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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Premature, empty category. Nominated in conjunction with the nomination for the 2012 films category, below. 23skidoo 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 00:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete. Too early to use for now.-- Jusjih 08:48, 12 May 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-y didn't love me :(. Syrthiss 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Overly broad, bordering on non-encyclopedic. — Viriditas | Talk 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, POV, OR, vague, tripping over the border of non-encyclopedic to fall into being completely devoid of any informational content. Postdlf 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom Palendrom 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. CalJW 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, POV and poorly named. -- Pmsyyz 19:27, 12 May 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. Syrthiss 22:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Another attempt by User:KRBN to extend the references to Cypriots, this time by creating an artificial category. The term "British Cypriot" isn't in common use, and is repudiated by some of the people whose names have been added to it. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. CalJW 03:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, may be isn't in much common use, than english cypriots, but British Cypriot is more correct. The term English is an ethnicity which does not have to do with emigrants to England rather than British which describe a citizenship and description for a place. Also some of them are Welsh Cypriots. Please don't put it on deletion. There are similar categories such as Swedish British and British Chinese. User:KRBN ( User talk:KRBN) 10:41 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No-one has proposed renaming to "English Cypriots". The proposal is to delete. And Category:Swedish British people was deleted on 8th May following a consensus on this page as were numerous other similar cats. Valiantis 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: It doesn't really matter if someone repudiates something about them that is on Wikipedia...it does not mean that it is not true or shouldn't be there. Ch u ck ^(척뉴넘) 08:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Actually with these "ethnicity" cats, that's a pretty good reason for not including people in a cat. What is the objective truth of being a "British Cypriot"; there isn't one. All these ethnic cats are subjective. It may be an objective truth that a person had a parent who had Cypriot citizenship, or that a person had Cypriot citizenship and now has British citizenship instead or as well, but whether they are a "British Cypriot" is wholly dependent on whether they feel that is a label that describes them. And that is why "ethnicity" cats are problematic at best. Valiantis 02:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete for reason given previously on these British "ethnicity" cats. Valiantis 14:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:British people of Cypriot descent. British users who vote here are consistent in their saying how many "British Fooian" and all "Fooian(-) British people" ethnic-descriptive terms are both semantically ambiguous not in common use in the U.K. (with the later reason later a main cause for the former). fine. for users outside the U.K. (a few inside even) who want to see these cat pages here, let s use a longer, semantically clear naming - "British people of Fooian descent". (btw, i d like to see this naming used with north americans too) Mayumashu 14:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• As I've commented before, what constitutes descent? How many generations back is it appropriate to go? Whatever answer you give will be an arbitrary figure; indeed if you answer, for example, that to be classed as being of Fooian descent means that you must have a grandparent who was Fooian, then I would suggest that is tantamount to original research! If one subscribes to the Out of Africa theory then presumably every person could be tagged as of African descent... where does it end? Valiantis 02:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not in common use. Bhoeble 06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename or Don't delete Whatever, it is a truth title that those people have Cypriot descent and those are facts that they are. As I have observed (Valiantis) as an idiot, u have deleted a lot of such categories just because ur stupidity. And that was just because was a hysterical problem of you. Even if you have problem with citizenship we can change the category into British people of Cypriot descent. But I can't find a reason for deleting it, if there are so many hundred categories such the British Cypriots. Go to see Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. Most of those people in those categories don't have citizenship but just an origin even from a grand father. One characteristic of those categories see what it writes on Category:American people by ethnic or national origin: This category includes articles on American people (individuals) who, themselves or their ancestors, immigrated from other countries to the U.S. It also includes articles on aboriginal Americans.This is written even for Category:English Americans;English-born citizens of the U.S., or U.S. born individuals with significant English ancestry. (see also English people). There are many more categories like the British Cypriots - actually the most categories for national descent are like that. Also in Cyprus is very common the term English Cypriots! If we must delete British Cypriots then it is fair to delete ALL THE CATEGORIES OF NATIONAL ORIGIN!!!!

User:KRBN ( User talk:KRBN) 02:17 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please learn to spell "you" and "your". This is not an text messaging service. I will ignore your ad hominem rant other than to point out that I haven't deleted any categories. I have nominated a number of these subjective categories for deletion and they have subsequently been deleted by admins following a strong consensus to delete. Valiantis 14:20, 15 May 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. Syrthiss 22:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

As this category covers the whole subject of Genocide rather than being restricted to specific instances of Genocide, it would be more appropriate to call it Genocide, in line with the article. Hawkestone 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename for reason above. Hawkestone 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Palendrom 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete G6. - EurekaLott 03:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Double "Category:" prefix. Is this speedyable as a typo? Do speedy merges even exist? Merge SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• I reckon listing this as a speedy renaming (plus a mention of merging) would work – Speedy merge. David Kernow 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete since it is empty. Vegaswikian 00:03, 12 May 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 merged already apparently. Syrthiss 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

or it seems it's already done?

Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 19:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge unless any linguists indicate otherwise. David Kernow 12:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC), updated 20:38, 11 May 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. Syrthiss 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Standard word order for categories of cities. Rename CalJW 18:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom — M e ts501 ^talk 22:47, 11 May 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused, and much too early for it. Conscious 18:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete Why keep a category that will be empty for a while? S t e v e o 2 19:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both this and the 2011 films category, too. 23skidoo 20:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per 23skidoo. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete — M e ts501 ^talk 22:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete Palendrom 23:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete-- Jusjih 08:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete: Just to make consensus clear ;) Ch u ck ^(척뉴넘) 08:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 17:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:1987 Rugby World Cup stadiums
• Category:1991 Rugby World Cup stadiums
• Category:1995 Rugby World Cup stadiums
• Category:1999 Rugby World Cup stadiums
• Category:2003 Rugby World Cup stadiums
• Category:2007 Rugby World Cup stadiums

Delete: These categories were blanked by creator and are empty. Conscious 18:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete:Were used, but decided to create one category as opposed to individual tournaments, as some stadiums have appeared at more than one World Cup. Thanks. Cvene64 00:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Excessive categorisation. CalJW 03:06, 12 May 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 -- William Allen Simpson 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, the article Anatomical pathology should be renamed Anatomic pathology. This is the correct name both gramatically and according to the American Board of Pathology and College of American Pathologists. Thanks. -- Josh Powell 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rather than Anatomic pathology being the "correct" name, I think this might be another U.S./UK/other English difference; Google would probably yield institutions using the current name as well as the proposal... David Kernow 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep current version. (A very quick Google suggests that the shorter form is more popular on commercial Websites. Both seem to be in common use, though, and I can't see any good ground for making the change.) -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Mel Etitis Bhoeble 06:41, 13 May 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 with deletion derived from pre existing deletion characters. Syrthiss 22:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Remove double redundancy within name, shorten it considerably, fit format of other Fictional character categories CovenantD 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete; I don't see the purpose of making this a category. It seems to be a substitute for making an article (if such an article could be made) about the old comic book practice of making a female counterpart for popular male characters (e.g., Superman -> Supergirl, Batman -> Batgirl). I don't think the suggested rename captures that effectively, and I think that the concept requires an explanation, making it ill-suited for a category. Postdlf 16:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll go along with that; it was my first reaction anyway. CovenantD 16:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I think also that this grouping is less uniform than it seems. Many characters, such as Batgirl, were created as supporting characters of the original male hero, who were supposed to have been intentionally inspired by that hero within the fictional world. Others, such as Spider-Woman, were in truth derivative, but were instead treated as stand-alone characters with no given connection to the original male hero (and Spider-Woman was given a costume and powers that differ much more from Spider-Man than, say, Supergirl did from Superman). So all we're left categorizing is the real world creator's presumed source of inspiration/motivation. Once again, something better to explain rather than categorize. Postdlf 17:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per Postdlf. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename could be a useful sub-category to fictional heroines. Palendrom 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Postdlf. Joeyconnick 21:10, 12 May 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 delyikes!. Syrthiss 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Not very useful category, hopeless to keep accurate since characters have been known to change their hair color. I just fail to see its value or usefulness. And I checked - there seems to be no blonde equivalent. 23skidoo 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable, as would be any categori{s|z}ation by hair color, eye color, skin color (race/ethnicity is different), weight, or height. -- Vossanova 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete; possibly the most useless category I have ever seen. Possibly even more absurd is that it's being applied to characters known only through their portrayal by real-life actors, so as to transform it into Category:Fictional characters portrayed by actors with black hair. Yet even more absurd is that it has been applied to fictional characters who only exist in black and white print media (see Alucard (Hellsing)). And most absurd of all are the inclusion of entries such as Christine Chapel (check out the picture). Postdlf 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Chapel is an excellent example of what I meant when I referenced a character changing hair color. 23skidoo 23:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This category is unlimited and unmaintainable. Afonso Silva 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per everything above — M e ts501 ^talk 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Pointless, as above. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Impossible to categorize correctly. Does Conan the Barbarian have black hair? In Robert E. Howard books he does, but not in the Arnold movies. Does John Constantine? In the comics he doesn't, but Keanu Reeves plays him with black hair. Not a good idea.-- Mike Selinker 23:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete totally pointless category. Have seen blonde version previously, may have been deleted. Palendrom 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 06:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't see how it could be useful. -- Pmsyyz 09:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all of the above.

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. Syrthiss 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. I don't see how this userbox category could be at all useful. -- Vossanova 15:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. David Kernow 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Probably supposed to be funny... -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 11 May 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Azamat Abdoullaev

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Doom127

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Leotardo

Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Prin

These four sockpuppet categories are unused. Conscious 12:23, 11 May 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. Syrthiss 22:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Is a poorly-worded duplicate of Category:Fictional arthropods. All the articles should be moved to Category:Fictional arthropods (or a sub-category, if possible). Furthermore, "bug" is a highly ambiguous term, whereas "arthropod" is not. Stemonitis 12:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Wrong, Fictional arthropods is not the same category, please revise your statement. I do agree on arthropod being possibly a better term, in which case we should just move it to Category:Fictional arthropod-based characters, or Fictional arthropod-themed characters. Which is preferable? Tyciol 17:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, but do not merge. The two categories are not synonymous because the "bug-based" characters are bug-themed (as in Spider-Man), not necessarily themselves bugs (as in Jeff Goldblum). What this is then is a categorization of fictional characters (and chiefly comic book superheroes) by...totem? Symbol? Which is a category system I don't see a particular use for. Postdlf 14:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, this is by totem, symbol, theme, whatever. Characters who draw their motif, costume, or name, from an arthropod. It is useful for categorizing themes, mostly in heroes yes, but it applies to several other fictional characters. Tyciol 17:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think categorizing by motif is useful or instructive because I think the relationship is too superficial. The Charlton Comics version of Blue Beetle, for example, bears far more similarity to the Golden Age Hawkman (both derived their powers from Ancient Egyptian animal-totem artifacts) than to Spider-Man, despite the fact that both beetles and spiders are arthropods. I also think it's telling that when the Blue Beetle was parodied in Watchmen, that character's motif was made an owl, not another arthropod. I just don't think the groupings you're trying to construct are really much more meaningful than if you were to categorize characters by costume elements (cape or no cape?), and less so than by powers (which we'll address some other time). Postdlf 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete with merge to Category:Fictional arthropods if wanted. David Kernow 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Abstain, per the below. David Kernow 18:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, if appropriate for a particular article, just as long as it's not a wholesale merge. Postdlf 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As above, fictional arthropods is not the same category. It's the difference between Charlotte from Charlotte's Web, who is a literal Spider, and Spider-Man or the Black Widow (comics). Tyciol 17:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Postdlf. Palendrom 23:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep: This is obviously a privately organized deletion despite the great number of people who are contributing to the category who are ignorant of it's planned destruction. Fictional arthropods is not the same category, it is for actual arthropods. None of the characters in this category are insects, as has been explained. Bug is not an ambiguous term, it is used to refer to arthropods, see bug. If you do not like the name, then substituting 'themed' for 'based' and/or 'arthropod' for 'bug' is acceptable, but do not delete it, too much work has gone into it. A name change is the most that should be done. Tyciol 17:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

On a separate note so such confusion does not occur in the future, where would I discuss the appropriate naming of a similar category? Right now I am thinking Fictional bird-based characters, but there may be a better name. Tyciol 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Why don't you wait until after this is resolved before you create more categories that would be deleted for the same reasons? The naming isn't the only problem here, it's the organizing concept of fictional characters by motif. A better suggestion would be to create an annotated list article; working on substantive content may help you find better precision and meaning in the concept as well as the descriptive terms. Better yet, start an article on the use of motifs as an identifying trait of fictional characters, so that we can figure out if it even matters that one is chosen over another. Postdlf 19:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Too late - it looks like he's gone and created another half-dozen today already. CovenantD 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per Postdlf. Joeyconnick 21:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep perhaps we could just rename the category (fictional arthopodic charcters, perhaps), there are categories for fictional psychics, elementals, characters patterned after male heroes, etc. So why can we not have a category for characters patterned after arthropods? Now the insect transformers probably should be sent to fictional arthropods since they do become insects, spiders, and crabs. But there are so many characters patterned after flies, spiders, wasps, that perhaps their own category is warranted? Coronis 00:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There are also a lot of fictional characters who wear red capes, or whose superhero name starts with "Captain," or who have black hair. The quantity of members that share a trait is not a good reason for creating a category. And by "patterned after," do you mean have the powers of an arthropod, or simply any character whose identity references an arthropod, whether in appearance or name? Postdlf 00:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Many of the characters in this list have arthropodic abilities, either by superhuman powers or eqiupment built in their suits. For example, Spider-Man, Wasp, Yellowjacket, and the Fly have the abilities of arachnids and insects, while Black Widow, Bumblebee, Blue Beetle, and the Buzz have weaponry built into their costumes that simulates the abilities of arthropods. Even the non-powered entries in this category have insect-themed weapons or attacks (such as Tarantula's venomous spikes or Mantis's "Mantis Style" martial arts) It's not just their names. And I came just came across a category called "Fictional Blondes", so the hair color argument is moot. A simple rename with some clearer guidelines would be best rather than all-out deletion. Either that or we need to start deleting A LOT of the fictional character categories, just to be fair to the other users. Coronis 03:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Fictional blondes (and redheads, and black hair) is up for deletion also, nullifying that defense. Many new categories have been created in the last week, the effort of a very few people going through the comic book articles without much apparent clue to the guidelines for categories. Proliferation is a not a reason to keep categories. CovenantD 03:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Well, now I'm confused, we have Category:Batman-inspired heroes just for characters who resemble Batman, (so you can categorize by motif), and Category:Fictional elementals for anyone in fiction who can manipulate some aspect of nature (so you can categorize by abilities) but a category for people in fiction with motifs and abilities based on arthropods isn't allowed. I just can't wrap my head around this. Any help would be apprciated. Coronis 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The "Batman-inspired" category should be deleted as well for vagueness (it's hard to say how many characters have been "inspired" by a character who happened to be one of the earliest comic book superheroes) and likely OR, and for being better suited to an explanation rather than a categorical definition. "Fictional elementals" is intended to categorize the nature of the character (note that it's a subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by nature), because an elemental is a particular class of supernatural beings in mythology and modern fantasy fiction. The inclusion of individuals who simply have the power to control the elements in some fashion is therefore a misuse of the category and should be corrected. Postdlf 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Arthropod-themed fictional characters. "Bug-based" is not specific or descriptive enough. - Sean Curtin 04:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Unused, populating template deleted. Conscious 08:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete. David Kernow 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This was just a bit of POV pushing by one individual -- Doc ^ask? 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Delete this category (that I created), for there is an identical category over at Category:Wikipedian homebrewers. I failed to locate the latter category prior to creating this one... --( Mingus ah um 03:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)) reply

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete per nom — M e ts501 ^talk 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete per nom Palendrom 23:29, 11 May 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 per below. Syrthiss 22:15, 21 May 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. Syrthiss 22:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

To include in the categories' names the area in which these input/output devices are used. David Kernow 02:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC), amended 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename both as nom. David Kernow 02:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC), amended 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as is. Are there any other output devices? Dr Zak 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• I guess there many input and output devices in the world not associated with computing. Looking down at where my fingers are currently typing, I can see the face of a watch and a little twiddly knob on its side...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to avoid confusion with electrical output and such NHammen 23:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. While output alone has multiple meanings, one would have to struggle to interpret output devices as any other kind of output or any other kind of device. Do people really think of the hands on a watch as an output device? Is the nonexistant article hand (mechanism) really in desperate need of a thusly named category? — LX ( talk, contribs) 13:11, 16 May 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. Syrthiss 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete ill-advised category grouping people related to the Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sanford. Included are the attorneys who participated, the Chief Justice who wrote the decision, and Scott himself. Sounds like something the article on the case should put together...oh wait, it already does. And the articles for each individual also mention their involvement, of course, which isn't always what they're most known for. The category serves no purpose, is inappropriate as a classification, and only invites an endless proliferation of court case category clutter. Postdlf 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment If the category is useless and invites clutter, then delete. I created it because of the several otherwise unrelated people who were involved in the case, as to provide an at-a-glance grouping. Perhaps the article does in fact already accomplish that. Whatever, Wikipedia will survive without it. Paul 03:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Yes, go with list of people in the article. Regards, David Kernow 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete There is no need to create a category out of every article. Bhoeble 16:43, 11 May 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 both. Syrthiss 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Cleveland Barons (AHL) to Category:Cleveland Barons (2001-2006)

Category:Cleveland Barons (AHL) players to Category:Cleveland Barons (2001-2006) players

Rename: Second AHL franchise the with name to come and go. Rename to be consistent with articles. See Cleveland Barons disambig page for further info. ccwaters 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support.-- Mike Selinker 17:54, 20 May 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. Syrthiss 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Add missing apostrophe. Rename CalJW 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Speedy rename. David Kernow 02:55, 11 May 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. Syrthiss 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is for Ancient Romans. Rename. CalJW 01:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Palendrom 03:17, 11 May 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 reame. Syrthiss 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This category requires a name which more clearly distinguishes it from the modern Category:Streets of Rome. Rename CalJW 00:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:36, 11 May 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. Syrthiss 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Parantheses in category titles are not a good idea. Rename CalJW 00:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. — Wh o uk ( talk) 09:54, 11 May 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: I'll get working on an umbrella nomination then, and we'll decide on all of these together. -- Cyde Weys 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Nominated for deletion. More unencyclopedic, pointless user categories. We don't need Wikipedians categorizing themselves by various religious beliefs; that just leads to problems. -- Cyde Weys 00:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• How are these different from the rest of the categories in Category:Wikipedians by religion? - EurekaLott 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • They're not, I plan on getting around to all of them in time. -- Cyde Weys 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Then I have to vote keep. If you want them all deleted, then nominate them all. Targeting a handful of beliefs at a time is not appropriate. - EurekaLott 01:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep unless all the Wikipedian by religion categories are nominated en masse, in which case I would vote delete (but expect to be on the losing side and they would only get recreated anyway). I would like the user categorisation system to be abolished, but it isn't going to happen Cyde, so we both might as well live with it and let them be except when categories are extremely inflammatory or intended to be a means of making personal attacks. CalJW 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If you want them deleted, vote delete, don't vote "keep" because you think it isn't going to happen or because we're not doing them all at once. I've found that the CfD people are very sensible. -- Cyde Weys 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The category system should be consistent. Deleting a couple of categories which would only get recreated is random and a waste of everyone's time. CalJW 01:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Umm, if they were recreated, they'd just be speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content. -- Cyde Weys 01:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Of course these categories are unencyclopedic. But I think you'll do more harm than good to the encyclopedia by trying to crack down on users who want to express themselves. Sarge Baldy 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedians can express themselves all they want on their userspace. This is category space, and having groups of Wikipedians associating for POV reasons like this is very bad. It's much more harmful than getting rid of it is. -- Cyde Weys 01:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not at all convinced that people use these categories to organize POV campaigns. I'm against Wikipedia-based POV faction categorizations ("deletionist", "pro-userbox") but I don't think there's any harm in other types of categorization. Additionally, they can help identify people interested in a topic to create legitimate WikiProjects. Sarge Baldy 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not necessarily because I support the categories, but because of this nomination. Nominating only certain religious beliefs suggests that you don't think those beliefs are notable, or that you have something personal against those beliefs. This is a bad faith (so to speak!) nomination. -- Vossanova 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep; per Sarge Baldy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete express your POV on your userpage if you want - but categories by wikipedia POV serve no useful purpose and are potentially vote stackers. Much better to have categories by editing interest rather than POV. So, let's have 'Wikipedians interested in religion' or 'Wikipedians interested in theology/philospophy of religion etc. -- Doc ^ask? 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Highly suspicious selective nomination. Bhoeble 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Just a minute's worth of reading on my userpage would disabuse you of this notion. Before you start accusing other people of making questionable POV-based nominations, it helps to do some research. -- Cyde Weys 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Would probably vote delete on the entire category, but selective application of a proposed rule is worse than useless. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep pending an umbrella nomination of the lot of them, without predicting my thoughts there. If we're going to do it, we might as well do them all at once and set a proper precedent. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 21:45, 11 May 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 per below. Syrthiss 22:19, 21 May 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. Syrthiss 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename both to match parent Category:Roman sites in France and its siblings in line with usual practice for categories of buildings and structures. CalJW 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename both per nom. David Kernow 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename both per nom — M e ts501 ^talk 22:49, 11 May 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. Syrthiss 22:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

More of a substub article than a category and there is a much fuller article in the article namespace at Ostia. Delete CalJW 00:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete. All of the information seems to be in the proper article already, so no merging needed. SeventyThree^{( Talk)}

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. Syrthiss 22:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Inaccuracy. Papuan does not have the same meaning as Papua New Guinean. Papua is, politically, a pre-independence term referring to the territory of Papua - the southern half of the mainland. Pre-independence, the Territory of New Guinea encompassed the northern part of the mainland and the Bismarck Archipelago. Thus Papua is not a short form of Papua New Guinea. The main article refers to music within the whole of Papua New Guinea, not just Papua. Wantok 00:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, it should be changed to Category:New Guinea music for the whole island and not a political part of it. They are more culturally affiliated. Enlil Ninlil 17:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That solution would exclude the Bismarck Archipelago, and thus would be just as culturally arbitrary a distinction. Also, Category:Melanesian music already exists, and has nationally-based sub-categories already: Category:Solomon Islander music, Category:Vanuatuan music, and the anomolous Category:Papuan music. Hence I stand by my original suggestion of a renaming to Category:Papua New Guinean music. Wantok 04:21, 12 May 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.