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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:UCLA basketball to Category:UCLA Bruins basketball

Category:UCLA soccer to Category:UCLA Bruins soccer

Category:UCLA track and field to Category:UCLA Bruins track and field

Category:UCLA athletics to Category:UCLA Bruins athletics

In a December 16 debate [1], we decided that Category:UCLA football should become Category:UCLA Bruins football to match a syntax used in a bunch of new categories under Category:College football teams. Now a similar effort is underway for Category:College basketball teams. I think the basketball one should be renamed at least, and perhaps the others.-- Mike Selinker 23:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename all. I created these categories and the names are fine with me. howch e ng { chat} 06:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Batch deletion request:

• Category:UConn Huskies men's basketball
• Category:UConn Huskies men's basketball players
• Category:UConn Huskies women's basketball
• Category:UConn Huskies women's basketball players

I originally created all of the above categories. I split the men's and women's programs because UConn has highly prominent men's and women's programs. However, Mike Selinker left a comment on my talk page which persuaded me that there shouldn't be separate categories for men and women.

I've since merged all articles into master categories for UConn basketball and UConn basketball players.

Would the men's and women's categories now be appropriate for a speedy? — Dale Arnett 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep but rename: This is a tough one but I kinda like the idea of splitting by gender. Among other things, the examples Mike Selinker gave in your talk page are questionable — I wouldn't know if the name Emeka Okafor was a man or a woman if he weren't so well-known. And I don't mind so much seeing the arenas in multiple categories. I'd prefer this than having a hodge-podge of men's and women's basketball players and arenas all mixed together. I would however rename them to not use the "UConn" abbreviation which always makes me think of Yukon.  :) wknight94 01:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Now I see the abbreviation is somewhat standard. So keep the name but still keep the gender-specific cats. That's my vote. wknight94 01:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep and repopulate. Splitting by gender in sport is a reflection of the real world. Osomec 03:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Here's why I don't agree with the above comments: Almost no other category in Category:Sportspeople (soccer players, track and field athletes, rollerbladers, poker players, whatever) splits by gender, except when it's remarkable ( Category:Baseball players or Category:Racecar drivers, say). Under all these normal circumstances, men compete against men, and women against women. But this leads to the precedent that we should break up, say, Category:American track and field athletes by gender. And that leans us toward doubling all the sportspeople categories for what in my opinion is a meritless distinction. Women and men at UConn are basketball players; neither is meaningfully different than the other, like in nearly every other category of this type.-- Mike Selinker 06:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • As a side note, apparently Category_talk:Chess players had an argument over this type of distinction, and the community deleted the category of female chess players. I think that's a precedent that unless the appearance of women in the sport is remarkable as it is in racecar driving, there shouldn't be divisions by gender, as (I am interpreting here) it suggests the women are less significant than the men. Food for thought.-- Mike Selinker 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I didn't hear anyone imply that women are less significant than men and I don't think having separate categories is saying that either. But they are different and therefore warrant a different category IMHO. If that's the only reason not to break them out, that's pretty flimsy - also IMHO. Even following previous standards isn't a great reason - once again, IMHO. I might even agree that breaking out women race car drivers is less important - but men and women basketball players are playing in entirely different "leagues" and don't mix men and women. How much more different can you get? wknight94 13:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. To be clearer, I wasn't saying you or anyone else was here implying that. I was trying to divine the rationale behind the previous ruling on chess players. But I may have to change my vote anyhow, because I realized last night that many of the women's teams don't have the same name as their masculine counterpart (Tennessee Lady Vols, Arkansas LadyBacks, etc.). So those will definitely need separate categories.-- Mike Selinker 16:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment. A new suggestion... a new directory structure. This will start with the base "College basketball teams".
  • Level 1: A single category for basketball at the school. For schools like UConn and Kentucky that have the same nickname for men's and women's teams, the category would be "(School) (nickname) basketball", such as "UConn Huskies basketball". For schools like Tennessee and Arkansas that have different nicknames for men and women, it would be "(Full school name) basketball"—e.g. "University of Tennessee basketball".
  • Level 2: Separate categories for the men's and women's programs, as subcats of the above. For schools like UConn, use category names like those that now exist for UConn. For schools like Tennessee, use "Tennessee Volunteers basketball" and "Tennessee Lady Vols basketball" (with analogues for other such schools).
  • Level 3: Make separate subcats for male and female players.
  • For the base "College basketball players", use a similar category structure.

Think this idea would be OK with everyone? — Dale Arnett 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• • I certainly like there being a main category that links the UConn basketball programs, so this sounds good. I think it works great when a school has articles for both genders. When there isn't anything noteworthy about one of the two genders at a school (and mostly this will involve the women's teams, although Tennessee may prove a counterexample), I think you can skip a hierarchical generation and link the men's basketball right into the main category.-- Mike Selinker 00:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Trivial, irrelevant, and inherently POV (we all have dimples from time to time). Mark ¹ 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Nonsensical. Soltak | Talk 22:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Saw this added to Cary Grant and immediately headed to the category page to CfD it. Totally unverifiable. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete: LMAO, this one has to be a joke. Someone fess up and admit this was a joke! wknight94 01:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete, ridiculous. Substantially similar to other deleted categories about minor physical characteristics. R adiant _>|< 01:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete but not because it is silly ... rather because it is not encyclopedic. Why not silly? Take the perspective of an AI in training (yes, there are such things); being able to distinguish between and classify facial expressions is important and one characteristic that can be used in such is dimpling, either standing dimples or induced ones (from smiling, for instance). So, from an AI facial recognition perspective, this is an important category - it's just not important for us humans. User:Ceyockey 02:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Heh heh, unfortunately, it's us humans that are reading this, not facial recognition software. I could take that seriously if the category were "Celebrities with dimples for AI facial recognition purposes". Hmmm, maybe even that would be hard to read with a "straight face"...  ;) wknight94 03:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Non-encyclopedic. Gwimpey 07:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - dimples does not compute my AI told me. Metarhyme 08:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, doesn't even have Shirley Temple! :P Sherurcij ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Wikipedians with dimples and proceed from there to the usual silliness. 12.73.194.94 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, move and rename i'm moving it to Category:People with congenital or endocrine physical appearances and renaming to Category:People with dimples --User:Sevensouls 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just posted that category for deletion as well, it's now listed under 2 January. Renaming the category doesn't change any of the rationale for deleting the old one. Soltak | Talk 18:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to comply with capitalization standard. Sparkit 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• comment Please tell me where documentation for the "capitalization standard" is located. Lerner 21:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Naming convention is the term used on wikipedia, but it didn't come to mind when I made the proposal. In any case, the naming convention material is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words . Sparkit 21:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. When I read that, I thought it was a collection of '50s rock and roll stars, so it should change.-- Mike Selinker 00:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. American graffiti, not American Graffiti. siafu 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to comply with capitalization standard. Sparkit 20:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This category was fed by a now condemned template, {{ Lowercase-Apple}}.Deletion is policy, this isn't any big controversy. HereToHelp ( talk) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• BJAODN, silliest cat name I've seen in awhile. R adiant _>|< 01:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - annihilate cat lc Apple stuff. Metarhyme 08:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Actors by series
• Category:The A-Team actors
• Category:Alias actors
• Category:Alien film series actors
• Category:Andromeda actors
• Category:Are You Being Served? actors
• Category:Avengers actors
• Category:Babylon 5 cast and crew
• Category:Back to the Future actors
• Category:Batman actors
• Category:Blackadder actors
• Category:Blake's 7 actors
• Category:Brookside actors
• Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer cast and crew
• Category:CSI
• Category:Care Bears actors
• Category:Carry On film actors
• Category:Coronation Street actors
• Category:Crusade cast and crew
• Category:Dad's Army actors
• Category:David E. Kelley actors
• Category:Doctor Who actors
• Category:Actors and actresses appearing on ER
• Category:EastEnders actors
• Category:Family Affairs actors
• Category:Farscape cast and crew
• Category:Firefly cast and crew
• Category:Friday the 13th actors
• Category:Futurama actors
• Category:Gimme Gimme Gimme actors
• Category:HLOTS cast
• Category:Harry Potter actors
• Category:Hollyoaks actors
• Category:James Bond actors
• Category:Joan of Arcadia actors
• Category:Last of The Summer Wine actors
• Category:Law & Order cast
• Category:Little Britain actors
• Category:The Lord of the Rings actors
• Category:Lost actors
• Category:M*A*S*H actors
• Category:MacGyver actors
• Category:Actors who guest starred on Miami Vice
• Category:Neighbours actors
• Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street actors
• Category:The Outer Limits actors
• Category:Prisoner actors
• Category:Red Dwarf actors
• Category:SNL cast members
• Category:Simpsons cast members
• Category:Star Trek actors
• Category:Star Wars actors
• Category:Stargate actors
• Category:Texas Chainsaw Massacre actors
• Category:The Prisoner actors
• Category:Twin Peaks actors
• Category:X-Files actors
• Category:Yes, Minister actors

comment I can see people have put in a lot of work to these categories, but I think if categories for film or TV show actors are to be accepted we need to also accept the practice of having categories for individuals to avoid article pages becoming overloaded (a prolific actor could end up being in hundreds of these types of categories). I am still not sure why we need them though if we have cast lists on film/TV show pages and filmographies on people's articles. Arniep 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep no need not to have these, if someone has been in hundreds of programmes, they need only go in the ones for which their appearances are notable. -- TimPope 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

"Notable" is a POV term, not accepted by Wikipedia. It's all or none. 12.73.194.235 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The pov policies should be seen as a way of achieving neutrality and minimising controversy, not as a blanket ban on the use of editorial judgement, which is necessary to produce a good encyclopedia. Osomec 05:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment: I totally disagree with this statement. This is an open invitation to edit wars. I think X is notable so I add, but you don't so you delete, etc., etc. Even when good encyclopedias have a page called "Notable actors", there's a little blurb in fine print at the bottom defining "notable". wknight94 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep, this is a fine way to organize articles. I personally don't support having filmographies in articles (we already have the IMDb link, which is more complete and informative), so these are good categories. I agree with Tim on the issue of prolific actors to only use the notable ones (don't put John Cleese in the Doctor Who category just becuase he was in City of Death, for instance)-- Sean| Bla ck 23:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I see Arniep's point, but boy is it useful to have all the SNL cast members in one place rather than having to have a list on the SNL page. I think you have to live with the clutter and put a note on each page saying, "This category is for actors who played major characters on Stargate," or whatever.-- Mike Selinker 00:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Listify cast under each series' article. Not category-level material, and you will be overrun with thousands of categories to include every TV series, radio show, movie, video and theater production if you keep this up. So far, it's limited to specific cultcruft, but everything will mandate equal treatment in the end. 12.73.194.235 01:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Alternate proposal: RENAME. Some of these cats are "actors", others are "cast and crew" and yet others are "crew members". I would propose renaming them to all use the same scheme. I don't particularly care which, but "actors" seems to be the most prevalent. R adiant _>|< 01:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Agree that consistency is highly desirable -- TimPope 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep: But I'd state in the categories' descriptions that they're only for regular cast members, not guest appearances. That would keep your average categories-per-article under a dozen as opposed to the "hundreds" claimed by nom. And I think that would be easier to define than just saying "notable" wknight94 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Should be for main cast members only. Osomec 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems a useful way to keep track of people. Agree with suggestion by wknight94. Gwimpey 07:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Useful for organizing purposes. Wknight94's suggestion has merit. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. Can't see what any of the fuss is about - created one of these myself and have contributed to numerous others. Personally I find the categories fascinating. Their use is by no means a problem on wikipedia. If you just want the main actors, use the main feature page. -- Litefoot 10.19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Some of these categories should probably go, but there's no universal rule for eliminating all of them. siafu 15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep I agree with Wknight94's suggestion of keeping with regular cast; however, a definition of 'regular cast' must be established. Outside of that, anyone who deletes these categories is doing a great disservice to Wikipedia. -- JB Adder | Talk 00:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. These categories are some of the most useful I've come across in entertainment related articles. I cannot see why anyone would want to simply delete them. I agree that they should just be used for major appearances or major characters within the series' however. Evil Eye 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Both mean the same thing. In fact, one is the subcategory of the other! It might be better merging the other way round, anyone got an opinion? Tom Edwards 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Technically it's not the same, I can think of several older multiplayer games that aren't online. Keep and fix (most notably, Battle Isle and Mario Brothers). R adiant _>|< 01:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Radiant. Hotseat, anyone? siafu 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - there are many console and arcade games that are multiplayer but not online. But as the category includes console games etc, maybe it should be renamed to Category:Multiplayer computer and video games ? (note the parent is Category:Computer and video games). -- Vclaw 17:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

All good points. It certainly needs a cleanup and clarify, though. -- Tom Edwards 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Who is and who is not a character actor is POV Delete and listify if judged encyclopedic. Arniep 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete no definition of character actor -- TimPope 23:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Comment. Sure there is: Character actor. I agree that this is a difficult to define category, but there are some people who are definitely character actors. It's probably useful info, but I can't fully support its inclusion as is. Maybe there's a better name for it.-- Mike Selinker 00:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Common term, and in many cases verifiable. Like this article [2] on Vincent Schiavelli, a character actor who died today. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As noted, this is a common term in entertainment, one sometimes (often?) used by actors in self-definition and in comparing themselves to their peers. User:Ceyockey 03:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unfortunately, the first sentence of the Character actor article referenced above contains three terms that are all POV: "predominantly", "supporting parts" and "similar roles". If even the first sentence doesn't give a clear definition, how can this category? wknight94 03:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Wikipedia should acknowledge the value of editorial judgement in some areas, and this one is not so controversial that it is more trouble than it is worth. Osomec 03:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Then how about "Comedic actors"? Or "Action movie actors"? Or "Serious actors"? Why not go all out and have "Bad actors" and get Cindy Crawford and Jessica Simpson in there? Oh wait, we actually do have that one - it's called the Raspberry Awards... Unless someone can find some group like the Razzies that defines "Character actors", I don't see how this is any less editorial than having a category for "Comedic actors". The term itself bothers me - isn't every actor playing a character?! Maybe make a list of people "generally considered to be character actors" but a category is supposed to be more concrete than that IMHO. wknight94 13:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep The actors categories are huge and will grow rapidly. Therefore they need a good deal of subdivision to be much use. Honbicot 15:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

comment so is it useful for them to be sub-divided according to a totally non encyclopedic POV? Arniep 02:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Keep, character actor is a well used phrase and does define a lot of actors, some who I note are not even yet included in the category. Rather than deleting this category, I think we should be looking for the missing actor who do fit into it and adding them. Evil Eye 16:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:User bi (The template which used this name was wrongly moved at Template:User bis, see Wikipedia:Requested moves) wrong categorized as this category. -- Hello World! 14:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• What is the problem? All the appropriate categories and templates exist and seem to be properly categorized. The histories are trivial in this case, unless someone is concerned about getting credit for something. -- Fplay 21:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused category that is pretty redundant since people by occupation is split into South Koreans and North Koreans (as in Category:South Korean film directors). Category:Korean actors was deleted some time ago, and this should follow. If someone writes an article about a Korean film director that died before the country was split, the category can be recreated, but keeping it until then isn't helpful. Bobet 13:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete: As long as there are none already in the system. wknight94 14:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as the parent category of the categories for the North and South. — Insta ntnood 19:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Why keep as a parent category when the North one doesn't even exist? Re-making the parent can always be done later. Even if North is created someday, do we really need to make Korean a parent cat of North and South Korea? wknight94 01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There are categories for Korean painters, Korean writers, etc., that are all subcategories of Korean people by occupation. I'd say it's gonna be useful for the structure of the entire categorisation scheme. Korea is one nation although two states. — Insta ntnood 17:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Oy, it looks like there's more confusion here than I thought. Why was Category:Korean actors deleted then? Sounds like the people that care about Korean categories need to get on the same page. I'm not one of those so good luck with that!  ;-) wknight94 17:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
      • No idea. There are mergists all around. ;-) — Insta ntnood 18:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Reorganize: Move Category:South Korean film directors (and any future Category:North Korean film directors) into Category:Korean film directors. -- Jambalaya 15:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 16:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. How is else is a user to browse through a list of Korean actors whether North or South? What could be the justification for deleting this not but not Korean writers, etc.? ThreeAnswers 07:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Obvious. Correcting the case. wknight94 13:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename: Per nom. wknight94 13:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

This could be done "speedy". AnonMoos 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Is there such a thing as a speedy merge? If so, I'll go ahead and do that. wknight94 17:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I expect the expanded name is what is intended, and if it isn't, it needs restructuring anyway. Category:American basketball coaches already exist, though it is little used, but it means something different, and I can see value in having both as there are also large categories for high school and college basketball coaches. Calsicol 12:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC). reply

• Alternate Rename: to Category:American pro basketball coaches. This follows the standard laid out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for categorization of people as well as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. wknight94 14:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support alternate rename. This fits the standardization that's going on in these categories.-- Mike Selinker 00:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support original proposal. These are clearly two different things. Coaches who work in the United States are not necessarily American. This is more of a league by league thing (ie. NBA and WNBA now but also previous leagues) and should be broken down on that basis, while category:American basketball coaches should be left as it is as the national category as some coaches have worked at more than one level, but it is useful to have a single overview category by nationality (albeit one that is woefully incomplete at present, but then Category:American basketball players didn't exist until a few months ago, but look at it now!). Osomec 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have started work on the subcategories for each league. This subdivision by level of basketball really is a U.S. only thing. It is unlikely that anyone will start an article about a college or high school coach in the rest of the world. It probably isn't possible to achieve notability as such outside the U.S. so nationality categories are all that is needed in those cases, but U.S. basketball is different in structure (and of course in scale too). Osomec 04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on Osomec's point that "Coaches who work in the United States are not necessarily American.": While this is a theoretically valid statement, I believe you would have a hard time finding any head coach for whom this is true in the WNBA or NBA now. I know of one former coach of the Washington Mystics that's Australian, but I think that's it. Just a side point.-- Mike Selinker 06:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Uh-oh, is this where we're going? Then we'll end up with things like Category:Non-Japanese baseball players in Japan. Hmmm... If that's the issue, maybe I'll support the original rename. wknight94 15:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I had to look up ABA to know what this was for. Rename. Calsicol 12:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename: Per nom. wknight94 13:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 16:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

So far, Category:Songs by year groups 19th-21st century songs only by year, without parenting those songs by decade or century; it also doesn't further subcategorize them by year, let alone by decade. As currently used, this category results in loss of category specificity for the songs in the category. Delete. If kept, the full title should be Category:2000s pop songs to fit with other 'X by year' categories. - Sean Curtin 04:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete: But the other similar categories should be deleted too. There's no point breaking out by decade. The articles that are directly in the decade categories shouldn't be. wknight94 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

If " Category:Controversial books" has been whacked, then "Controversial films" should get whacked also. I will not bother cfd'ing "Bannd films" since "banning" is somehow felt by others (in a manner I disagree with) to be qualitatively different.

A parallel discussion is going in with my cfd on December 24 of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Banned books. I have no problems with lists, but I find use of categores (which are implemented and appear in the individual work) in this manner to be INTRUSIVE in the browsing of these films and books.

And while we are at it, we should try to make a decision on:

• Controversial albums
• Controversial computer and video games
• Controversial television shows

I decided to leave "Controversial birds" out since it has something to do with squabbling taxonomists. --

To really see the scope of the problem visit:

• Category:Controversial entertainment media
• Category:Banned books

Again, I like browsing to a nice collection of controvisial stuff, but I do not like it intruding on the individual work. And I can use "What links here" if I want to know what lists a work is on.

Fplay 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Very weak delete. This cat is a bit different from the books one. Most any non-fiction book is inherently intended to raise controversy (every original thesis purports something not previously believed, hence controversy). Films are often controversial in a more accidental sense, since a film doesn't really "state a thesis". Obviously some film-makers have a good hunch in advance, but that's not quite the same thing. Nonetheless, I think it gets its toe over the "too subjective" line. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Although I don't understand what you're saying above about intrusive categories. Maybe I missed a previous discussion. wknight94 14:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is no objective way to determine what constitutes a "controversial" anything. However, as mentioned in the banned books discussion, my vote has nothing to do with the perceived intrusiveness of the category, but is due to the fact that this, and any related "Controversial ___" category is inherently POV. Soltak | Talk 22:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, inherent POV. R adiant _>|< 01:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• If keep then create Category:Point of view articles. No? Then Delete. Metarhyme 08:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not verifiable, slight POV. siafu 16:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, or have a better name, or listify. — Insta ntnood 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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