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

The result of the debate was rename both. the wub "?!" 12:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The two subcategories need to be recapitalised and I suggest making the names clearer and bringing them into line with the geographical categories at the same time.

• Category:Alister MacKenzie Designs to Category:Golf clubs and courses designed by Alister MacKenzie
• Category:Donald Ross Designs to Category:Golf clubs and courses designed by Donald Ross
• Rename both as nom. Hoylake 23:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename both per Hoylake. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename both. It looks like the names were chosen to parallel a name like Category:Frank Lloyd Wright buildings. I would either just recapitalize them to Category:Donald Ross designs or use Category:Golf courses designed by Donald Ross (since you don't really architect a golf club). Carl Lindberg 05:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Alister MacKenzie designs etc. Whether readers reach this category via a golf course's article or via the parent category is will be obvious to them the the designs in question are of golf courses. Calsicol 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

*Rename to Category:Alister MacKenzie designs. Merchbow 09:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of Calsicol [1] Tim! 17:37, 10 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Listify like Category:Number one albums in the United States, or create Category:Albums by sales. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Before we end up with the like for every country down the population chart to the Vatican City. Landolitan 05:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no objection to listify. Not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Landolitan Olborne 09:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per same reason categories Category:Number-one singles in Canada, Category:Number-one singles in the United Kingdom, etc. exist. Velten 23:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Can anyone find the time to nominate the singles categories? Merchbow 09:34, 10 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Boris and Arkady Strugatsky to Category:Arkady and Boris Strugatsky

• Rename, The category's main article, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, was renamed from Boris and Arkady Strugatsky a few months ago, so it makes sense to rename the category as well. Alex Nisnevich 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename - Wikipedia should permit speedy renaming for categories when the parent article is renamed (especially when the parent article rename is uncontrovesial, as was apparently the case here). George J. Bendo 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed. I was going to push for a speedy rename, but not seeing this in the Speedy criteria, I felt it would be safer to follow normal procedure. Alex Nisnevich 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, for the above reasons. I think it's a pretty clear case. -- prezzey 23:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, for the above reasons. -- Koveras  ^☭ 15:37, 10 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 15:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Free Invision Power Board hosts into Category:Forum hosting

• Merge. This level of categorization is unneeded. Most forum hosts use a variety of forum software anyways. --- RockMFR 18:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- real _ decimic 17:50, 10 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Number 1 Single (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Not every single TV series ever needs its own category. Otto4711 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep, since almost every TV series I've seen on this board (including short-lived ones) have one anyway, plus you would have to delete every single one now that you made statement. Robert Moore 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment No, they wouldn't all have to be deleted based on my statement. Clearly there are shows that are significant and notable enough to merit a category or even dozens of categories. Category:Star Trek for instance. This show, however, is a very trivial one-off mini-series and it adds nothing to Wikipedia or the categorized articles to know they appeared on the show. Otto4711 20:55, 4 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. I'm sure there was another article in this when I did the previous rename, but I can't remember what it was or find it now. the wub "?!" 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contains one article -- M.U.G.E.N. itself. Andre ( talk) 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This category does not look like it will contain anything but the one article. Wikipedia does not need it. George J. Bendo 18:33, 4 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Only contains one article, which is a disambiguation page about a minor Sonic game. Not really used, and there are very few notable ROM hacks anyway. Andre ( talk) 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete because there are very few notable ROM hacks. --- RockMFR 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete category with one entry, and keeping it around only encourages more articles of this type which would inevitably go through messy deletions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 5 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Big Brother US contestants. The shows in each country are completely separate from each other. the wub "?!" 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Big Brother US Contestants into Category:Big Brother contestants

• Merge, Seems like needless over-categorization, but if it's kept it should be renamed (possibly speedy) to Category:Big Brother US contestants per capitalization conventions. Otto4711 17:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Big Brother US contestants - Each country appears to have its own show. While they share the same name and concepts, they do not use the same contestants. It may be useful to search based on the country for contestants. George J. Bendo 18:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, overcat. >Radiant< 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Big Brother US contestants

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Forts in Russia, convention of Category:Forts by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• rename and keep as redirect Landolitan 05:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• rename per nom Hmains 05:25, 9 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, I think this is the kind of information that works better as a list, and not a defining characteristic of a chuch. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not a defining characteristic. Category != online database. Pavel Vozenilek 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Pavel. >Radiant< 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify per above. 08:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 12:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, as recreated content. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 16:54, 4 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 12:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Compositions by Jules Massenet, convention of Category:Compositions by composer. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• rename per nom. Calsicol 14:21, 9 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:University School alumni, convention of Category:People by educational institution in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename - The precedent already set in Wikipedia supports the rename. George J. Bendo 15:02, 4 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Anti-French people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete "Anti-French" is a simplistic label which would be debatable and POV in every case, if the category wasn't empty. It is also hard to see how it could be a defining characteristic of anyone with an article. Merchbow 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Practically all "anti-anything" articles on WP should be deleted as "original" research. Pavel Vozenilek 15:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Mud-slinging category. Landolitan 05:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, attack, pov and opinionated. >Radiant< 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

*Delete Not a defining characteristic. Calsicol 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• • I think Calsicol is a sock-puppet of Merchbow btw: see here [2] where he/she changes a user signature from calsicol to merchbow after accidently replying to a comment on merchbow's talk page. Tim! 17:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete pointless, POV-laden, undefined category. 75.40.201.196 08:27, 10 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Local Filament galaxies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The term "Local Filament" is not used in astronomy as it is being used in Wikipedia (to describe the large scale distribution of galaxies in the local universe). The term is more likely to be used to describe a cloud of gas near the Milky Way. It is misleading and confusing, and it should be deleted. George J. Bendo 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Virgo Filament. 132.205.44.134 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

A Google search turns up five articles that use this term. It is not a notable term, and the category should still be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment as I understand it, the gas structure is a component of galaxy filaments, and are why supposedly, galaxies, clusters, and superclusters formed there, because the gas filament was there. When talking about the Virgo Filament, it seems to connect several clusters and the Virgo Supercluster together. 132.205.44.134 23:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Some people who previously worked on Wikipedia articles invented new terminology when working on astronomical articles. I have been cleaning up these articles for months. In terms of "Local Filament", it is used by professional astronomers in journal articles to describe gas within or near the Milky Way, not a structure of galaxies as the Wikipedia category implies. Please perform a search with the ADS Abstract Service term to understand what I am talking about. George J. Bendo 07:14, 9 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 20:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Crater cloud ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This designation was given to a "cloud" of galaxies in a 1982 scientific paper. As far as I am aware, the designation was not used in any other scientific publications, nor is it used by the amateur or professional astronomy community. It should be deleted. George J. Bendo 11:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete 132.205.44.134 22:51, 7 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:American skeptics
• Category:Finnish skeptics
• Category:Indian skeptics
• Category:British sceptics

• Delete - See: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 20#Skeptics and subcats. - jc37 09:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment What I see is that it got "no concensus." Am I missing something?-- T. Anthony 12:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all for vagueness. Skeptical about what exactly? Almost everyone is skeptical about something, I should think. Merchbow 14:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all, per User:Doczilla. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Query This vote may apply to another discussion as User:Doczilla has not commented on this one. Hoylake 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please, do read the earlier discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all Pavel Vozenilek 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If kept, please rename it, it looks confusing and it already contains at least one wrong article. Pavel Vozenilek 05:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep All. In responce to Merchbow, Skepticism is a valid philosophy. Should Category:British sceptics be speedied to Category:British skeptics? Alex Nisnevich 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Most certainly not, it should remain at the British spelling. Hoylake 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Oh sorry, I didn't realise that the British spelling of "skeptic" is "sceptic". Well, you learn something new every day on Wikipedia! ^_^ Alex Nisnevich 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment If these are kept they need to be at Category:Fooian s(c)keptic philosophers as this is an obscure academic usage of a very common word and will confuse most people who come across it. Hoylake 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Good point Hoylake, I agree. Alex Nisnevich 23:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Most of these are for scientific skepticism, which is not the same as philosophical skepticism. James Randi is not a philosopher. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all ProveIt's comment shows that these are a mess. Better to start again with clearer names, if there are valuable categories to be created here, which I doubt. Landolitan 05:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but Rename - If these were all moved to Category:Fooian scientific skeptics, would that be satisfcatory? George J. Bendo 08:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That might work, but how many cats would you need and how many entries would they have? I think this would produce too many very small categories. Vegaswikian 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, this cat name is confusing, and I believe it's overcat to cat philosophers by school of thought since it's hard to pin down most of them. >Radiant< 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - useful cat. Indian skeptics skepticize differently than Russian, though I'm kind of skeptical about it myself. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How is it useful? How do 'Indian skeptics skepticize differently than Russian's'? Vegaswikian 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all. These categories are not really a useful grouping of skeptics. I think that there may be some skeptic category that would be useful and could be created. But in the meantime these should go. Vegaswikian 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all It looks like these categories just cause confusion. Metthurst 05:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all, or failing that they must be renamed to clarify their intention. -- Mais oui! 10:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all for inconsistency and lack of definition. Olborne 09:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and start again with separate categories for philosophers and scientists if you wish. Calsicol 14:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Merchbow's sock puppet vote stricken [3] Tim! 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - do not delete, rename, or merge. We've been through this before. Like I said in one previous version of this discussion: James Randi is not formally a philosopher. And if you don't know who he is, you don't know enough about our American skeptics to be saying we should go monkeying with their cateogry. Renaming can make sense because the word "skeptic" is broad, but this proposal (deletion in this case) is not an acceptable alternative. 75.40.201.196 08:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)(I do realize some of that does not carry over from the previous discussion to this one, but as I've been quoted above, I felt I should copy the whole thing. 75.40.201.196 08:33, 10 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Ursa Major North group to Category:M109 Group

• Rename - The group is more frequently referred to my the name of its brightest member, M109 (NGC 3992), than by the name "Ursa Major North Group". The parent article was already moved to M109 Group without any complaints. The category should be moved accordingly. George J. Bendo 08:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Why does the article not mention the name "Ursa Major North Group"? Are we losing information here due to lack of diligence when moving things? 132.205.44.134 23:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It is not clear that anyone in professional astronomy has referred to this object as the "Ursa Major North Group" in the past 20 years. Searches on the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database and SIMBAD Astronomical Database for an "Ursa Major North Group" will turn up no results, but searches for a "NGC 3992 Group" give some information on this object. (NGC 3992 is the same galaxy as M109; the two names can be used interchangably in this case.) Anyhow, further discussion belongs on the M109 Group talk page. George J. Bendo 07:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll add it to the article. Even if it hasn't been used in the last 20 years, we do have UMa South, which does mention it, and there is no reason to distinguish it as South without something else around (central, East, or whatnot). Besides, the article should mention it's other names. 132.205.44.128 03:24, 13 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:LSB galaxies to Category:Low surface brightness galaxies

• Rename - The abbreviation "LSB" should be spelled out so that readers immediately know that this refers to low surface brightness galaxies. GeorgeJBendo 08:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Multiply-imaged quasars into Category:Gravitationally lensed quasars
Category:Double-imaged quasars into Category:Gravitationally lensed quasars
Category:Quadruple-imaged quasars into Category:Gravitationally lensed quasars

• Merge - First, astronomers typically use "gravitationally lensed" to describe objects such as the Einstein Cross. Second, dividing the objects up according to how many images are produced by the gravitational lens seems like overcategorization. Moreover, Wikipedia contains only a few articles on these objects, so dividing the categories according to the number of images created by the gravitational lens is not warranted. George J. Bendo 07:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment lensing does not necessarily lead to multiple images. And such a category would also contain microlensing events. 132.205.44.134 23:11, 7 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:The Lord of the Rings film music -- Kbdank71 15:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:The Lord of the Rings music ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:The Lord of the Rings music to Category:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy music

Rename - Used for The Lord of the Rings film trilogy only. Ignores the existence of music for other adaptations, such as the score for the 1978 cartoon version. Rather presumptuous to pre-empt the term. It should be renamed to a more specific Category:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy music. Uthanc 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Just add the other music to the category. Is there a good reason you can't? - Amarkov ^babble 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Having separate music categories for each version of Lord of the Rings would be over the top. (Maybe a single category for Lord of the Rings music is too?) Landolitan 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• There's already Category: Middle-earth music containing all other Tolkien-related music, and Category:The Lord of the Rings music is a subcategory of it. How about just deleting Category:The Lord of the Rings music and moving its contents there? Uthanc 10:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The problem is that Category:The Lord of the Rings music is also a subcategory of Category:Film soundtracks and Category:Film scores. I agree, Amarkov, Category:The Lord of the Rings music should contain film soundtracks from the other films. But then it should be renamed Category:The Lord of the Rings film music for clarity (otherwise The Road Goes Ever On album qualifies), adaptation-neutrality and to keep it within its parent categories.

New proposal:

Category:The Lord of the Rings music to Category:The Lord of the Rings film music (or some other wording)

Rename - Used for The Lord of the Rings film trilogy only, but should include music from other film adaptations. Rename also to avoid overlapping with non-film LOTR music. Uthanc 14:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. - Amarkov ^babble 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. >Radiant< 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Carcharoth 14:05, 7 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Surviving silent film actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Nominated per policy. -- T. Anthony 07:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete due to the unique attributes of Category:Living people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I did vote delete, but I guess I'd like to reiterate that I think it's sad these categories have to go because of this inane Category:Living people. I resigned myself to it, and voted delete as a recognition of the inevitable, but I don't like it.-- T. Anthony 00:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've decided to withdraw my delete vote, but the nomination stands. Also see article Surviving silent film actors either way this turns out.-- T. Anthony 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep Just because I used this good category to defend the existence of Survivors of the 19th Century. Pathetic. TAnthony, why nominate if you don't want to? Dovea 12:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Partly as a stunt, but unfortunately I didn't called on WP:POINT. Partly because I saw where the wind was blowing and realized it was only a matter of time before this was put on delete anyway. There's also a nice symmetry in being the guy who created it and destroyed it. It might make letting it go easier. Still you give me some hope, so I might return to the original idea I had when creating this.-- T. Anthony 12:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep As already said it is indeed only a matter of time before this category is going to disappear anyway. And as long as there are surviving silent film actors and actresses, it is a very interesting category - much better than a useless category such as Category:Living people. Martin8721 15:38, 5 November 2006 (CET)
• Delete It could be around for years and does nothing but satisfy idle curiosity. Investigating longevity is not a valid way of researching early cinema. Metthurst 05:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Well actually knowing who is still alive from a given era is useful for academic/serious research. If you're lucky you can contact said person through intermediaries and use an interview of them as a primary source. The WPA slave narratives largely used something like that by seeking out the surviving former slaves. That said the article I created, Surviving silent film actors, might suffice for that.-- T. Anthony 06:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete and use T.Anthony's article. Olborne 09:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above comments. Vegaswikian 06:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The article is preferable. Calsicol 14:24, 9 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:4AD, to match 4AD, see August 17. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:49, 4 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Surviving veterans of the First World War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Per policy.-- T. Anthony 07:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Eventually, this will be depopulated over time as the people in this category pass away. (A straightforward "Veterans of the First World War" category could be much more interesting.) George J. Bendo 08:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment category:World War I people contains thousands of articles. Merchbow 14:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - I found that category today. It's much more interesting than the category of the surviving veterans of WWI. George J. Bendo 15:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep Just because I used this good category to defend the existence of Survivors of the 19th Century. Pathetic. TAnthony, why nominate if you don't want to? This is little short of insulting to First World War veterans. So what if it will gradually depopulate over time anyway? Dovea 12:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Someone was bound to CfD anyway. In addition to that the article Surviving veterans of World War I handles this better.-- T. Anthony 12:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, self-outdating. >Radiant< 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Depopulate now, not later. Metthurst 05:55, 6 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Fictional frogs and toads. the wub "?!" 14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Fictional frogs and toads, or the reverse. No strong preference. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• I suspect that it would make far more sense to keep the more inclusive one (i.e., with toads). The other can go, though. Grutness... wha? 07:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Fictional frogs and toads and keep the other as a redirect. Merchbow 14:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as nominated. Mr. Toad and the Budweiser Frogs should be in the same category.-- Mike Selinker 04:21, 7 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_15#Category:Karloff-Awards, found lurking. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Just forgotten. Pavel Vozenilek 16:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as hoax. Calsicol 14:22, 9 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Living mobsters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete category:Living people is not supposed to be subdivided and this subdivision is particularly undesirable from a legal point of view.. Cloachland 02:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Simply being alive is not necessarily important to their notability.-- T. Anthony 04:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per policy against living / dead categorization. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Living/dead categorization is not useful. George J. Bendo 18:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete even though I think the no subcategorys rule is ridiculous. SteveLamacq43 17:10, 7 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Kane ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
While Kane is notable, he certainly doesn't need a category of his own. Useless category, and category cruft (if such a thing exists). RobJ1981 02:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It has some merits (quick link to find the identity of the fake Kane from 2006), but not enough to outweigh the faults -- redundant in too many ways. There is also the possibilty that this could start a trend, this category is one thing, but this slippery slope leads to Category:Barry Horowitz. Stephen Day 15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The various articles in this category should use normal links to connect to each other. For example, the Kane article should mention the Undertaker in the text and vice-versa. They do not need a category to link them all together. George J. Bendo 18:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Aaru Bui ^DII 22:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, catcruft, slippery slope, etc. I'm a wrestling fan, but this is ridiculous. — Dale Arnett 10:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Olborne 09:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete: Absolutely useless. SteveLamacq43 17:05, 7 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Ergo Proxy Images ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, one only image category. Rluoeoy 02:16, 4 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Already listed under Category:Flavor of Love. the wub "?!" 22:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Flavor of Love spinoffs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is already a Flavor of Love category for these shows to be listed under. A category for the two FoL spinoff shows is not needed. Ckessler 01:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. -- Pumpkin Pie 06:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment For what reason? Why do we need a category for two pages, when there is already one that is perfectly good? Other than the fact that you're a fan of the show? Ckessler 07:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A category which I made in response for The Surreal Life spinoffs may better suit these shows. The problem with listing them under the Flavor of Love category is that all articles there are for people that were on the show. Milchama 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete category with only two members. The articles all cross-reference each other, therefore the category serves no purpose anyway. 75.40.201.196 08:27, 10 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 15:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Murdered American children to Category:American murdered children
• Category:Murdered Canadian children to Category:Canadian murdered children
• Category:Murdered English children to Category:British murdered children

Rename per the usual conventions. Note I also expanded the scope of the English one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Double oppose They sound better as they are and English and British are not the same thing. Cloachland 02:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• For an example, see Category:Murder victims by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oh, I see the confusion. Those all say <nationality> murder victims. To do what you're suggesting you might say American children murder victims. Saying American murdered children suggests that the children were murdered by Americans. If this nom fails, I would support a nomination nominating them as <nationality> children murder victims. - jc37 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose These are not murder victims by nationality categories, they are murdered children categories, so the convention can be different, and the current names are more appropriate. "English murdered children" can be read as "Children murdered by English people" or "Children murdered in England." Merchbow 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Current wording is better. --- RockMFR 18:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per all of the above, especially the fact that British and English are two entirely different things. SteveLamacq43 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per my comments above. - jc37 00:49, 10 November 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Newcastle United F.C. Number 9's ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Cruft, quite simply. Apart from the fact that before the days of fixed squad numbers, a variety of players could have worn the number 9 for Newcastle for as few as one or two games, as well as the fact it is very hard to verify for many players of old, this sets a highly dangerous precedent. By rights the same kind of category could be created for each shirt number between 1 and 11 (and possibly above) for hundreds of top-flight football teams, which would mean the creation of thousands of categories of very little informative use. Delete Qwghlm 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. When do we get to see Category:Newcastle United F.C. players with shoe size 10? – Elisson • T • C • 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, but Elisson's comparison is off the mark because this is one of the most meaningful such combinations in English soccer. Cloachland 02:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Though I find Cloachland's opinion on its significance questionable ("Wor Jackie" notwithstanding), I'd agree that a delete is probably the best option. Oh, and if the decision is to keep, please let's get rid of the misused apostrophe! Grutness... wha? 07:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, okay, i understand that this may be considered information merely for the football fan, but my question is how come this is considered deletable whereas a catergory such as the catergory which shows you all the players who have ever scored in the world cup is allowed 2 stand, if there is going to be a rule it should be upheld accross the board, also the shirt is actually particurlary important to the geordie faithful hence the big hurrah about who would hold it after Shearer retired, it is a notable thing to hold the shirt, and the catergory was created to show the long term holders of the shirt as opposed to people who wore it once or twice during there careers. Sorry about the misplaced apostraphy btw, Luke out Crabman123 19:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If you want any other category deleted you can nominate it. Metthurst 05:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete As trivial and misleading. Metthurst 05:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, Although there have been some important number 9s for the club. I feel that the category is misleading as it suggests that all number 9s have had significant important. Also, it could get silly and out of hand as this and other clubs could have a "Number 7" section etc. Englishrose 23:04, 6 November 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 section.