 10:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and rename the article to something clearer. "War in Bosnia and Herzegovina" is a confusing, non time-restricted title. Haddiscoe 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus.--Mike Selinker 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bosnian genocide to Category:War crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Merge The recent ICJ verdict in Bosnian genocide case at the International Court of Justice has apparently raised some dust. Except from Srebrenica massacre, the articles about war crimes in this category are not defined as genocide, so a less loaded title is called for.
  
  The target category I suggested is, admittedly, perhaps not precise enough. All of the articles are related with 1990s War in Bosnia and Herzegovina, not with earlier war crimes (WW2 e.g.). However, the WW2 war crimes in BiH are unlikely to have their own articles (e.g. I foresee a potential for 1942 Foča massacre), and if they appear, they wouldn't severely disturb the scheme. However, the alternative names would be fairly clumsy (War crimes in War in Bosnia and Herzegovina? War crimes in Bosnian War? Duja► 10:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are still other sources that support that genocide occured at Bosnia.Bless sins 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 this debate's closed, whatever's decided here will be the fate of this category as well. temporarily no consensus--Wizardman 02:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with the power to generate and manipulate radiation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy delete and salt as recreated (for the third or fourth time) category. CovenantD 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy per CD. It does have a decent amount of uses, but the continued recreation is never good. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - This is effectively the recreation of Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate radiation, which was deleted following a 24 Jan 2007 discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 10:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "effectively the recreation". It's a deliberate recreation, per its creator's talk page remarks. When the unsigned category creator says it should never have been deleted, that comment acknowledges this as the same category despite the tweaking of its name.[4] Doczilla 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. - Kittybrewster 10:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a recreation of an overly broad cat. You know... this and the "Characters that can self rez" cats just beg for a joke... bean up the nose or no bean up the nose... — J Greb 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuclear Keep even though I know it's a lost cause, because I disagree with the rationale offered for the original deletion. That nom initially got tagged as speedy for being "patent nonsense" which was ridiculous, and then got argued down by such arguments as "a white sheet 'manipulates' radiation by absorbing it." Which ignores completely the fact that outside "The Brave Little Toaster" sheets and blankets tend not to be "fictional characters" and also ignores the implied scope of the category being superhuman manipulation. The category fills a gap in the superhuman powers category tree to capture characters whose powers are otherwise uncategorized. I get that policy pretty much dictates that this go away but that don't mean I gotta like it. Otto4711 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this run at it has a better titling, making it less prone to what was the original objection. It may have been better served if the editor creating the cat had waited a few months as opposed to a few weeks. That would have made for a valid argument for "No Speedy" as there had been reasonable time for consensus to change. - J Greb 18:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I actually agree with Otto.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete recreation of overly broad category. Doczilla 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since this is starting to get bogged down because it's being treated as a Deletion review, let me expand on the reasons why this is an inappropriate category. "Radiation in physics is the process of emitting energy in the form of waves or particles." This runs the gamut of the electromagnetic spectrum as well as fictional sources. EVERY SINGLE FICTIONAL CHARACTER emits radiation, as body heat if nothing else. Even if this were changed to "superhuman ability," it would still encompass all light, electricity and magnetism-based characters, psychic abilites, fire manipulators, temperature-changers, gravity manipulators, force-field projectors, as well as those with any form of enhanced vision powers (just off the top of my head). In short, it's way to broad to accomplish a very narrow goal. Now let's focus on the merits of the nomination, which is Recreation of a deleted category and leave any other arguments for DRV. CovenantD 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, no, I think we can talk about the category now since it exists and all. There are other categories for characters who manipulate fire, ice and cold, electricity, magnetism, light and so forth and it does not appear that the people populating the category are willy-nilly including light manipulators, electricity manipulators and so forth because they understand that the category is not designed for them. Otto4711 22:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overcat & meaningless; all light is radiation and casting a shadow manipulates it (so other than vampires, nearly everyone qualifies).Carlossuarez46 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well again, under the theory of WP:ASSUMEEDITORSARENOTSTUPID (is that a guideline or an essay? Maybe it oughtta be), in neither this nor the previous creation of the category was plagued by editors adding characters who cast shadows. As I said the last time, almost every fictional character has the "power to manipulate fire" by blowing out a candle and the "power to manipulate water" by drinking it. However, those power catagories don't seem to be suffering from overpopulation by fictional candle-blower-outers or fictional water-drinkers because editors know better than to add them. If at some point this category became overrun by fictional characters who cast shadows than such arguments might start making sense. Since this has not happened and since there are no signs based on existing categories that it will happen, I find the objection ludicrous. Otto4711 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - but for a different reason. I think its intention is clear enough - it means, I take it, something like superpowered characters who are depicted as manipulators of electro-magnetic energy. The trouble is that there are huge numbers of such characters, as well as huge numbers of potential arguments about whether particular characters fall within the borders. I think we can take it for granted that such powers are commonplace among superpowered characters, just as some degree of superhuman strength and resilience are commonplace. They don't need categories. Metamagician3000 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG RENAME This category should never have been deleted. However, it is slightly too broad. I suggest a rename to "Fictional characters with the power to manipulate nuclear radiation".

• Do you mean "electro-magnetic radiation"? That would make more sense, but even this discussion suggests how unclear it is. E.g. what if someone can manipulate alpha particles? It might fall into your version, but would be an exception. Metamagician3000 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have the power to emit submillimeter radiation, but so does everyone and everything else in the universe above 3 K. Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have the power to do it at superhuman levels then by all means let's get you categorized! Or, we could stop with this sham "everything emits radiation so people are gonna start putting lightbulbs in the category" argument. Has there been any great history in the Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power ctageory tree to categorize characters without superhuman powers in them? I haven't noticed it when I've browsed the categories, so I'm not sure where all this hand-wringing at the notion that a flood of inappropriate characters are going to start showing up in this category is coming from.

Keep. Every character currently categorized here carries a supernatural or superhuman ability to manipulate radiation beyond the norm. That is what any casual visitor (such as myself) would expect the category to contain, and it seems to match any other such criteria. Basically, this cat does its job; I see no reason to remove it other than bureaucratic regulations, which seem to be out of place here. One man's opinion. Radagast 00:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And possibly rename, it is a sorely needed category because there are a lot of characters in the project that "generate and manipulate radiation", we just need something a little tighter? Maybe "Fictional characters with the power to manipulate electromagnetic and particle radiation" or just "Fictional characters with the power to manipulate particle radiation". --Basique 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this information needs to be kept, simply place it in a list that is included in the main article. Vegaswikian 22:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per discussions above and in the past on categories of this type. Vegaswikian 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What I find very interesting after doing contribution searches on everyone who voted to delete this category, is that 75% of the Wikipedians who voted to delete this category have never contributed to the Comics Project. So how exactly is it that they feel capable of offering such strong informed opinions? --Basique 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's slightly disingenuous, if not condescending. The CfD process is open to all and, in general, looks at how the creation of cats is being done. The latter only requires that someone takes a look at the material in the cats, how the cat is named and defined, and the guidelines related to cats. And even that isn't mandatory. — J Greb 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In my opinion the majority of people who read the category title "the power to generate and manipulate radiation" would not leap to the view that this was a category for characters who's 'power' is casting shadows/reflecting light and to assert that is just being pedantry. I'm not a fan of all the power categories but if you can have categories for those who manipulate air or categories for those who have super strength then the main arguments against this category (too broad/too over populated) become meaningless. If these criticisms are acceptable then many other valid/popular categories of superhuman powers will need to go as well.Palendrom 02:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Same problem as before. What's radiaton? Are energy blasts radiation? Is DC-style hard light radiation? Does a character who manipulates light (Umbra/Shadow Lass, Dazzler) belong in this category?
  Vaguely defined, links unrelated characters across many genres, in-universe organization (instead of real-world organization). Get rid of this for the same reason as last time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - UPDATE: It seems that an editor has recently been adding characters who generate heat and/or light to this category. This includes characters whose only claim is "heat vision," such as Superman. CovenantD 05:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That really does not bode well for the argument that such character won't be double catted on those grounds. That editor's actions also do not help the argument that the arguments put forward by Radagast and Palendrom. This is an editor who works hard on the superhero related articles that is overly broadly applying the cat. — J Greb 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just discovered that Basique is attempting to sway the outcome of this "vote."[5] CovenantD 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Solar radiation is both electromagnetic radiation and particle radiation, light from a star is radiant energy and radiant energy is a byproduct of "electromagnetic radiation". "Electromagnetic radiation" covers light (infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays, microwaves), but "particle radiation" covers the nasty charged particle alpha, beta and neutron family. There are three types of emissive radiation. For radiation truly to be covered we'd need threee categories. Fictional characters with the power to manipulate particle radiation (guys like Firestorm and Nuke), Fictional characters with the power to manipulate electromagnetic radiation (guys like Magneto and Doctor Light) and Fictional characters with the power to manipulate gravitational radiation (guys like Graviton). --Basique 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to all of the "what about people who generate this kind of radiation" people - Please look at the catgeory tree. There are already categories for people who manipulate light and darkness and gravity and magnetic fields, and (absent one apparently zealous editor mentioned further up the thread) there is little rush to put people like Dazzler or Umbra or Magneto or Graviton in it. This argument is a false dilemma and with the same sort of care offered to other categories I really don't see miscategorization as that great of an issue. Otto4711 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This entire debate demonstrates one of the reasons why I want to nominate Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power for deletion. People cannot agree on the interpretations of these categories. In this particular case, the issue is the interpretation of "radiation". Some Wikipedia editors (and probably some comic book writers) may not understand the difference between electromagnetic radiation (including gamma rays and X-rays), particle radiation (such as alpha particles and beta particles), and other forces (gravity, the weak force, and the strong force). Moreover, some people may try to include people who manipulate cold or heat or fire or electricity or something else, which may not necessarily be the same thing. I was told in one of the previous debates that Cyclops (comics) also does not count as "generating radiation" because his optical blasts are "concussion blasts", which makes little sense to me. Categories should not be so difficult to interpret. This is why the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is also worth noting that even among the proponents of the retention of this cat there is disagreement as to what exactly it should contain. Up to and including one supporter removing articles that another supporter had added. If it isn't that clear cut, then it is better served by a list where annotations can be made. — J Greb 00:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think interested parties can be trusted to work out these sorts of issues on the category's talk page. Otto4711 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it will devolve to a hundred different discussions on each articles' talk page, with no consistant parameters being set because each editor has a different idea of what the category is supposed to include. We will continue to see light manipulators and shadow maniplators and things like Superman's heat vision included when one editor sees the category and starts adding to article after article with no discussion or in ignorance of previous discussions. CovenantD 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (for now) - This category is unclear at best; it does not specify whether it's electromagnetic radiation or nuclear radiation. It's also rather specific. However, there are plenty of other categories just as nebulous or woolly; here's some relating specifically to various forms of energy:

• Fictional characters with the power to manipulate electricity
• Fictional characters with the power to manipulate fire
• Fictional characters with the power to manipulate gravity
• Fictional characters with the power to manipulate light
• Fictional characters with the power to manipulate magnetic fields
• Fictional characters with the power to generate and manipulate radiation

I could spend an evening or two discoursing on how each of these categories could rate being eliminated or not, as there's plenty of overlap among them. I'd say there's a bunch of superpower categories that need to be examined. My two bits worth, and now I'm going back to my essay. Jackytar 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This category is now part of a nomination to delete Category:Fictional characters by superhuman power. The debate is located here. Dr. Submillimeter 18:32, 7 March 2007 (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 "?!" 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with the power of advanced hearing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, overly specific category. Most times when a fictional character has super-sensitive earing, it isn't a "power" so much as a trait of their species. Alternatively, a rename to Fictional characters with advanced hearing or something to that effect would be appropriate. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, to Fictional characters with advanced hearing seems adequate. Yeah, that'll work. This'll include characters like werewolves and the like. Power level (Dragon Ball) 09:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The category probably is not useful, as it sweeps up entire classes of fictional characters (such as all werewolves). Dr. Submillimeter 10:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What, exactly, is "advanced hearing?" CovenantD 10:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a better term would be "enhanced hearing" (pulled from an old RPG, Champions). Up shot is characters that can hear frequencies beyond the normal human range, through solid objects, at distances beyond normal human range, etc. — J Greb 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - According to this definition, most real animals have "enhanced hearing". It is not useful. Dr. Submillimeter 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is precedent for that. Detective Chimp was changed to replace "Normal strength for a chimpanzee" with "Superhuman strength" in the article itself. One of the benefits though for using "enhanced" is that it can be defined as "A character that has hearing that functions better than that of an average example of a real world example of the species". That would eliminate say fictional dogs, but would still leave the issue of fictional species. — J Greb 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Kittybrewster 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if the poorly worded name were to be changed the cat is overly broad as a very common trait in fiction. — J Greb 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with superhuman hearing. That brings it in line with similar categories that use human ability as a baseline. For purposes of categorizing, this power is fundamentally no different than superhuman strength, and comparably common in fiction. If the one category exists, I can't justify deleting the other. The other alternative is to get rid of all of the superpowers categories. CovenantD 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was waiting for the "fictional flying people" categories discussion to close, but I may submit an umbrella nomination for these categories soon. (Why is Wolverine (comics) listed as having superhuman strength? He didn't have superhuman strength back in the '80's.) Dr. Submillimeter 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That was then - Marvel changed it :) CovenantD 11:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Something to do with him effortlessly lugging around between ¼ and ½ ton of metal 24/7 I believe... — J Greb 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "advanced", or even "superhuman" are too vague descriptions of a person's ability, and way too many people/animals would fit within that. Even Lassie had "superhuman" hearing, in that she could (as a dog) hear better than most humans can. --Maelwys 13:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overly specific category seemingly created for Sylar. Defeats the purpose of the "by superpower" categories which are there to group similar characters by common tropes in superhero fiction.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, too specific. Otto4711 15:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly specific and yet vaguely named category. Doczilla 17:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - does anyone object if I recreate the category as Category:Fictional characters with superhuman hearing after this one is resolved? I'm sure werewolves in fiction don't have superhuman hearing, as they are merely animals with basically the same traits as regular dogs and wovles, only difference, I think, is that they are mutated and humanoid. Any objections? Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't support/objections to that idea exactly what this CfD is for? Propose that here as a potential rename idea for consideration, sure. But waiting for the results of this one and then doing that will result in either a/duplicate categories (if this one is kept or renamed) or b/recreation of a deleted category (if this one is deleted). Either way isn't a good idea. --Maelwys 20:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a problem with that, "superhuman" boils down to "beyond the natural (ie 'real world') scope of human ability or physiology." It does make for a good NPOV bench mark but it does present a problem when dealing with lots of fictional characters.

If it only apples to humans, and for arguments sake that definition would have to be broadened to allow for mutant and mutated humans, all non-humans get cut. While that eliminates animals and potentially things like werewolves (separate debate as to them being human, mutant, or "other" dependant on source) it also eliminates characters like Superman.

If it is not limited to "humans only" then all characters have to be evaluated by that criteria. And you wind up with:

• Superhuman hearing: Superman, Mr Spock, Rin Tin Tin, etc
• Superhuman strength: the Thing, Gorilla Grodd, Detective Chimp, etc
• Superhuman intellect: Braniac, C-3P0, HAL, etc
• Superhuman (implied) durability: Thor, the Terminator, Godzilla, etc

And so on. — J Greb 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overcat & meaningless, are the Owl and the Pussycat, Toto, Lassie, and nearly all fictional animals with "advanced" hearing candidates for inclusion in this category? s'pose so. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not workable in this form. Metamagician3000 11:42, 28 February 2007 (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 (with no offence to Bedřich Smetana). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tinnitus sufferers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:People with tinnitus. If the category must exist at all, it should have the most objective title possible. "People with tinnitus" is straightforward and objective without characterizing the individuals. Changing the name would also make it consistent with categories like Category:People with spasmodic dysphonia, Category:People with multiple sclerosis, Category:People with muscular dystrophy, Category:People with motor neuron disease. Doczilla 08:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename. - Kittybrewster 10:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a trivial non-defining characteristic. ReeseM 12:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ReeseM as a trivial and non-defining characteristic; otherwise rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with amusement that it's on the list right under People with superhuman hearing. Otto4711 15:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominator or delete per above. Doczilla 17:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Tinnitus is the phenomenon where people hear sound when no external sounds are present. This is not a defining characteristic for individuals (e.g. people are not going to be notable as tinnitus sufferers). This should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 11:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's usually a trivial ailment (and I have it myself). Haddiscoe 22:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parkinson's disease sufferers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:People with Parkinson's disease which is straightforward and objective without qualifying how the individuals feel about having it. The most objective name is preferable. Changing the name would also make it consistent with categories like Category:People with bipolar disorder, Category:People with severe brain damage, Category:People with eating disorders, Category:People with disabilities. Doczilla 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename. - Kittybrewster 10:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename. GreenJoe 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. per nom TonyTheTiger 20:54, 27 February 2007 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 11:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gibraltarian law ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty category; content is in Category:Gibraltar law. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct term is Gibraltar law. --Gibnews 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiple part television episodes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This is not a useful category. Grouping episodes together across genres, series, networks and just because they span more than one episode is not helpful. MakeRocketGoNow 05:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this ridiculously broad, utterly useless, and harder-to-define-than-one-might-think category. I was going to nominate this one for CfD, but someone else beat me to it. Doczilla 08:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple part television episodes is a common phenomenon in television. I don't see why it is hard to define: multiple part television episodes almost always end with a "To Be Continued" message, and they have the same titles (with the exception that they are suffixed with ..Part I and ..Part II, etc.) They are often used for "special episodes" or episodes where dramatic things happen and these episodes are often more important to fans. This category is only intended for articles about television episodes, so won't contribute to category clutter. All articles and categories are useless to somebody. Q0 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To offer one counter-example, every episode to date of Heroes has ended with "To Be Continued..." yet the entire seaon cannot reasonably be categorized as a single multi-part episode. Delete per nom. Otto4711 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The categorized episodes will have little to do with each other except for being divided into multiple parts. Hence, grouping them together is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 10:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial linkage, at best... a Magnum P.I./Murder She Wrot... two parter equates to a Star Trek episode how? In addition there are the shows with an implied "to be continued", ie cliffhangers w/o text. And that brings in even more trivial things... Soap equates to Days of Our Lives equates to Doctor Who. — J Greb 10:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This category should not be used on episodes if every episode of the series ends in a "to be continued" message. Q0 11:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. ReeseM 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unhelpful. Sometimes things are in clear two parts (e.g. Valhalley of the Dolls (Part 1) and Valhalley of the Dolls (Part 2)) or not so clear (e.g. Extreme Makeover: World Edition and Charmageddon). Does it require a "to be continued" or a shared title? Would Category:Doctor Who serials be included then? Anything with an arc? And even with an operationalized definition, it would still be hopelessly broad.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the comments of Dr. Submillimeter and Zythe. This is way too broad and useless. mattbr³⁰ 15:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Category too broad, hardly useful. - Crockspot 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - uselessly broad. TonyTheTiger 20:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-defining, unrelated members, vague and ill-defined inclusion criteria. I think someone may have been a little confused about the purpose(s) of categories. Xtifr _tälk 21:51, 27 February 2007 (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. the wub "?!" 00:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American entrepreneurs. Note that we already decided against categorizing American businesspeople by ethnicity. My reasoning is the same as before, either ethnicity is relevent or it isn't. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Categorization by ethnicity probably is not appropriate here. If this is an important social issue, then an article should be written on the topic. Dr. Submillimeter 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per nom. The addition of Category:African Americans to the relevant articles will perform the same function. - Crockspot 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in general I disagree with this movement of eliminating ethnic categories except where they lead to over categorization. I think this category would be a useful keeper. TonyTheTiger 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, POV category. CalJW 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The precedent from the other nomination seems clear.--Mike Selinker 19:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of shows by Joss Whedon to Category:Joss Whedon productions

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Either rename it Category:Joss Whedon or Category:Joss Whedon productions or delete it. My main problem is the "list of" bit. And speedy, too? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Rename the proposed is better than the current, but I've got a sinking feeling "Listify and Delete" may be a better way to go. — J Greb 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not listify - There are only three entries and all of them are extensively interlinked with Joss Whedon and each other. Also, there is to the best of my knowledge no production company called "Joss Whedon Productions." His production company is called Mutant Enemy Productions and that article is also extensively linked to Whedon and all of its series. Otto4711 15:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Somebody depopped it anyway! Yeah, delete was my other idea. Productions was to carry beyond mutant enemy, like Runaways/Goners/Serenity bla bla bla but this guy while brilliant, doesn't deserve a category for his work anymore than anybody else. So I suppose since it's empty it can be speedied? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the shows Joss Whedon has worked on should already be listed in his article, making the category redundant with the main article. Dugwiki 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anyone want to do the same to Category:Lists of shows by Tim Minear?--Rmky87 05:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your wish is my command. Otto4711 01:25, 2 March 2007 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: :Propose renaming Category:Members and associates of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering to Category:Members and associates of the United States National Academy of Engineering

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, US→United States. Dr.K. 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also standardizes naming system. Please see also CFD. Dr.K. 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also conforms to speedy renaming criterion 5. Dr.K. 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess no objection. Closing debate. Dr.K. 20:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: :Propose renaming Category:Founding members of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering to Category:Founding members of the United States National Academy of Engineering

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, US→United States. Dr.K. 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also standardizes naming system. Please see also CFD. Dr.K. 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also conforms to speedy renaming criterion 5. Dr.K. 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No objections. Debate closed. Dr.K. 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (already emptied).--Mike Selinker 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with Electronic data transception ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This category only holds one article, Heroes (TV series) character Hana Gitelman. The same article is already part of the more established Category:Fictional technopaths. fmmarianicolon

• Delete this ridiculous, underpopulated, and inappropriately capitalized category. Doczilla 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, yet another of Srstorey poorly planned and executed category attempts, all done for single characters. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This duplicates another category with a better name. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and Outmerge the article if there's an appropriate cat for it. Otherwise it seems a cat of one. — J Greb 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. - Kittybrewster 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what the hell is "transception"? Otto4711 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Heroes powers, only one possible entry which is better included under "technopaths". Superpower categories should only exist for the most prominent reoccurring super abilities, like strength, flight, telekinesis etc.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too specific to be a category. Metamagician3000 11:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.