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 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 debate was Speedy delete as spam. Vegaswikian 06:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:US Natural Advantage ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, advertisement masquerading as a category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam category and underpopulated. Snocrates 23:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Commercials utilizing celebrity spokespersons are too common to be notable; this does not seem to be an exception. / edg ☺ ★ 02:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spamcat Johnbod 02:47, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_13#Category:Virtual_Worlds_-_Kids.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Virtual Worlds - Kids to Category:Virtual worlds for children

Nominator's rationale: Rename, fix capitalisation avoid slang. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Snocrates 02:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename per nom. Doczilla 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Virtual reality communities. The "for children" qualifier introduces subjectivity into the inclusion criteria. Moreover, Category:Virtual reality communities is not so significantly populated that it needs subcategorisation on the basis of target audience. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Black Falcon. Doczilla 22:18, 7 November 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 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 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 debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Parlotones to Category:The Parlotones albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Albums by artist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - and thanks BHG for whittling down the uncategorized categories very nice. Carlossuarez46 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Doczilla 00:53, 7 November 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 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 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 debate was merge to Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical schools in California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: This category is an overcategorization of intersection by location. All medical schools in the US are already categorized in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. No other states' medical schools have been subcategorized (except for Puerto Rico). All schools in the US have a similar curriculum that prepares students for licensure as a physician. There are no distinct differences in education by state, so there is no need to separate them by state on this ground. Also, since there are only 154 medical schools in the US, which are all present in the list of medical schools in the United States, there is no need to subdivide into categories by state for ease of browsing. The category was previously populated by 9 articles, but I removed them to avoid categorization in both Category:Schools of medicine in the United States and its current subcategory, Category:Medical schools in California. Scott Alter 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, and cold bath for the nominator for emptying the category. The sub-category was a perfectly valid one, and while it might be upmerged as a result of this CfD, there is no point in having the CFD discusion if people can't see what tghe categ contains, and if the option of a "keep" has been effectively closed-off. I will restore all the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category now re-populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about removing the articles from the category, but I was already going through all of the articles and fixing other categorizations, before I even thought to bring it up here. That's why I provided a link to list of medical schools in the United States - so you could see the 9 schools located in CA that were in the category. Also, it appears that you did not just add back this category, but rather revert my entire edits. I also fixed additional categories, that did not require discussion. --Scott Alter 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any collateral damage in the restoration; the edit summaries appeared to suggest the same change in each case, but I should have checked more carefully. Please feel free to restore the other fixes, but for future reference, please don't remove an article from an accurately-applied specific category to a general one; if you think that a category is too narrow or otherwise un-needed, bring it to CfD or (speedy it if appropriate), but don't just empty it :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. While its still possible to see them all on the same page, I'd like to keep it that way. Someday we may need to split it up, and if that time comes going by states is the obvious thing to do ... just not yet. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 04:01, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Raving ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Strangely sparse and wide-ranging category which seems to bear no relation to the existing category structures, and whose stated purposes seems more appropriate to an article tan a category. (Note: this categ was orphaned, so I placed it in Category:Music). I'm not sure whether there might be something here worth salvaging, and in any case some articles are categorised only in this categ, so I have left a message at WP:MN. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm active in WP:RAVE and I also agree that this category appears not to be justified. __meco 07:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 04:01, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Travel blogs to Category:Travel websites

Nominator's rationale: Merge, only five articles in this rescued - from-the-orphanage category, none of which are actually blogs. Some are blogging websites on which users can create their own blogs, but others are social networking sites. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 04:02, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was rename Category:Regierungsbezirk to Category:Government regions of Germany and Category:Former Regierungsbezirk to Category:Former government regions of Germany.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Regierungsbezirk to Category:Regierungsbezirke
• Category:Former Regierungsbezirk to Category:Former Regierungsbezirke

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The categories should be in plural form. The German plural would be Category:Regierungsbezirke or, if translated in English, Category:Government regions of Germany. Olessi 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Government regions of Germany and Category:Former government regions of Germany, since this is an English-language publication and these are not proper nouns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per BHG, as long as we have translated Gemeinde->Municipality; Kreis->District, Bundesland->State, we might as well fully anglicize Germany's various subdivisions. Carlossuarez46 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support translation to English. With few exception (e.g. in Category:Subdivisions of Ukraine) English terminology is used throughout the WP. While the translation may not capture the spirit of the term completely at least it gives more clue to the reader. Pavel Vozenilek 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support plural - no opinion on language. Agathoclea 08:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per BHG. Doczilla 00:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose translation and rename as originally nominated. Regierungsbezirk is a proper noun, if I'm not mistaken. "Government region" is not particularly informative, since it doesn't specify to which level of government this refers (Germany is a federal state). While I agree that we should generally use the English equivalent of foreign-language terms, in this case translation not only fails to "capture the spirit of the term" (in Pavel Vozenilek's words), but completely obscures the meaning of the term. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:01, 7 November 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 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 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 debate was relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 8. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Class A radio stations in North America ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: hopelessly incomplete, only categorization by power I can find (where are B,C,D, and LP?) I don't see any value in categorizing by power, there are plenty of other categorizations which are far better maintained. Rtphokie 20:41, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 17. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Germany articles needing images to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany

Nominator's rationale: {{{3|It seems wasteful and higher maintenance to have these two categories largely duplicating each other. The latter is more consistent with hundreds of other similar categories for countries and regions, so I suggest that the former should be merged into the latter - this would require a change in {{WikiProject Germany}} but not a massive amount of work. I suppose an argument can be made for making a distinction on the grounds of the name of the former category having a wider scope than the latter (to include biographies etc; also the former says "images" but in practice it appears in almost all cases this just means "photographs") but I am sure that just using the latter category for the lot won't be too confusing. Because of the way articles are sorted into both categories using templates, I don't think that making the photographs category a subcategory of the "images" one and making the images category for non-photographic images only is likely to work - for one thing the template by which articles are added to the "images" category doesn't "fine tune" in this way, and secondly, the vast majority of image requests made are for photographs (maps are dealt with differently and don't appear as requested images). I think a merger would make it easier both to use the categories and to maintain them. TheGrappler 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, provided that the relevant templates can be tweaked appropriately and the end-result is a situation which is clear to the users of the templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany is of more general use; for example is uses such as {{reqphoto|architecture|in=Germany}}. So yes the WikiProject Germany template should direct to this category. Would be useful though to separate places (including buildings and geographical features) from subjects/objects (such as people and products) if that is not too difficult.Traveler100 10:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delay merging until a bot has gone through Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany and checked for the presence of {{WikiProject Germany}} if it does not exist create {{WikiProject Germany|class=|importance=|imageneeded=yes}} instead of {{reqphoto}}. If it already exists add imageneeded=yes to the project tag.

I have left a note with 52 Pickup (talk · contribs) to contribute to this CfD as he is the main contributer to {{WikiProject Germany}}. He might be able to include a photocat parameter which would allow articles to be placed in subcategories by region similar to Traveler100's idea. Agathoclea 08:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The modifications proposed by Traveler100 can be made in the WP Germany banner, we just need to clarify exactly what should be done. I propose that further discussion take place over at Template talk:WikiProject Germany and that this Cfd be placed on hold until the matter has been settled. - 52 Pickup 20:42, 4 November 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 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 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 debate was rename and leave category redirect. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Governor of the Turks and Caicos to Category:Governors of the Turks and Caicos Islands

Suggest merging Category:Governors of the Turks and Caicos to Category:Governors of the Turks and Caicos Islands

Nominator's rationale: Merge both into the not-yet created Category:Governors of the Turks and Caicos Islands. It should be plural ("Governors", not "Governor") and the official name of the nation is the Turks and Caicos Islands. jwillbur 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Another user moved all articles from the "Governor" cat into the "Governors" one, and the "Governor" cat has been deleted. Still support changing the remaining cat to Category:Governors of the Turks and Caicos Islands. jwillbur 22:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, but keep old categs as redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Good idea to keep redirects in this case. Snocrates 22:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 00:51, 7 November 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 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 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 debate was keep. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is an unofficial title which doesn't even have the cover of a White House office that uses it the way one uses "First Lady." There's a complete list in the article Second Lady of the United States which clarifies the unofficial nature of the appellation. Otto4711 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Does it need to be an official title to be a category? It seems like a potentially useful category to me, and certainly captures the defining essence of what makes many of these people historically notable. There is also a head article (Second Lady of the United States) and an infobox. --lquilter 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per lquitter's comments. No reason that category can't be used when title is unofficial but commonly applied. It is what makes most of those in the category notable. Snocrates 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per lquitter, and per I keep forgetting Marilyn Quayle's first and last names. Clearly defined category, and defining for many so categorized. Also, I can imagine someone looking for these. / edg ☺ ★ 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep These women are notable: they have WP articles on them. Why are they notable? They are the vice president's wife. For many of them, this is the only occupational category they belong to. Hmains 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was literally yawning as I went past this one. Then I stopped and came back for a more serious look. After all, just because the term "Second Lady" tends to sound a bit amusing, that is hardly a good reason not to keep a perfectly valid category. This category has impeccable parentage, with three parent cats of which it is an obvious sub-category. And for 17 of the 25 women, this very designation is really their only claim to WP:Notability (the other 8 went on to become First Ladies). If that doesn't pass muster as a valid rationale for a category we must have fallen down the rabbit hole. Cgingold 10:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems just as valid as Category:Vice Presidents of the United States, albeit less commonly attributed in politinews.--WaltCip 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (changing my !vote). If we have articles for these women, this is clearly a defining attribute of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per so-named article. Doczilla 00:51, 7 November 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 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 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 debate was relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 17. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Computer-related events and awards to Category:Computer-related awards and Category:Computer-related events

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The last of my category structure cleanup for Category:Awards. Split into Category:Computer-related awards and Category:Computer-related events which is in keeping with the standards in both parent categories, Category:Awards by subject and Category:Events. By far most articles and subcategories are one or the other, not both, so a combined category is not really warranted here. lquilter 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and to remove any "events" - computer-related events can be anything from MacWorld to geez, windows crashed again. Carlossuarez46 22:20, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Technical & Management Festivals to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to somethimg with proper capitalisation and without the ampersand; or delete as too small a genre. (Note that the category is currently orphaned, so if kept it needs to be parented). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ill-defined genre, no subjective inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. India only genre that is small. I'm not convinced that all of these articles establish notability as they are college clubs, or so it would seem. But that is a different problem. Vegaswikian 22:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for vague definition. Doczilla 06:40, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protoss ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Has only two articles in it, both of which are also in Category:StarCraft. Category should be deleted. Sabre 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete underpopulated category lacking clear room for growth. Doczilla 06:41, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zerg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Has only two articles in it, both of which are also in Category:StarCraft. Category should be deleted. Sabre 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete underpopulated category lacking clear room for growth. Doczilla 06:41, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrans (StarCraft) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Has only one articles in it,which is also in Category:StarCraft. Category should be deleted. Sabre 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:49, 7 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations in the StarCraft universe ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Has only four articles in it, which are also in Category:StarCraft. Category should be deleted. Sabre 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete underpopulated category that is redundant to another cat. Doczilla 06:42, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:StarCraft books to Category:StarCraft novels

Nominator's rationale: There are many StarCraft related books, such as strategy guides and so on. This category only relates to the official fiction of the series, so renaming to Category:StarCraft novels will make the name of the category more representative of its contents. Sabre 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:23, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was reverse merge Category:Books by David Weber to Category:Novels by David Weber. The current categorisation scheme for works by author may need revision, but such revision would require a fairly broad-based consensus or, at least, a more encompassing nomination. In the meantime, it seems best to merge these categories, as all of the entries in the "books by..." category are works of fiction. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Novels by David Weber to Category:Books by David Weber

Nominator's rationale:
1) Merge Novels to Books, consider this set-up and compare to Category:Honorverse_books and structure of a similar LARGE series, category:1632 series books;
2) recat Category:Honorverse books as subcat of Books by David Weber, and that should also include the Crown of Slaves anthologies series, etc.
3) Add parellel discussion if you'd be so kind on Category:The Grantville Gazettes endorsing or opposing my decision to let the sub-cat exist, "solely because the bi-monthly canonical works will never see book format".
  ref:

SSGT Mike wrote in comment 8:[1] “I am a die hard fan of the 16** series. When are all the short stoys in the Gazette going to be put out in a hardcover or softcover form? I do not have the abilty to down load the web books and would love to read all of them.”
   Probably never, imao. The Gazette keeps churning them out electronically faster than Baen could hope to sell them in paper.
   Still, if you subscribe to the Gazette, I’m sure someone out there could be persuaded to download the stories, print them out, and mail them to you.
   Comment by Stephen M. St. Onge — September 9, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
There is a better reference by Flint himself that this one is echoing. [trust me! <evil BSEG>] // FrankB

    Put it all together and this cat set-up strikes me as an unnecessary distinction between novels and books, plus the books in series issue. (I'd planned a similar discussion over Category:The Grantville Gazettes which someone created. The difference there is the books category will never see many of those titles which with the "generally poor mass market" for anthologies, will remain solely as e-zines, per Eric Flint himself.) The category system here doesn't really support anthologies series as separated from novels save for one or two categories which are de facto lists, and fitting The Grantville Gazettes into that structure has other problems as well.
  In the case of Books by David Weber the contents of the parent cat, list none of webers anthologies, nor his novels and is therefore, essentially empty but for the sub-categories. While technically correct, that's overcatting, imho—there is insufficient distinction to add the extra level, nor likelihood that other (non-fiction, etc.) varieties of books will populate such. Part of the complication here is the separate Honorverse series category and yet another (justifiable) series books category Category:Honorverse_books.
  To my way of thinking, Books by _____ is the pentultimate correct one parent cat of any fiction books category, no matter its series relationship. All come under WP:NOVELS. Thanks for the time. // FrankB 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These are novel categories and should stay so. The category "Books by" really says little for the literary form used in this categorization scheme. All fiction forms are divided by form, i.e. novel, short story, poems, plays, screenplays, etc. Leaving Books for non-fiction works of indeterminate literary form. Only articles and essays being current split out, if my memory serves me. Books is largely a statement of delivery medium and not every think written appears in a book, magazines, papers, comic, and not electronic formats. Books is not to supercategory, despite constant usage. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having refreshed my memory about the Honorverse series it is a little awkward in that the types of writing and literary form change rather more than most series. So the main category to pull the various writings together "Should" be one called "Honorverse". In other words not one that currently separates out forms by author. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ?Reverse merge All the novels should be in Novels by. I'm not clear he needs a "books by" cat at all, as there seems to be no non-fiction. Johnbod 14:20, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suzue Miuchi's manga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Short list (mostly of redlinks) in category space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:23, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Humanitarian awards to Category:Humanitarian and service awards

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Propose renaming because service awards and humanitarian awards often overlap, thus suggesting a combined category is warranted. There is currently no category for "service awards", but as I've been clearing out the Category:Awards I realized that the overlap in humanitarian & service awards and award recipients suggests in this instance a combined category would be more helpful than two separate ones. lquilter 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nom appears to be in good position to existence of overlap. I can't claim that I know one exists. Snocrates 22:28, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Stations of Nagoya Railroad to Category:Nagoya Railroad

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. The parent category contains only stations and a few templates. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom; was considering making this same nom when I was finding a parent for the target of the merge, but BHG is a woman of action! Carlossuarez46 22:25, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was rename all as nominated/amended. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Albanian queen consorts to Category:Albanian queens consort

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Egyptian queen consorts to Category:Ancient Egyptian queens consort - typo fixed (q --> g)

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek Queen consorts to Category:Ancient Greek queens consort

Propose renaming Category:Byzantine Queen consorts to Category:Byzantine queens consort

Propose renaming Category:Danish queen consorts to Category:Danish queens consort

Propose renaming Category:French queen consorts to Category:French queens consort

Propose renaming Category:German queen consorts to Category:German queens consort

Propose renaming Category:Greek queen consorts to Category:Greek queens consort

Propose renaming Category:Italian queen consorts to Category:Italian queens consort

Propose renaming Category:Queen consorts of Jerusalem to Category:Queens consort of Jerusalem

Propose renaming Category:Norwegian queen consorts to Category:Norwegian queens consort - amended

Propose renaming Category:Persian queen consorts to Category:Persian queens consort

Propose renaming Category:Portuguese queens consorts to Category:Portuguese queens consort

Propose renaming Category:Yugoslavian queen consorts to Category:Yugoslav queens consort

Nominator's rationale: Rename all - to match the correctly pluralized parent Category:Queens consort and fix various other naming irregularities. Otto4711 19:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, but one correction made to nom & one more needed I think. See notes above. Johnbod 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Duplicate copy-and-paste residue removed. Otto4711 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:27, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solo projects ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think really means something like "solo musical works by musicians who have previously been notable mostly for their work as part of a labelled group", which is very common ... and in any case, these things are often a matter of branding, because very few of these projects are actually completed by just one person.
NB This category is currently orphaned, so if it is to be kept in needs to be parented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete excessively broad (yet ironically underpopulated) category. Doczilla 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neither solitaire (patience for our UK friends) nor Omphaloskepsis nor masturbation is found in this category, so perhaps the meaning isn't what one would otherwise suppose. :-P Carlossuarez46 22:29, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was rename to Category:LGBT-related awards after upmerging all events into Category:LGBT events (or an appropriate subcategory). A separate nomination will be needed to rename the latter category – and possibly a number of its subcategories. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related events and awards to Category:LGBT awards or Category:LGBT-related awards (if the latter also rename Category:LGBT events to Category:LGBT-related events)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - Propose renaming this category, and upmerging "events" into the already existing Category:LGBT events category. This is in keeping with the general category names in Category:Awards and in Category:Events. Checked with the category creator who thought it was a fine idea. lquilter 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:LGBT-related awards. The awards themselves do not have a sexual orientation and may be presented to people who are not themselves LGBT. See for comparison Category:LGBT-related films vs. Category:LGBT films and so on. Otto4711 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine with me. I took out the "-related" because Category:LGBT events didn't have it. I'd suggest we rename Category:LGBT events to Category:LGBT-related events for consistency. (Altho sorely tempted I'm refraining from arch commentary on the sexual orientation of awards.) --lquilter 19:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:LGBT-related awards per Otto. LeSnail 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Otto. Carlossuarez46 22:34, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Singing children to Category:Child singers

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as duplicate. Snocrates 22:29, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Snugpak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for the company snugpak and one of its products. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LeSnail 20:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was keep, except rename Category:Iranian ambassadors to Category:Ambassadors of Iran and rename Category:Ambassadors of the South Africa to Category:Ambassadors of South Africa. Feel free to propose the remaining categories for renaming under speedy renaming criterion 4, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Political office-holders. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Ambassadors of Cameroon to Category:Ambassadors from Cameroon

Category:Ambassadors of Ethiopia to Category:Ambassadors from Ethiopia

Category:Ambassadors of the European Union to Category:Ambassadors from the European Union

Category:Ambassadors of France to Category:Ambassadors from France

Category:Ambassadors of Indonesia to Category:Ambassadors from Indonesia

Category:Iranian ambassadors to Category:Ambassadors from Iran

Category:Ambassadors of Norway to Category:Ambassadors from Norway

Category:Ambassadors of Poland to Category:Ambassadors from Poland

Category:Ambassadors of the South Africa to Category:Ambassadors from South Africa

Category:Ambassadors of the Soviet Union to Category:Ambassadors from the Soviet Union

Category:Ambassadors of Turkey to Category:Ambassadors from Turkey

Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Category:Ambassadors from the United States

Following precedent of this discussion and for consistency with other subcats of Category:Ambassadors by country of origin. Of is more formal usage, but it is slightly ambiguous as to whether the ambassadors are from the country in question or were sent there as ambassadors. LeSnail 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I actually find "ambassadors of X" to be clearer than "ambassadors from X". With "from" I wonder whether we're talking about where the individual was born rather than, say, which country the ambassador is representing. --lquilter 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reference was really about being consistent. So it does not really address the issue of of v from. Vegaswikian 06:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To be pedant in diplomatic circles, the wording is correct as is. Mikebar 12:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since lquilter has stated there is ambiguity in the proposed names, what about Ambassadors for X or Amabassadors representing X ? 132.205.99.122 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the existing nomenclature is correct in International relations and diplomatic speak. If you use "from" that implies that they were born in that country which is often not the case - see Madeline Albright as an example. I think some consultation - see http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/c4293.htm would be in order before making a speedy decision. Mikebar 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Most of our lists of ambassadors, such as Ambassadors from the United States, List of Ambassadors from Finland, etc. use "from", so if we decide that "of" is the proper form, these lists need to be moved too. LeSnail 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "from" is more ambiguous than "of": e.g., Muhammad Asad, was an Ambassador of Pakistan, but he was from Austria-Hungary (now Ukraine). Carlossuarez46 22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Of" is the technical correct terminology and is less confusing, to me anyway. Snocrates 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all except Category:Iranian ambassadors which should be renamed to Category:Ambassadors of Iran. If consensus here is to keep and use the of form, then this consensus should to be applied to the other forms and allow them to be renamed as a result of this nomination or simply via a speedy rename. No reason to really have a second multi category nomination. Vegaswikian 06:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Agree with vegaswikian above that we should do it all at once if we can. --lquilter 18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- As the nominator, I am perfectly happy with the rename going the other way. All I ever wanted was consistency here. LeSnail 22:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - We should probably rename the parent category, too. The funny thing is that the parent category, Category:Ambassadors by country of origin does, in fact, suggest the origination country of the individual people who happen to have been appointed ambassadors later in life. So "Ambassadors from Foo" would be correct based on that category, but probably nobody would really want this information compared to, say, "Ambassadors representing Foo" or "Ambassadors of Foo". ... So we should rename the parent category to something like, "[[:Category:Ambassadors by country of representation". --lquilter 18:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An ambassador is the representative OF his government TO another government. The use of "from" would merely indicate their nationality. It would be unusual for a country to have an ambassador who was not one of theri nationals, but cannot be ruled out. However as suggested by Vegaswikian, the Iranian category should be renamed to be consistent. Peterkingiron 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename Iran Of is better, per many above. Johnbod 14:21, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:St. Mark's Place to Category:East Village, Manhattan

Nominator's rationale: Merge, small (3-article) eponymous category for one street in Manhattan, little potential for growth. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge So, not Piazza San Marco after all! Johnbod 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; fewer pigeons probably, Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 22:39, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was rename to Category:Speech and language pathology, without prejudice to renominating to solicit additional discussion on deletion, merging, or renaming, especially if the title of the main article (which is currently a bit Anglocentric) changes. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Speech pathology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete or rename or merge somewhere: I have no idea what to do with this orphaned category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Speech and language pathology for consistency with the main article Speech and language pathology that I have just added to the category. It seems like this is probably a useful category, and I have given it some adoptive parents now. It can probably be substantially enlarged. LeSnail 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per LeSnail, and thanks for finding parents. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A big pat on the back for LeSnail -- well, make that half a pat on the back (or maybe two-thirds). You're probably on the right track, but I'm afraid Category:Speech synthesis was way off the mark -- it's for artificially synthesized speech. I've temporarily replaced that with Category:Human voice, mainly so people can look at the other sub-cats there and perhaps figure out what to do, since this category appears to overlap with what already exists. I'm not sure if it should be merged, or perhaps it could serve as a parent for a couple of the other sub-cats. I'm short on time here, so... talk among yourselves and I will check back to see what ya'all come up with. Cgingold 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Hmm, I'm not sure I like that definition of "speech synthesis." It was certainly ambiguous enough to trick me. Also, I have just found Category:Voice disorders, which should probably me merged with Category:Speech pathology. LeSnail 21:59, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Southern Football League to Category:Southern Football League (Victoria)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match the main article at Southern Football League (Victoria) and distinguish it from other leagues listed in Southern Football League (disambiguation). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:41, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was relist to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 17. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Super Friends characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Hmmm. On the one hand we don't categorize super heroes by their team affiliation, which this is. On the other hand, we do categorize TV characters by the show, which this also is. Characters who appeared on the show but weren't created for it (like Superman, Batman, Aquaman and Wonder Woman) aren't categorized. So, leave as is? Delete? Rename to emphasize it's for characters created expressly for the show? Otto4711 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Adding another category to the likes of superman for every guest appearance is a no-no, because there could easily be dozens of such categories added. So I'd say delete unless the category can be restricted to characters who were either regulars of the show or created for the show. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't categorize these characters by team membership and we don't categorize them by every single show in which they've appeared. Aside from Wendy, Marvin, and Wonder Dog (all three of whom share a single Wikipedia article), I doubt any characters created for the series even have their own articles. Doczilla 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, actually, all of the characters in the category were created for the show. And all of the Legion of Doom characters created for the show have articles too. Otto4711 23:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this will lead to lots of cat clutter as various groups of characters cross-over form combos that have longer or shorter durations. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the category only covers characters who were introduced in the show. Category:DC animated universe characters already covers characters from the 1990s Batman/Superman series. -Sean Curtin 05:48, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Robotboy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following cleanup, category not needed. Everything is appropriately interlinked. Otto4711 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Powerpuff Girls ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - everything in the category is appropriately interlinked through text and templates. Eponymous category isn't warranted. Otto4711 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was keep, withdrawn. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St. Lunatics members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete this orphaned category for one member of the rap crew St. Lunatics. All band members are already linked from the main article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate per Category:Musicians by band. Otto4711 16:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn per Otto. I have populated the category, and invite speedy closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Johnny Bravo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete small category, unlikely to expand. Material is appropriately interlinked. Otto4711 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sources used by Livy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Categorising notable authors by who cited them would lead to horrendous category clutter. How many squillions of "sources used by" categories would Sigmund Freud or Charles Darwin end up in, or any of hundreds of great historians? (BTW, this is yet another orphaned category). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- What a scary prospect! LeSnail 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added them to Livy, and tidied their other cats. This can now be deleted. Johnbod 18:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A fascinatingly scary concept, but ultimately an undesirous one because while I am fascinated by it for Livy, we'd end up with one for Jay Leno as well no doubt. Thanks to Johnbod for putting material in the article. Carlossuarez46 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a category like this might possibly be of interest for ancient authors, but any post-Renaissance author would certainly become unmanageable. For example the sources used by Bede in his History of the English Church might be an intersting category. Peterkingiron 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both better as stand-alone articles or in the authors' or books' articles ultimately. Carlossuarez46 22:15, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - material is extensively interlinked through text and template, eponymous TV category not warranted. Otto4711 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:47, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Team Full Tilt ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify. Orphaned category for a discrete and small list of people, who should all beare all listed instead at the main article Full Tilt Poker. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - complete list already exists at Full Tilt Poker. Otto4711 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have spotted that. Listification removed from nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I created this category a while back and forgot about it; in retrospect it was unneeded considering it was already in the article and I support its removal. –– Lid^(Talk) 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and cat creator. Doczilla 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & cat creator. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was rename to Category:San Francisco Bay Area organizations, without prejudice to subsequent renomination for purposes of renaming, merging, or deletion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:San Francisco Bay Area activism to Category:San Francisco Bay Area

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Orphaned category with no apparent parallels under Category:Activism. The activists are already categorised in Category:San Francisco Bay Area activists, but we do not conventionally separate out activist groups by aea in this way. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:San Francisco Bay Area organizations - While it may not be helpful to organize in the Category:Activism subject tree, it might be helpful to have some useful and standardized category structure in the geographic subject trees. These three groups are all organizations, and there's no "Category:San Francisco Bay Area organizations right now but this category could usefully house these three and several others and fit into the organizations tree hierarchy. --lquilter 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That sounds like a sensible solution, but if it is being kept, the category needs to be properly parented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It just drags me back into the hell that is Category:Organizations, but I'll propose Category:Associations in California and Category:San Francisco Bay Area as the parents. There are some appropriate children from Category:Associations in California, too (Category:Organizations in San Francisco and some of the specific articles). --lquilter 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added those two parent cats, so that the categ is no longer orphaned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while there are lots of activists, and groups of activists, based in the bay area - their activism is rarely confined so locally - so it's really going to be a subjective call what qualifies for inclusion here. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But isn't lquilter's suggested rename a useful one? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • We have Category:Organizations in San Francisco, convention of Category:Organizations by city but none of the by city or by state has metropolitan areas, see also sub cats of Category:Organizations based in the United States. Carlossuarez46 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize it's a bit troubling to create yet another geographic hierarchy. But from the perspective of "San Francisco Bay Area" category it makes sense. Ideally, the category would include only those organizations that are clearly metro-area-wide, and also the organization categories of oakland, sf, berkeley, etc. Then its parent would be in california. This is basically what we do with other things in the various metro-area categories. --lquilter 15:20, 8 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SharePoint ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single article eponymous category. The main article is already suitably categorised. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - material is extensively interlinked through text and template. No need for the eponymous category. Otto4711 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. The current title is not supported and no adequate alternative was offered or discussed. Interested editors are encouraged to investigate, especially as a collaborative effort, whether alternate means of categorisation are possible, necessary, and/or desirable. In the event that such investigation may be aided by knowledge of this category's contents prior to deletion, a list of such is available here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters created from adaptations of licensed media ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, these characters have nothing to do with each other, I don't see this a defining characteristic. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this category is for characters that were made for adaptions of licensed media (i.e. TV, Video Games and print) but are not (or were not) part of of the said licensed media. An example would be that Kiyone was park of the Tenchi Muyo anime but not in the manga, or Sawada was a character for Street Fighter the movie and the game based off said movie, but he was never in any of the official games. There isn't an exact term for it, but it's pretty common to add original characters that are not part of the offical storyline in adaptions, especially for cartoon adaptions. They have been doing it since the 1960s. Also there are categories like Comic book characters originally created in other media, that some of the characters created for television shows based off the comic book, didn't make it into the comic book, but are shoehorned in anyway. This needs to be kept.(BackLash 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete (post-haste) - Categorization by licensing status is hopelessly jurisdiction-specific as it is based on copyright status. --lquilter 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & per lquilter. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too loose of an association. As for the comics characters created in other media category, it should not include characters who haven't actually appeared in a comic book. Otto4711 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lquilter Mikebar 15:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I remain confused: there seems to be no place on Wikipedia to sensibly characterise these characters. This seems to be a defining characteristic to me, if only because they don't have any others. Would it be more sensible to have several different categories, depending on the copyright holders: "Fictional characters created from adaptations of DC Comics", "Fictional characters created from adaptations of Marvel Comics", "Fictional characters created from adaptations of video games"... How narrow do the categories have to be in order to become "defining characteristics", and where do we categorise those narrow categories if we can't place them here? I remain confused. -- Supermorff 13:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your confusion. Not all attributes are defining qualities (which I agree is nebulous; BrownHairedGirl proposed a definition at (I can't find the link?). Moreover, some things are just inherently not good fits for "categories" because of the way the category software function works. Just to explain why they're not a good fit: Licensing and copyright status are not good fits for the category system, because they are jurisdiction-specific, they change very frequently, and assertions about legal status really should be documented. --lquilter 15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I still don't follow. There are characters on Wikipedia whose only notable characteristic is that they appeared in or were introduced in, for example, the movie Batman. So therefore a defining characteristic is that they appeared in an adaptation of DC Comics, and thus that they appeared in an adaptation of a comic book, and thus that they appeared in an adaptation of licensed media. Perhaps at some point this logic breaks down, but I cannot see where or why this happens.

I also don't really understand how this category can be jurisdiction specific. Batman is always an adaptation of DC Comics, in any jurisdiction. Characters are in this category based on their first appearance in media, which is not dependent on who owns them or owned them or held the license or copyright. Maybe there's some definition of "licensed media" that I don't understand, but if that's the case can't we just pick a different name and keep the purpose of the category intact? -- Supermorff 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what if the comic was public domain (as some Popeye comics now are). A new Popeye movie introduces a new character who cannot go ito this category because it is not "licensed".

I'm trying to understand why this category is even useful. Is it to organize particular cross-media franchise characters? --lquilter 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a rename to, e.g. "category:Fictional characters from adaptations of published media", might solve the jurisdiction-specificity problem?

I might point out that usefulness is not a good argument to use in these discussions (WP:USEFUL), but essentially the answer is yes. Theoretically a comic book series could be adapted into a comic book series, or a television series into a television series... Any new characters would probably qualify, and it would not necessarily be cross-media. We could make it cross-media specific by a rename if that's preferable, but I assume not. (ED: Actually, interesting point. What constitutes an "adaptation", and what a "remake"? Is there a distinction? Maybe cross-media is implied.)

It categorises characters according to the method of their creation and/or first appearance. If that's deemed encyclopedic then I guess the category stays, and if not then I guess it goes. It still needs to be renamed, though. -- Supermorff 13:19, 8 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:QTV to Category:Q (television network)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per main article Q (television network), otherwise delete as too small. (another category rescued from the orphanage). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - contents are person by project overcategorization and without them it's empty. Otto4711 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - contents currently are actresses who appear on the network's shows, performer by performance per Otto. Carlossuarez46 00:16, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dexter's Laboratory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous TV show category. After cleanup remaining material is interlinked and templatized. Otto4711 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was merge without prejudice to future recreation under the conditions specified below (i.e. when there are substantially more than 3 articles to categorise). Since appropriate subcategories exist for the articles Suhl and Ringberghaus, they have been relocated to Category:Towns in Thuringia and Category:Buildings and structures in Thuringia instead of the main parent category for Thuringia. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Suhl to Category:Thuringia

Nominator's rationale: Merge, 3-article category rescued from the orphanage, but the main article Suhl suggests that there are not many other articles available to populate this category. It can be recreated if that situation changes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, not big enough to break out and not likely to be for quite some time. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cow and Chicken and I Am Weasel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category contains material for two separate but related series. Even combined, the material doesn't warrant categorization. Everything is interlinked appropriately. Otto4711 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was listify to Refus Global#Signatories. The listified content can be expanded, modified, or removed as editors see fit. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Refus Global's co-signatories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify in head article Refus Global, co-signing this document is not a defining characteristic of those listed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify as non-defining. Doczilla 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. not defining. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Class of 3000 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - material doesn't warrant category as it is all appropriately interlinked through the main article. Eponymous overcategorization for a series. Otto4711 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billy and Mandy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following category clean-up, the remaining material doesn't warrant categorization. All extensively linked through text and template. Otto4711 14:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was merge and subcategorise (effectively delete as the article already appears in Category:1992 books and Category:Indian books). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Quiz Books to Category:Books

Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category rescued from the orphanage with improper capitalisation. The lack of a head article Quiz books suggests that little of that genre has passed the notability tests in WP:BOOK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod 18:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:53, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was keep. There is no consensus that lists of characters should not be placed in Characters by series parent categories along with categories for individual series. I have left a request with the operator of Cydebot to relocate all non-category pages in Category:Anime and manga characters by series to Category:Lists of anime and manga characters. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of anime and manga characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of existing category Category:Anime and manga characters by series. Apparently created because the original editor didn't know the other category existed. --Farix (Talk) 14:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an appropriate subcat of Category:Lists of fictional characters by medium. The two trees can and do co-exist happily. Otto4711 14:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto and per precedent of many other lists-of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is absolutely no point in having two categories that does the exact same thing. All it does is create unnecessary confusion. --Farix (Talk) 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They don't do the exact same thing. Category:Anime and manga characters by series is a container catagory for the individual series character subcats. Any lists that are categorized there are miscategorized and should be moved to the Lists of category. Otto4711 16:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to stop breaking categorization trees and impeding navigation using categories. 132.205.99.122 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appropriate category. Doczilla 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this was indeed discussed at WT:ANIME, and is archived here. —TangentCube, Dialogues 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto4711. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. OK. Category:Lists_of_anime_and_manga_characters and Category:Anime_and_manga_characters_by_series do the exact same thing. KyuuA4 16:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They do the same thing currently, but only because nobody moved the list articles into the other category after it was made. —TangentCube, Dialogues 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, no. The character list articles were originally in Category:Anime and manga characters by series, long before it was renamed from Category:Manga and anime characters by series. Creating this category is overcategorization. --Farix (Talk) 12:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the creator of this category, I can tell that I knew about Category:Anime and manga characters by series :-). As explained here (thanks TangentCube for the link), the former is for Lists of characters, the latter for character articles. It is the same thing than Category:Lists of video game characters and Category:Video game characters by game (but I can understand that some people might consider this as overcategorization). Jean-Frédéric 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - assuming this closes as keep can someone with a bot recategorize all the list article into the Lists of category? Otto4711 17:55, 8 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shows on Cartoon Cartoons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining/overcategorization by "programming block" or, if any shows were created originally for the specific programming block, rename to Category:Cartoon Cartoons original programs and prune. Otto4711 14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:53, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shows on Miguzi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization of show by arbitrary programming block, unless any of the shows were specifically developed for the programming block in which case rename to Category:Miguzi original programs and prune. Otto4711 14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shows on Toonami ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - if I'm reading List of programs broadcast by Toonami, none of these shows are Toonami-specific. TV shows should not be categorized on the basis of having been syndicated to a particular station or included in an arbitrary "programming block." If any of these are in fact Toonami-specific (in the way that for instance Aqua Teen Hunger Force is Adult Swim-specific, no objection to rename to Category:Toonami original programs with a pruning of all non-original programming. Otto4711 14:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Polish - Jewish relations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, single-article orphan category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete; the sole category member already appears in Category:Organisations based in Australia. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Polish organisations in Australia to Category:Organisations based in Australia

Nominator's rationale: Merge, too narrow (only 1 article). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Are you sure that there are no more organisations that should be populating this category? In the UK I have heard of a variety of organisations by which ex-patriates of a particular country get together. I would guess that applies elsewhere. Often these are churches worshipping in the language of a mother country. However, these may have a distinct category, or be deemed too insignificant to be encyclopaedic. I am thus wary of deletion without further investigation, which I do not propose to undertake. Peterkingiron 18:14, 4 November 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 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 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 debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Radiocommunications to Category:Wireless communications

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I agree to the proposal. I created the Radiocommunications category and I think that I'm the only person to have allocated articles to the category. Actually I don't like the name of the "Wireless communications" category, but I'll worry about that another time! --MarkPos_{(User Page | Talk | Contribs)} 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge rational proposal Mikebar 15:44, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was rename. As there does not seem to be a people by county category scheme for the United States, the new category will be located in Category:People from Texas and Category:Houston County, Texas. If any other suitable parent categories exist, please add them. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Crockett, Texas to Category:People from Houston County, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Rename, the town of Crockett, Texas has a population of only 7,000, which is probably one of the reasons this rescue-from-the-orphanage category has only 1 member. The county has three times the population, so would be a better basis for categorisation; alternatively upmerge to Category:People from Texas. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Category:People from Texas is big enough to warrant subdivision by county. LeSnail 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 22:55, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chijon family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, single-article eponymous category for a South Korean serial killer and cannibal. Little scope for expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unnecessary eponymous category. --lquilter 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. These won't be the only people in the world with that name. Doczilla 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cancelled Virtual console games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete orphaned category containing no articles and only one subcat (which shouldn't be there and is already properly parented). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. The product articles seem to have been deleted and the main article (even if kept) alone does not justify an eponymous category, per ample precedent. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:TTI Telecom to Category:Telecommunications companies

Nominator's rationale: Merge, orphaned eponymous category for small group of companies; main article TTI Telecom just was blatant corporate advertising full of peacock terms, and tagged as {{advert}}, so I have just deleted it as as corporate spam per WP:CSD#G11. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and don't bother merging. TTI Telecom is probably notable but its individual products are not. I proposed them for deletion several days ago and they'll likely be gone in a day or two leaving an empty category (or else a category of one if TTI Telecom is restored. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main article restored after contested speedy, now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTI Telecom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if the main article survives afd, it can go in the proposed target - its products are telecommunications companies, so if they survive afd, they go elsewhere rather than a strict merge as proposed. Carlossuarez46 22:57, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Carly Schroeder images ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We certainly don't want one of these for every person. VegaDark (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Haunted hospitals to Category:Paranormal places

Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category rescued from the orphanage, with limited potential for growth. There are no other subcats of Category:Paranormal places, which is not heavily populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per BHG's summary of lack of need for category (and questioning whether being haunted is a defining aspect of hospitals, or whether being a hospital is a defining aspect of "haunted places", anyway). However, I have to say ... paranormal places? That's a terrible category name and assumes the answer. --lquilter 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:58, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete, empty. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hald0com Retrofits Variants to Category:Halo 2

Nominator's rationale: Merge, parent category is underpopulated,, no need to split category, particularly in this over-specific way. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both entries are at afd (my noms) and are likely to be axed there. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was merge. If/when there are more articles about individual episodes of the Knight Rider TV series, they should be relocated to Category:Knight Rider episodes. At present, there seem to be only two such articles. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:List of Knight Rider episodes to Category:Knight Rider

Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category which I have just rescued from the orphanage, no need to split parent Category:Knight Rider, and in any case "List of" is superfluous in a category name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. However, if there's more than a few episode articles, then it should instead be Renamed to Category:Knight Rider episodes, convention of Category:Television episodes by series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There's only the one so far as I can tell, and I sincerely hope there will be no others. --lquilter 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. A category is not a list. Doczilla 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Contemporary Ceramics to Category:Ceramics

Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category with no clear definition and no main article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, merge to Category:Ceramists which is what the only member is.Delete per Carlos below. Johnbod 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Johnbod 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the one member of the category is already in Category:Ceramists, so merger is non-issue. Carlossuarez46 23:03, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ESPN25's 25 Biggest Sports Flops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#Award_winners. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and also as a published list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:54, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was rename to Category:Defunct nightclubs. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Former nightclubs to Category:Nightclubs

Nominator's rationale: Merge, we don't usually separate current and former. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, good one Mikebar 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Defunct nightclubs and parent in Category:Defunct companies. We have an extensive categorization scheme for former entities. It's people we don't usually categorize by "former" and "current" because that status can change rapidly and present maintenance issues. Former entities generally remain "former" so that's not as much of an issue. Otto4711 18:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Defunct nightclubs per Otto4711. Vegaswikian 06:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Otto. In the case of an entity it seems like a good idea to retain a distinct "defunct" category. Snocrates 22:31, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, orphaned category, articles already listed at main article Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:35, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was relisting see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_13#Category:Eikaiwa.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eikaiwa to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Eikaiwa is a Japanese term, not in common usage outside of Japan. Although we have an Eikaiwa article, categories (as listed in Category:Companies of Japan for example) should be named more conducively towards non-specialists. A discussion has taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Capitalization which favors a non-Eikaiwa word, although the exact terminology can still be debated here. Neier 10:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and, suggest rename to Language schools of Japan, as some schools teach many languages besides English. - Neier 10:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm fine with "Language schools of Japan", but as I am not too familiar with the eikaiwa world, I wonder: Is there a significant difference between eikaiwa companies/schools and other language schools, in their organization, teaching methods, etc? In other words, is there any reason to define eikaiwa separately as its own special category of language schools? If so, then I think we should enforce that difference in our naming. LordAmeth 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:English conversation schools in Japan. My understanding is that eikaiwa schools differ in that they only teach oral conversational skills—there is generally no study of written language at all; the focus is on helping people be able to converse in English. (The public school system's courses in English have more of an emphasis on English writing and grammar and being able to read English.) Also, the word "eikaiwa" in Japanese specifically describes a school that teaches English language conversation—an eikaiwa that teaches a language other than English is an oxymoron. Snocrates 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See GEOS (eikaiwa) for one example. Neier 05:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Eikaiwa refers to a particular type of object that is unique to Japan. In such cases, and since the article is located at Eikaiwa, it is justifiable to use the original-language term. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:55, 11 November 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 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 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 debate was delete; merging is unneeded per Carlossuarez46. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Tennessee conventions to Category:Conventions

Nominator's rationale: Merge, one-article category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the single entry is already in the better subcat Category:anime conventions. Carlossuarez46 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlossuarez46. When needed in the future, can be recreated. Vegaswikian 06:30, 6 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. As all category members are linked from the article Extreme longevity tracking, there is no need to listify. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supercentenarian trackers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an unsourced article in category space, and the term "Supercentenarian trackers" appears to be a neologism: only three non-wikipedia ghits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this CfD has been subject to canvassing by Ryoung122 (talk · contribs). See This yahoogroups posting, plus these wikipedia posts: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• From Wikipedia:"Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions."Ryoung122 07:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read on down that page. WP:CANVASS also reminds editors to "keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions". As I pointed out on your talk page, the messages you sent were clearly-non-neutral in content, and it is clear that they were were also directed towards editors selected because you hoped they would support your position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this category is USEFUL and serves a purpose of furthering the encyclopedic intent of Wikipedia. The name is not an issue; it can be renamed if need be. Further, the claim that this is an 'unsourced article' misses the point that:
  A. the primary function is to link SIMILAR articles, mainly human biographies.
  B. giving a little background history is useful.
  Your nomination only serves to SUPPRESS useful information.
  For example, did you know that Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, also was involved in research into longevity?
  [PDF] Human genetics of aging: the centenarians Human lifespan Mean ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
  Alexander Graham Bell (1918 study). •Examined birth/death records of decendants of ... Siblings of centenarians have higher survival, death ...
  elegans.uky.edu/300_Spr06/Aging_Spr06_Lect14.pdf - Similar pages
  This included supercentenarian cases such as Ann Pouder, featured in National Geographic in 1917.
  Do you delete a category such as 'American doctors'? 'Supercentenarian trackers' is TWO words, not one. If there are supercentenarians and there are scientists as well as amateurs involved in their 'tracking,' then it makes sense. By the way, I wasn't the first to use these two words in combination; it came from French demographer Jean-Marie Robine more than seven years ago.Ryoung122 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply If you can find suitable sources, why not write an article on the subject? But the the convention is that we don't categorise by neologisms. See also WP:USEFUL, and before you suggest that someone is "suppressing information", please do re-read WP:V. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 'Useful to a Wikipedia reader' and 'useful to someone in certain circumstances' is NOT the same concept. I note that WP:USEFUL gives examples such as:
  list of all the phone numbers in New York
  Which is useful to those who might be interested in finding someone in New York...but not to Wikipedians in general.
  A category: supercentenarian trackers (or researchers) is generalizable to everyone and includes only those persons who are 'notable' already. 'One in 10 million' and '10 million out of 10 million' aren't the same degrees of 'notability'.Ryoung122 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ReplyThe field began in the 1870's. Today you can see that it is a legitimate field that employs scientists and includes studies funded by both the U.S. and international governments and private industry:
  http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Home.aspx?DepartmentID=505
  http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/index.htm
  http://www.grg.org/Adams/Tables.htm
  http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2007.0602?journalCode=rej
  But the material doesn't focus on 'just' the supercentenarians themselves; there is also 'supercentenarian theory' and the 'cult of centenarians':
  Bernard Jeune and James W. Vaupel (eds.) Validation of Exceptional ...author puts it, is the fascination for the ‘cult of centenarians’. In the subsequent. chapter Petersen and Jeune provide further evidence of this ...
  www.springerlink.com/index/NHJ68773X42K88H8.pdf - Similar pages
  Validation of Exceptional Longevity - Age Validation of ...In the present monograph Peter Laslett calls this phenomenon the cult of centenarians, aptly describing the apparently widespread tendency to accept wildly ...
  www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/03.htm - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
  Validation of Exceptional Longevity - Species of Evidence of ...The cult of centenarians in the 17th and 18th centuries ... In this volume Laslett elaborates on this fascination, which he calls the cult of centenarians. ...
  www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/01.htm - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
  JSTOR: Validation of Exceptional LongevityLaslett, for example, refers to "the cult of centenarians" to describe the complete loss of critical perception in the face of the emotional fascination ...
  links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921(200006)26%3A2%3C403%3AVOEL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y - Similar pages
  JSTOR: Validation of Exceptional LongevityMuch of the work is written about disputing the 'cult of centenarians' that existed in many countries for the last few centuries. ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-0526(2000)49%3A4%3C627%3AVOEL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F - Similar pages
  If you'd like this to be renamed "supercentenarian researcher" I'd be fine with that. Many of the names come from Europeans for whom English is a second language and the words they choose...'cult of centenarians,supercentenarian tracker'...may not 'catch on' in America.
  But even if there is a need for an article (apparently there is), there is also a need for a category for similar articles for those whose job it is includes finding/locating/tracking the world's oldest people. While long a 'scientific backwater' the field has grown tremendously in the past 7 years (as has "Wikipedia"). Should we delete "Wikipedia" because we can't find it in a dictionary from 1993?Ryoung122 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Sounds like you have the makings of an article, so why not write the article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(masses of irrelevant text deleted). Please read WP:TPG, and please don't use CfD to discuss sources for an article. Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom's reasoning. At most, a candidate to be listified. Snocrates 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although, if it began in the 1870s, they would have researched non-supercentenarians as well. I would prefer a rename, such as world's oldest people researchers/documenters. Neal 02:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Change Not sure that's an option, but I could see a category for "Longevity researchers" or something. This is too specific/neologistic.--T. Anthony 05:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal How about 'rename' this to Category: longevity researchers with subcategories including:

--centenarian researchers (such as Tom Perls, Leonard Poon, etc) --supercentenarian trackers (such as Louis Epstein)(list compilers) --maximum lifepan researchers (such as Fries et al)(theorists)

If one took the time to study this, they'd realize that, in reality, this has been an area of inquiry/investigation for centuries. However, much of the literature remains in 'book' format. I'm attempting to transfer much of the past history to Wikipedia, and this is just in its infancy. Also, to be pro-active, I'd suggest we start a 'project: supercentenarians'. I note there are already over 150 articles in Wikipedia involved in this project. But it's not enough to 'cite supercentenarians' without educating the public as to the THEORY and HISTORY behind it. Given the costs to healthcare of false/fictious claims, as well as the relationship between myth-making, literacy, and record-keeping, it doesn't seem like too much to ask that we do this now. I note that experts predict that by 2050, the USA and Japan alone will have more than 1,000 living persons aged 110+ (living at the same time), assuming no major scientific breakthroughs between now and then.

The real point of this category is to link the relevant articles.Ryoung122 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Which can also be done by a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It's as per Ryoung122. Extremely sexy 16:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It seems that scientists who follow human aging are often called gerontologists. But simply "tracking" centennarians isn't a defining attribute -- heck, I could maintain a list of them at home, too. So if we're talking about people who actually do research, then the category Category:Longevity researchers seems to have potential, but I don't see how it's necessarily that different from Category:Gerontologists, and it would certainly include people like Cynthia Kenyon who has done significant work in longevity using c. elegans. --lquilter 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to say this: The majority of 'gerontologists' are social or public policy persons, who deal with issues such as 'quality of life' for elders, elder care, Medicare and Medicaid funding, etc. A minority are involved in 'biogerontology', the study of the biology of aging.

Also, the study of 'centenarians' is listed as a sub-field on the Gerontology Society of America website:

https://onlinedb.geron.org/CVWeb/GSA/cgi-bin/memberdll.dll/OpenPage

GSA maintains a listing of its members' areas of expertise. It is used when the media, policymakers, researchers, etc. want to speak with experts on a particular aging topic. By selecting your own areas of expertise from the categories on the right, your name will become part of the database and you may be contacted by these parties.

The listing of categories is in alphabetical order, and includes 'centenarians'. I do wonder who is the expert here, the GSA or Wikipedia...Ryoung122 12:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If (per Ryoung122's evidence) this is a sub-field of gerontology, then a simple solution is to to upmerge to Category:Gerontologists, which is a very lightly-populated category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too vague. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Functionally useless category and not able to be filled encyclopaedically per WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Gerontologists could, however, be filled so entries should be moved there. Orderinchaos 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. ALL of the above comments by Orderinchaos are, flatly, INCORRECT. I do see merging into category:gerontologists as an acceptable solution, and make this a subcategory. I note persons such as:

[PDF] Human genetics of aging: the centenarians Human lifespan Mean ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Alexander Graham Bell (1918 study). •Examined birth/death records of decendants of ... Siblings of centenarians have higher survival, death ... elegans.uky.edu/300_Spr06/Aging_Spr06_Lect14.pdf - Similar pages

Primarily the inventor of the telephone, yet his 1918 study of 'centenarians' claimed that Ann Pouder, at 110, was the real thing. She was featured in a 1917 issue of National Geographic. Clearly, AG Bell was far better known for inventing the telephone, and yet his part-time approach to this study nonetheless kept a discipline alive and he is still being cited some 90 years later. Note also that William Thoms had a triple career, as a politician, as a folklorist, and as an investigator of supercentenarian claims. His seminal work, "Human Longevity: Its Facts and Fictions" (1879) is considered the foundational start to this sub-field, although if one reads a book such as this:

Exceptional Longevity: From Prehistory to the PresentB. Jeune. 3. The Evolution of Human Longevity from the Mesolithic to the Middle Ages: An Analysis Based on Skeletal Data. J.L. Boldsen and R.R. Paine ... www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/2/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages

Then they will realize that 'supercentenarian tracking' has been going on for as long as some people claimed great ages and others were interested in keeping track of them...perhaps starting with the ancient Babylonians. Thus, this is 'not' a neologism, not a 'new' field. But it is a rapidly growing field. By the year 2050, both the USA and Japan are expected to have over 1,000,000 centenarians each, with a population of 1,000+ at the 'supercentenarian' level. However, the real purpose of study is not in bulk but in extremity, to find why some humans live longer than others, and why some don't...and also to find out what limiting factors are preventing humans from attaining, say, age '150'. We can't know that unless we study it.72.158.38.41 10:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This appears to be a valid category to me, but the name is a neologism. Category:Gerontologists would be an appropriate supercategory, but there is clearly a distinction here between people who study aging in general and people who research specific individuals who are old and their claims thereto. The individuals in this category are united by their interest, not so much in the causes of aging and of not dying, but in the facts and verification of individuals who reach advanced age. There are several possible non-neologistic titles that could be used in place of the current title. Powers ^T 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify or keep/rename, but don't delete. Not really OR. Johnbod 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now set up as Extreme longevity tracking, and if the category is kept Category:Extreme longevity trackers would be better. Johnbod 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought it was the use of the word "tracking"/"trackers" that was controversial here, not "supercentenarian". The latter even has an article. Powers ^T 16:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely see that, but am open to a rename of the artixcle after this closes. Johnbod 16:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, prompted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker), I started supercentenarian tracking. It seems to me that supercentenarian tracking and extreme longevity tracking could be merged. Carcharoth 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Neologism, used as part of means to justify some non-notable articles on their way to deletion. MLA 16:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your complete disrespect for the subject, given other comments made to the Louis Epstein AFD debate, really contrasts with your creation of mixed-martial arts articles. Funny: science=bad, fighting=good. Makes sense to me. Oh wait, no it doesn't. But that's why you're called 'Mad Lord Anarchy', right?Ryoung122 09:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term is not in widespread use, and the inclusions are also not always well supported. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term itself seems to be a neologism per nominator and OR. Most of the articles in the category are also in Category:Gerontologists or its subcategories. This whole business seems more and more like a walled garden. —Moondyne 15:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Note also that Ryoung122 (and some of his sockpuppets) has been blocked indefinitely for his abusive behavior and canvassing in this and other deletion debates. --Crusio 16:56, 12 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Valerii Flacci ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous genealogy category, per WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 7 members who appear notable are listed at the article, but this orphan category is at best premature. Johnbod 12:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:38, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vice mayors to Category:Deputy mayors

Nominator's rationale: Rename, for consistency with main article Deputy mayor; alternatively delete as an often non-notable role. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Being vice-mayor is not enough to make someone notable. Either these people have more significant features to be categorized by (like going on to be mayor), or they should not have articles. LeSnail 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and rename per nom. I think it's unfair to say that being a vice/deputy mayor could never be enough to make someone notable. In the right circumstances, it could. However, I have my doubts that those currenty in the category are notable for that reason. Snocrates 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & LeSnail. Carlossuarez46 23:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as submayors are inherently non-notable in and of themselves. Undermayors need not be categorized. 132.205.99.122 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lesnail Johnbod 12:40, 7 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western Pacific Railroad Museum ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for the Western Pacific Railroad Museum, containing only 2 articles, both about a loco exhibited at the museum. Both articles are otherwise well-categorised, and are mentioned in the main article. There are no other eponymous subcats in Category:United States railroad museums and tourist lines. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:39, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was delete; the sole member already appears in the target. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Water Truck Pumps to Category:Firefighting equipment

Nominator's rationale: Merge, single-article category, rescue from the orphanage, limited potential for growth unless it to be used to categorise all the difft models of firefighting vehicle, and I don't know if we have any such articles so far. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the one article is already categorized at the target. Carlossuarez46 23:40, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was upmerge as suggested by Johnbod. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Urban context photographers to Category:Architectural photographers

Nominator's rationale: Merge, another small, orphaned category from Special:Uncategorizedcategories. The name seems like a neologism, but Category:Architectural photographers seems like a suitable broader category, albeit not a perfect fit. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There's actually an urban photography movement that has a number of different submovements; not all are focused on architecture. City life, urban wildlife, abandoned buildings (which could be architecture but often focus on interiors and non-architectural elements), and so on. It's unclear to me from looking at this category what it's supposed to represent, so maybe that's a good reason to get rid of it. However, I think it might miss something important to simply upmerge it to architectural photographers. --lquilter 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Sam Abell to plain Category:Photographers, the other two to Category:Architectural photographers. Johnbod 18:49, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was merge to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Tunnels by country. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Urban tunnel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Odd category, far which I can't find any close parallels, grouping structures by type of location (I found it in Special:Uncategorizedcategories, and added a few parent categories, which I'm not v happy about either). If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Urban tunnels. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to :Category:Tunnels by country or just Cat:tunnels. We have dozens more "urban tunnels" in those cats, and there doesn't seem much point in starting this new division. Johnbod 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Tunnels by country. Not sure why "urban tunnels" need to be distinguished from tunnels through mountains and the chunnel and what-not. --lquilter 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. If there's need for classification it should be by intended use (railway or road tunnels). Pavel Vozenilek 04:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes a lot of sense. Because a tunnel might extend through a long ways and different environments ... is a tunnel from the countryside to the city urban or rural, for instance? But use seems less likely to vary while the tunnel does what it is supposed to do (laying linearly across the land). --lquilter 15:48, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was upmerge as nominated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:UK Thrash to Category:British heavy metal musical groups and Category:Thrash metal musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Overly narrow subdivision of heavy metal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:36, 11 November 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 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 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 debate was keep. – Jerazol ^(Talk) 20:52, 9 November 2007 (CET)

Suggest merging Category:Ullensaker to Category:Akershus

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. This is a category for the commune of Ullensaker in Norway, and contains only 3 articles. Those articles are alredy linked from the main article Ullensaker, and the category shoukd be upmerged to the county Category:Akershus. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this category has potential for growth and should not be merged into Akershus. Ullensaker kommune is a rapidly growing area as the result of the new airport at Gardermoen which is now the largest airport in Norway. This leads to greater international interest in Ullensaker. The Norwegian version of the category listing already has 44 entries and one subcategory and is growing. I've added a link to the Norwegian version of the Ullensaker category page. --Jutulen 15:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I would expect a Norwegian a category to be more heavily populated on no.wikipedia, but as of now it seems that we agree there aren't more articles on Ullensaker. The category can of course be recreated if/when the situation changes. Additionally, I didn't see any caegories for communes in Norway. Is this the only one, or are the others just not in a communes category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; insufficient articles at the county level to break down by municipality. Carlossuarez46 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've searched through WP and added articles which I find appropriate for the category. It now contains 15 articles, which imo should be more than enough to make this category worth keeping. There's also the precedence of the categories Category:Asker and Category:Bærum which doesn't seem to contain any more articles than what Ullensaker now does, and which have already existed for a year and a half. Jerazol 06:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep category You suggest the merging by referring to WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth which states:

Avoid categories that will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country.

To claim that the category Ullensaker will never have more than a few members is inaccurate. The category now has 10 articles and the Norwegian content of the Wikipedia is growing. Therefore it's inaccurate to claim it will ...never have more than a few members

Also Ullensaker is part of a ...large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Norway is divided into 19 administrative regions called "fylker" (equivalent to county) and a complete list is available at: Category:Municipalities_of_Norway. Each of the fylke are then subdivided into "kommuner" and in the case of Akershus there are 22 such municipalities Category:Municipalities_of_Akershus of which Ullensaker is one.

Since the rationale for merging is not met the category should be kept as is.

Jutulen 06:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we close this please. It seems obvious that the Category should stay, at least considering the reason given for the nomination. Jerazol 18:46, 7 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Units based on multiples of 12 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Orphaned trivia, which might just about have merit as an article, but not as category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LeSnail 17:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete agree Mikebar 15:48, 2 November 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 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 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wilson Sporting Goods Equipment ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly narrow category with limited scope for expansion. If the articles in the category are notable, they should be listed in the main article Wilson Sporting Goods. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as per nom. --moof 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:43, 1 November 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 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 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 debate was upmerge all. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging

• Category:XML Validation to Category:XML
• Category:XML validator to Category:XML
• Category:XML framework to Category:XML

Nominator's rationale:. Upmerge all. These were orphaned categories which I found at Special:Uncategorizedcategories and have parented in Category:XML, they don't seem to fit wit the general structure of Category:XML. Additionally, the "Validation" one has incorrect capitalisation and overlaps with the "validator" category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]