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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Mad scientists to Category:Fictional mad scientists
• Category:Evil geniuses to Category:Fictional evil geniuses

Rename both for consistency with other fictional people categories. -- musicpvm 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Chicheley 02:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Just a quick thought, would it be worthwhile to make the whole fiction/nonfiction issue into a speedy rename criteria? Luna Santin 07:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename should be speedy as it seems we now have a convention by all of the renames done that are similar. - LA @ 06:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Important to know who the real evil genii are & who's fictional. <g> ♥ Her Pegship♥ 02:45, 9 July 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 regarding 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 to Category:Foreign relations of the United Kingdom. Conscious 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Asia is a continent; it does not have foreign relations. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

... and England is not a sovereign state, so it does not have foreign relations either. -- Mais oui! 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge into Category:Foreign relations of the United Kingdom. I think a continental or similar subcat might be worthwhile if there were more articles, I can see the logic, but I don't see the need at this point. Also, Mais does bring up a good question; there's a few articles and cats in FROTUK that follow the Anglo-X model, and I'm not entirely sure if that's appropriate? Is "Anglo" still an appropriate term in this day and age, or should they all be converted to "British"? Someone with more knowledge in that area, please. Regards, Luna Santin 07:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I think words such as "Anglo-American" are still used – with the "Anglo" meant to imply "British", I guess. Regards, David Kernow 09:49, 7 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Prefer to use common names. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Golfcam 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• RenameThe "Fish of category" was recently started on a world wide basis. I originally had put these into "Fish Fauna of Utah". "Fish of Utah" sounds quite appropriate. Michael, in the HOT,Sonoran Desert of YUMA,Az,-- Mmcannis 06:06, 6 July 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 regarding 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 to Category:Images of Multan. Conscious 16:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Contains images of Multan, Pakistan. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Images of Multan, Pakistan, otherwise Category:Images of Multan. David Kernow 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Images of Multan, per David Kernow -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Images of Multan. -- Spasage 06:39, 9 July 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 regarding 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 -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Trivial overcategorization, two members only. siafu 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Plus, they forgot Sirhan Sirhan.
  • I solved that problem. ;)-- M @ r ē ino 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. See WP:CG, where cats like "Musicians whose first name starts with M" are discouraged. Cute, funny, but I'm doubtful of the encyclopedic value, sorry. Luna Santin 07:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm utterly mystified sometimes by what people consider important enough to warrant a category. Bearcat 01:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Merchbow 11:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as trivial and unencyclopedic. -- MCB 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete silliness Antares33712 02:07, 12 July 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 regarding 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 all -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

and

Category:Judaism talk pages

and

Category:Jewish languages talk pages

and

Category:Vulva talk pages

Talk pages normally aren't categorized, except sometimes as project tags. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete [all] - if it's used for a project, suggest it be listified instead. Ziggurat 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per above. David Kernow 02:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all as per nom. - MCB 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Damn, maybe we use link up the phallic talk pages next. Speedy Delete and now :-D Antares33712 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. User:Angr 09:29, 12 July 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 regarding 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 all (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Abandoned New York City Subway stations
• Category:Defunct BMT stations
• Category:Defunct IRT stations
• Category:Demolished New York City Subway stations

• Delete: These four categories formerly were used to categorize New York City Subway stations that were no longer in revenue service. They separated those that were simply abandoned from those that have been completely demolished and defunct IRT stations from defunct BMT stations. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Subway#Defunct/Abandoned/Demolished, etc. determined that these should be merged into Category:Defunct New York City Subway stations, which I have just done. The four formerly-used categories are no longer useful (with only three or four articles each before, they were hardly useful before either) and should be deleted. -- Larry V ( talk | contribs) 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per Larry V. We don't need them any more. -- Alphachimp ^talk 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, for the reasons stated. Marc Shepherd 00:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per nom. -- Usgnus 22:59, 6 July 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 regarding 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, suggest starting separate discussions. Conscious 08:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate categories. Channels (the smaller of the two) should be merged with stations. Dugwiki 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oops, typed the wrong "to" category. Should be merge Category:Television channels with Category:Television stations. Corrected above. Dugwiki 19:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge into the stations cat for nom. All the subcategories also follow that format except these which should be renamed:
  • Category:Television channels in Greece to Category:Television stations in Greece
  • Category:Television channels in the United Kingdom to Category:Television stations in the United Kingdom
  • Category:Defunct television channels to Category:Defunct television stations
  • Category:Defunct British television channels to Category:Defunct British television stations
  • Category:LGBT television channels to Category:LBGT television stations
  • Category:Lists of television channels to Category:Lists of television stations
  • Category:BBC television channels to Category:BBC television stations

I'll tag them. -- musicpvm 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Very relucant merge of category:Television channels into Category:television stations. Very strong oppose the rest Television stations is American English. Chicheley 02:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• I thought there was a distinction between a TV station and a TV channel, maybe that a TV station might broadcast more than one channel...?  Unsure, David Kernow 02:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Partial Oppose for the by country and BBC categories. Vegaswikian 06:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Television channels to Category:Television networks. Look at what it includes, CNN and TWC with two other entries which might not even be corrctly listed as channels. Leave a cat redirect to Category:Television stations. Vegaswikian 06:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Ok, I was thinking that may be "American" English, but many Commonwealth countries currently use "stations" in their category names, so I wasn't sure. I still think the non-British ones should be renamed to match the parent cat though. -- musicpvm 07:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Partial Oppose for the UK and European categories, where channel is the accepted term. -- tgheretford ( talk) 08:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Partial oppose per Tghe-retford -- 9 cds ^(talk) 08:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Partial oppose same as above. See also earlier discussion on this matter here . Incedently, musicpvm, it is better to use {{ cfru}} when the discussion is not taking place under the standard a to b heading as otherwise the link to the discussion does not work. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Quick follow-up to some of the above replies. Note that the terms "Television station" and "Television channel" are synonymous. One is the US term, the other the British term, but they both mean the same thing so only one of the two categories should exist. The only reason I suggested merging into Category:Television station is because it currently contains many, many more entries than Category:Television channel. Dugwiki 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

No, they don't mean the same thing. The British use of "channel" is synonymous with "station"; in American and Canadian English stations and channels are two different things, as I explain below. Bearcat 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge Category:Television channels into Category:Television stations, per nom. Keep Category:Television channels as a category redirect as suggested by Vegaswikian. It is a common term in the US, and it will surely be recreated otherwise. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• The problem here is that a "television channel" and a "television station" don't mean the same thing for the most part. At least in North America, "station" refers to a local broadcast outlet such as WPIX-TV or CFTO-TV, which airs terrestrially and is usually affiliated with a conventional television network. Broadcasters which air a single programming stream nationwide on cable, such as MuchMusic or CNN, cannot be referred to as stations; they can only be called "channels". Only in Britain do the meanings merge...and as already noted by others, they merge under "channels", not "stations". So I have to oppose almost all of this: the British categories because "channels" is the normative term in British English, and the LGBT one because none of the articles listed in that category can be called "stations" in any dialect of English that maintains a distinction between "stations" and "channels". Bearcat 02:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The LGBT one is in the wrong category then. I will move it to Category:Television networks. -- musicpvm 16:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, Category:Television channels, Category:Television stations, Category:Television networks mean three different things, per Bearcat. And Britain doesn't have enough different television outlets to distinguish the differences properly. Especially when ITV is considered, with its very mangled meaning of "independant" (which no one else would call independant stations, which North Americans consider "network affiliates"). ESPN is a channel, WGN is a (super)station, KNBC or WABC is a station, CBS is a network. 132.205.45.148 00:29, 8 July 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 regarding 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant and wrongly capitalized. Substituted by Category:Gabrovo Province Todor → Bozhinov 18:36, 5 July 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 regarding 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Prophecy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Golfcam 02:42, 6 July 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 regarding 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 relisted for more opinions. Conscious 07:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge [then] Rename to correct capitalization, article says official name is " Global Television Network" although it usually goes by just "Global" MakeRocketGoNow 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge then rename to Category:Global Television Network shows per nom. See below. David Kernow 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC), updated 09:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge to Category:Global network shows and skip the recapitalization; consistency with other "television stations by network" categories is better served by "Global network shows" than it is by "Global Television Network shows". The short form name is sufficient — we have Category:CBS network shows rather than Category:Columbia Broadcasting System shows, Category:UPN network shows rather than Category:United Paramount Network shows, and on and so forth. Bearcat 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge all to Category:Television series by Global Television Network. - LA @ 06:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge all to Category:Television series by Global Television Network per Lady Aleena. Withdrawing vote in favo/ur of resolution by more-informed folk. David Kernow 09:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC), updated 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't support that option; it implies Global as the producer of the series, and thus can't include a series aired on the network but produced by another company. Also, it takes Global out of the naming convention otherwise in place in its parent category, which is "(NETWORK NAME) network shows". Bearcat 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I did not realize that the category was for all programming on that network. - LA @ 12:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• COMMENT "Television series by Global..." means something different to me... it would be shows produced by Global, not aired by Global. 132.205.45.148 00:31, 8 July 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 regarding 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 per nom. Conscious 07:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge - unnecessary duplication of pre-existing category. MakeRocketGoNow 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. See below. David Kernow 19:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC), updated 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge both to Category:Television series by Lifetime Network - LA @ 06:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge both to Category:Television series by Lifetime Network per Lady Aleena. Withdrawing vote in favo/ur of resolution by more-informed folk. David Kernow 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC), updated 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• COMMENT "Television series by Lifetime..." means something different to me... it would be shows produced by Lifetime, not broadcast by Lifetime. 132.205.45.148 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I did not realize that the category was for all programming on that network. - LA @ 12:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Can't support the alternative proposal by Lady Aleena; implies Lifetime as the producer of the shows rather than a broadcaster of them, and ignores the existing naming convention used in the parent category. Bearcat 02:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom into Category:Lifetime network shows as that would be consistent with the other subcategories of Category:Television series by network. -- musicpvm 18:40, 8 July 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 regarding 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 category redirect -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Category:Chaoshan people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:45, 5 July 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 regarding 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 category redirect -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge and Redirect to Category:Canadian people -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Both of the articles that were filed here didn't belong in the first place; they both fit into more appropriate occupational subcategories of Category:Canadian people, and one of the two was already in its proper occupational subcat in addition to this as an unnecessary duplication. Do the redirect, yeah; don't bother with the merge as I've already refiled both articles properly. Bearcat 02:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy redirect. -- MCB 19:02, 10 July 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 regarding 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 all. the wub "?!" 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Here are some of the categories which we decided to table in this approved deletion for sake of not getting sidetracked by side cases. I listed all of these on the talk pages for the various artists and got feedback that suggested it would be okay to merge these as the others.

• Category:David Bowie singles to category:David Bowie songs
• Category:Green Day B-sides to category:Green Day songs
• Category:Green Day singles to category:Green Day songs
• Category:Nirvana singles to category:Nirvana songs
• Category:Oasis singles to category:Oasis songs
• Category:Prince B-sides to category:Prince songs
• Category:Prince singles to category:Prince songs
• Category:Radiohead singles to category:Radiohead songs

I’m holding off on the Beach Boys and Beatles categories for now. I expect Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles will have opinions, and I wanted to get all other such changes done before we tackle those categories.-- Mike Selinker 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge all per nom. -- musicpvm 18:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• With regards to The Beatles: Thanks for holding off, and if you do decide to do something please come talk with us or at least let us know about it at WT:BEATLES. In our case, we currently have many articles on songs - not just singles - and unless that changes we need all the categories imho. It might help if there were a wider debate about whether all Beatles songs should have articles, something I'd hoped our Project would/hope our Project will discuss, but for now I can tell you that if ever I nominate a Beatles related article for deletion it meets resistance, and I think we'll be needing our categories for a long time yet. No comment on those listed here; if they're potentially special cases I'd prefer to hear from involved editors first. -- kingboyk 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Sure. Only the Beach Boys and Beatles are this obsessively organized, so I'd like to make sure they get special treatment if they need it. But not in such a way that encourages the recreation of the rest of the categories.-- Mike Selinker 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge all per previous discussions. × Meegs 20:34, 6 July 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 regarding 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 all to "of". Conscious 07:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate of Category:Waterfalls of the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- musicpvm 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Waterfalls in Michigan

and

Category:Waterfalls in Oregon

Merge into Category:Waterfalls of Michigan [and Category:Waterfalls of Oregon, respectively] -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment; Note it's considered very bad form to revert a pending cfd. Also, a discussion on a the talk page doesn't policy make. Lastly, I don't care so much about of vs. in, I'm just cleaning up the uncategorized categories list. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep [both] and delete Category:Waterfalls of Michigan [and Category:Waterfalls of Oregon] as per Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories). Cacophony 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There's an ongoing discussion in the talk page, but I don't see a concensus. Current convention is to use IN for manmade things, and OF for landforms and other natural things. ProveIt ^(talk) 00:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That Talk proposal was rejected long ago, and merely brought up again today by Cacophony ( talk · contribs). The current convention is POLICY and violating policy is not the way to proceed. Nor is deleting CfD process tags! I've brought these together as an umbrella nomination, and I'll post the usual {test2} upon Cacophony. -- William Allen Simpson 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge [both] per nom. -- musicpvm 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• I much prefer "of", but whatever is decided can we make it stick please? Cacophony just recently went through all of the Michigan waterfalls to move them to the "in". While I prefer "of", I don't care all that much whether it is "of" or "in", but I do very much object to changing it to one one week and back to another the next. older ≠ wiser 02:32, 8 July 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 regarding 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 already renamed by W.A.Simpson. Conscious 07:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

To match other members of Category:European royalty. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• support -- William Allen Simpson 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This proposition, drawing upon "consistency", is really stupid in this case. Most of royals of Finland have not been ethnically Finnish, nor lived in Finland except brief periods such as visits. This category, while needed as they were royalty OF Finland, must not give a picture that they were generally Finnish people, as they were literally Royals OF Finland. Hope all mis-informed voters reconsider their opinions. Finlandais 19:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If this is so, how come you have created pages for such royals with " Category:Finnish Diaspora Royalty"? Charles 20:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support rename, delete if nearly empty Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. Charles 20:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Category:Finnish royalty was also created as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 23 -- almost all the entries were added after brought here for deletion, contrary to our deletion process (and I've reverted) -- and the main article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current family of Hesse-Kassel, so I expect this category to be empty soon -- William Allen Simpson 15:36, 10 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Accidentally created with - when it should have used a space. Already created space version.
• Just add {{db-author}} to the page and it will be deleted. I've done that for you here. BoojiBoy 20:35, 5 July 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 regarding 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 both -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hopelessly POV, unclear inclusion criteria. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete both - "great" and "classic" are not NPOV. A Category:Lost albums could have some use (similiar to Category:Lost works), but none of the albums in these two categories seem to be "lost." MakeRocketGoNow 18:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above. David Kernow 03:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both as per nom. -- MCB 05:04, 6 July 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 regarding 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• redundant, empty into Category:French rappers and Category:French hip hop groups and delete (or redirect).-- Rockero 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• It's not redundant as i have just created and begun working with it, if anything it (the genre, entries and categories) have been neglected for far too long, prior to this groups, artists and associations were scattered all over the place. I am fixing this - this was a logical starting point.-- Baston1975 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• If it's not redundant why is it a subcategory of Category:French music only? Rap and hip-hop have well developed categories so it ought to be fitting into that structure somehow. What's wrong with Category:Hip hop by nationality and Category:French hip hop? -- kingboyk 18:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Being new to Wikipedia i didn't even know it was a subcategory. There is nothing wrong with Category:Hip hop by nationality, nor Category:French hip hop in fact... but everything was scattered all over place. If it can't be added it should slide simply into Category:French hip hop. That would suit me more than simply the status quo.-- Baston1975 20:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- musicpvm 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• In what way was "everything scattered all over the place"? Rappers go in Category:French rappers, groups go in Category:French hip hop groups, and those are both already subcategories of Category:French hip hop. That's really quite straightforward; what Baston1975 did here makes the categorization more scattered than what they claim they were trying to fix, because it pulls everything out of the established and organized categorization scheme for musicians. Delete this and stick to established categorization schemes. Personal preferences are not a valid consideration. If you don't like it, go to the music project and propose an alternate scheme to be applied across all national genre categories equally. Bearcat 02:21, 7 July 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 regarding 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 Out of process deletion by Kingboyk ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) -- William Allen Simpson 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Following up -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

All done, and a truckload of other WikiProjects besides :) -- kingboyk 16:46, 5 July 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 regarding 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 Withdrawn -- William Allen Simpson 02:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• • I'm acting on this boldly and closing the debate but I don't know what template to use to close the debate. This category isn't related to enyclopedic content but Wikipedia Project organisation and it's clearly badly named and organised, so I consider sorting it out to be a matter of good housekeeping. -- kingboyk 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Main project category -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

It should be Category:WikiProject Dad's Army articles, a subcategory of Category:WikiProject Dad's Army. Support provided the structure I have just explained is used. (See my work at Beatles, KLF, Film, Horror WikiProjects for optimal WProject categorisation. Category:Dad's Army articles by quality would be a subcategory of Category:WikiProject Dad's Army articles if you decide to do bot-assisted article classification). Provided the folks at the TV WikiProject don't mind I think we could sort this category tree out without reference to WP:CFD. -- kingboyk 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Withdrawn I agree and withdraw my momination. ProveIt ^(talk) 15:57, 5 July 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 regarding 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 Withdrawn -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

My concern here is that the category is currently defined in terms of ethnicity. There was another list called "German language philosophers," but without the hyphen, this list properly signifies ethnically German philosophers of language. But "German-language philosophers" should be the least ambiguous: it refers to philosophers who wrote in German. Of course, one solution has been attempted: to have the ethnic category with an opening statement that the list is defined in terms of language, rather than ethnicity. I'd like to call for reasoned discussion on the merits of one or the other solution. Universitytruth 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose to recategorizing. It's category for people from Germany, like Category:Swiss philosophers or Category:Austrian philosophers, coz it is in Category:Philosophers by nationality. But if you want to create new cat. for people, who wrote in German lang., then it should be in something like Category:Philosophers by language. Petr K 14:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  PS: I've just remade it as I thought. Petr K 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

  • P.P.S. I've taken your advice and created Category:Philosophers by language. I've also revised the intro. sentence, since Kant is not from an area now known as Germany. (Kaliningrad is in Russia.) In fact, Koenigsberg never was part of Germany, it was part of the Holy Roman Empire. (You see why I preferred the linguistic way of sorting?) Cheers, Universitytruth 21:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose; as a member of Category:Philosophers by nationality, German refers to nationality, not ethnicity. ProveIt ^(talk) 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The language claim was added by Igni on July 3, 2006. That change was incorrect and should be reverted. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose We categorise by nationality. Creating the odd exception will only create confusion and inconsistency. Chicheley 02:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Question, since you speak in the plural voice: is there an official wikipedia guideline about categorizing people by citizenship in a nation-state vz. by language? The reason I've had concerns about this article is precisely because it creates confusion and inconsistency. "Germany" has existed since 1991 at the latest, and 1871 at the earliest (with different borders). Kant, widely regarded as a German philosopher, even one of the German philosophers, was not born in "Germany" -- so how should he be categorized? I think this will remain an issue for coherent editing of this category. Meanwhile, I'm going to leave this page to others; I'll be maintaining Category:Philosophers by language, including a List of German-language philosophers instead. Cheers, Universitytruth 06:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Retract nom and call for close. Wikipedia should be easily navigable, and if this is the way things are done, then this is the way things are done. The complexity of complex cases (there are many in 'German' philosophy) can be best dealt with on the individual pages, rather than through creating a new category. Universitytruth 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• "Comment" there is no reason why categories by nationality and language can't coexist. It may be more useful to users to find people in occupations that deal with language (writers, actors, singers, etc...) by language instead of by nationality. Joseph Conrad was Polish, but known for being an English-language author. Same thing with Roman Polanski and film. Categorization by nationality shouldn't be held up as some important Wikipedia policy. It was just one the first categorization scheme that was widely implemented. A wiki is powerful because it allows multiple classifications. We don't have to decide "either/or" when "both" is possible, and desirable. -- Samuel Wantman 01:31, 9 July 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 regarding 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 re-sort and delete. Conscious 07:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC) reply

This relatively new category (created without consulting WikiProject The Beatles) adds an unnecessary extra navigational layer: somebody in Category:John Lennon will have to click through two categories to find, say, Two Virgins. Most (although not all) Lennon & Ono albums contained a mixture of Lennon & Ono songs and we at the Beatles WikiProject feel that the existing Lennon albums and Ono albums categories are quite adequate. (Nomination previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Category:John_.26_Yoko_albums). kingboyk 12:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• categoryredirect to the correct one 132.205.64.91 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move per nom. I don't think a category redirect is necessary as there are only six albums and the cat will never be expanded. -- musicpvm 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this category, move the categories in it back to where they were, and put all albums in it back in the John and Yoko categories. Creating this category was a bad idea and should be undone. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:32, 6 July 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 regarding 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category of Category:Actresses who portrayed Lana Lang. Empty category, but hasn't existed for 4 days, so can't speedy Lbbzman 11:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'd be tempted to speedy it anyway under general housekeeping, as clearly actresses is correct and in use. That said, I wonder about the wisdom of Category:Actresses who portrayed Lana Lang. Is Lana Lang such a major character? Does this help reader navigation? Does this category set a helpful precedent? I'd say "probably no" to all of those questions and would be inclined to support deletion of that category too. -- kingboyk 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge. If it saves category:Superman actors from having any actresses in it, I'm in favor of it. Those categories are a mess, and this at least helps clean them up if nothing else.-- Mike Selinker 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete we cannot categorize each role; some actors would be in literally hundreds of categories, it's not meaningful. A list could be maintained at Lana Lang similar to what's done at Miss Marple. Carlossuarez46 22:31, 7 July 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 regarding 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Having created new category, find that someone has created Category:University of Hull alumni which does not come up on search and is not listed on article page of University of Hull. Request quick deletion, Thank You! Rgds, - Trident13 09:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy merge Chicheley 10:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Ack. I spent way too long being confused before noticing the caps difference. Merge to lowercase: Category:University of Hull alumni. Good of you to check your work, though, kudos for that. Luna Santin 11:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete (empty). David Kernow 15:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment to Trident13. Next time, you can use the {{ db-author}} tag and save a few steps. -- Usgnus 23:02, 6 July 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

There are two categories here for the exact same thing. Obviously, one should be merged into the other. I think that the former should be merged into the latter, because it is smaller and the form "Wikipedians who like..." seems to be more standard. — Mi r a 07:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom into category that is consistent with others. -- Musicpvm 07:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Calsicol 10:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Thanks for taking action Mira. ···Q Huntster ^{(T) • @ • (C)} 17:10, 5 July 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 regarding 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, recently decided on July 1 -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Currently Category:Automobile manufacturers is a category redirect to Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers. All of the various types of motor vehicles have a subcategory in Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers with the notable exception of automobile manufacturers. This situation was the result of a previous CfD discussion. So this is really a discussion to restore this category to use and allow for grouping of the car companies like all of the other types. This would be logical given the content of the motor vehicle article. Cars are not the only type of motor vehicles. Vegaswikian 04:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Automobile is an Americanism and personally I don't know quite what it encompasses in American usage. However the redirect could be amended to go to category:Motor vehicle manufacturers by nationality. Merchbow 05:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Already decided. Chicheley 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment (Agree in general). To keep the top level category from being cluttered, car manufacturers probably ought to have a subcategory. I don't much care if it's Category:Automobile manufacturers or Category:Car manufacturers; whichever it is it should be a subcategory of Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers, alongside such cats as Category:Truck manufacturers. While we're at it, Category:Luxury motor vehicle manufacturers seems a bit spurious (a) who decides what is luxury, b) what is a vehicle? If "car" is meant, say so); and Category:Kit car manufacturers might possibly be better as a subcategory of Category:Automobile manufacturers or Category:Car manufacturers. -- kingboyk 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose It wouldn't work as a sub-cat because it doesn't define just cars, but any passenger vehicles (cars, SUVs, busses, etc). Maybe Category:Passenger vehicle manufacturers would be okay, but I think it might be too broad of a sub-cat. Definite Americanism. ···Q Huntster ^{(T) • @ • (C)} 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How about Category:Car manufacturers? Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers looks badly managed to me at the moment, as per above. -- kingboyk 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Category:Passenger vehicle manufacturers would be too vague in that it could include buses. While it has problems, Category:Car manufacturers would be better then doing nothing. It could be the target of the redirect from Category:Automobile manufacturers. Vegaswikian 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Huntster, too broad. I don't see anything wrong with Category:Car manufacturers, though. Recury 02:41, 8 July 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 regarding 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty, was not used in a pre-Kentucky Derby way either. 2005 02:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Musicpvm 07:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 02:43, 6 July 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.