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

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow ( talk) 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, strange intersection of a religeon, an ethnic group, and a profession. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per nom. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom, and, all too often, a tactic to criticize the self presentation of, especially, female pop singers. Robertissimo 18:51, 30 October 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 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. David Kernow ( talk) 04:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Historic military defeats ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This fails on several grounds:

1. Does it mean "historic" as in notable? If it does, it's POV
2. Does it mean "historic" as in "in history"? If so, what other kind of military defeats are there (apart from fictional ones)?
3. A defeat, by definition, was someone else's victory. A case in point from this category is the Battle of Waterloo.

The category also contains such "historic military defeats" as PT 59, which, to my mind, is a boat, not a defeat. Note also that Category:Military defeats was deleted here just two weeks ago. Not particularly convincingly coincidentally, this was created two days later by the person who created that one. (In other words, this is probably speediable as a recration). Grutness... wha? 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete, nothing more than a recreation of the previously deleted category. Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This list has the potential to be eqivalent to a list of all battles (or more, if each battle had more than 2 combatants). - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per precedent and for being excessively broad. Doesn't every battle include some defeat? Doczilla 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete, recreation of category deleted recently. Pavel Vozenilek 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can see the idea, but it won't work. Calsicol 17:28, 28 October 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 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 merged with Politicians of European nations and {{ categoryredirect}} left. David Kernow ( talk) 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC), updated 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:European politicians into Category:Politicians of European nations

• Merge, duplicate category is not well populated and not properly categorized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GilliamJF ( talk • contribs)
• Merge, per nom. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify: intro from the category: "List of politicians who are politically active in more than one EU Member States": these are people who had a political career in France and Germany, or Italy and Malta, and so on. This has little to do with the other category, and would be probably better as a list, where more info can be given (with comments on the general principles making this possible) and the politicians can be put into a table. Fram 11:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as it will cause confusion, confer little or no benefit, and is arguably a breach of neutrality that promotes the idea that the EU is a nation, when that is an aspiration of certain politicians, not an established fact. Piccadilly 13:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom and Piccadilly and mark as {{category-redirect}} Honbicot 22:49, 27 October 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 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. David Kernow ( talk) 04:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles that have been Wikified ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. This category is populated by articles which pass the five criteria of the User:Draicone/Wikify template. It is completely pointless- it would be filled with tens of thousands of talk pages if actually used. The template itself is fine, but it shouldn't add articles to a category, and should only be used when articles are being worked on. --- RockMFR 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

See also: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 11#Category:Articles currently undergoing Wikification --- RockMFR 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete excessively large category. Doczilla 02:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Of no relevance to readers. Piccadilly 13:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Doesn't serve any purpose. Prolog 00:35, 28 October 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 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 with 21st century classical composers and suggest result evaluated per below. David Kernow ( talk) 04:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:21st century classical composers, due to the special and unique provisions of Category:Living people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Doczilla 02:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Somewhat reluctantly as I imagine several of these people did most of their work in the 20th century and are semi-retired in this one. Also I'm supporting this for slightly different reasons than the ones suggested. I think the "living" moniker in this case is not useful and maybe sounds unintentionally insulting. As in "wow there are people alive who actually do this!" Category:Ragtime composers includes a few living composers, but it doesn't single them out for being alive.-- T. Anthony 07:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• merge to help preserve the principal that Category:Living people should not be subdivided. Piccadilly 13:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Osomec 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge only composers with at least one work written in the 21st century. Living baseball players wouldn't automatically be 21st century baseball players; neither should retired composers necessarily be considered 21st century composers. -- Myke Cuthbert 01:12, 1 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 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 all. David Kernow ( talk) 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Subjects of the Sign of Taurus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Aries ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Gemini ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Cancer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Leo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Virgo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Libra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Scorpio ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Sagittarius ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Capricorn ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Aquarius ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Subjects of the Sign of Pisces ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Categorisation by star sign is totally out of place in an encyclopedia. Piccadilly 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as recreation ... although it was Capricorns last time, if I recall correctly. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Though this might be an interesting list, that means that 13 categories, will list all articles about people in wikipedia. Probably not a good idea : ) - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete excessively broad category. Doczilla 02:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have discovered that categories have been created for all 12 astrological signs, so I have nominated them all. Each category contains one prominent person and is a subcategory of itself and itself only. Piccadilly 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and permanently block as categorisation by astrological sign will tempt some users but will never be acceptable. Honbicot 22:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all as superstitious nonsense. Calsicol 17:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all as per nom. – Zimbabweed 07:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all as indiscriminate random information -- unless there is some specific reason to mention a particular person's sign in their article (such as the person was a victim of the Zodiac Killer) it's inherently non-encyclopedic. - Che Nuevara 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - all the day-of-the-year pages have a list of notables born on those days, which is more than enough. -- HKMarks( T/ C) 18:40, 1 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 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 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Centenarians, due to wikipedia policy and upkeep issues. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep I think it should be kept, and perhaps made a subcategory under the Centenarians category. We can then distinguish between living and deceased centenarians. I don't think upkeep will be an issue as it can easily be added and removed as appropriate. In the meantime I will continue to expand this new category. -- Dovea 17:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• The problem is that theoretically, encyclopedias are supposed to be written in a sort of timeless way. The content we write here can be written to CD, or mirrored on dozens of different websites, or even published in a book ... places where it cannot be updated. So, there are special restrictions against categorizing people as living or dead. The only exception to this is the special administrative category Category:Living people, which is kept around mostly for legal reasons and isn't supposed to have any subcategories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not really written to be timeless and print encyclopedias do not use categories at all or at least not in the way Wikipedia does.-- T. Anthony 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Dovea, above. I think that this is a valid exception to the "living" rule. (And while we may have a few "other media" versions coming out, Wikipedia is not paper.) - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia requirements. Just categorize them in both Category:Centenarians and Living people. Doczilla 02:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Doczilla. Since they should already be listed in Category:Living people, listing them in Category:Centenarians identifies them correctly. Vegaswikian 07:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep In this case being alive is a part of their fame or significance. Just don't have it as a subcat of Category:Living people. This is because that category is not to be divided. On a personal level that category I think is completely idiotic so "Category:Living people" should not be added to anything if you can avoid it.-- T. Anthony 07:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete If we start to make exceptions the principle that Category:Living people should not be broken down may fall by the wayside. Piccadilly 12:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

There's no reason this would have to be made a subcategory of Category:Living people. It's dealing with a different concept. It could be renamed to surviving such as Category:Surviving veterans of the First World War if the word "living" in it is truly a problem.-- T. Anthony 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedia is not the TV news weatherman. -- M @ r ē ino 13:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete In line with general practice of not dividing categories between the living and the dead. Honbicot 22:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I accept it is the norm not to divide categories by the living and the deceased, but this would be the obvious exception if ever there was one. I have continued to expand the category and hope it will be kept. -- Dovea 09:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• merge/Delete Centenarians are becoming more and more common and I'm not convinced the main category should exist either. Nowadays I think you have to reach 110 for your age to be of interest. Calsicol 17:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The names in this category are notable for reasons other than being a centenarian. Being a centenarian itself is not notable, but it can be part of the notability of a notable person like say Phyllis A. Whitney.-- T. Anthony 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Honbicot and also because of the difficulty of maintaining it.-- Runcorn 22:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Centenarians, per nom. While I do think that this is useful information, having Living, Centarians, and Living Centarians at the bottom of each article may possibly be overkill. - jc37 02:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It's generally preferred that an article not be in the more specific and less specific category simultaneously. So I don't think names would need to be in all three. A name being in both Category:Living people and Category:Living centenarians shouldn't be a problem. Living centenarians deals with the oldest notable people alive today and Category:Living people deals with efforts to avoid lawsuits. Totally different concepts. Anyway if this survives Category:Centenarians should be taken off these articles as redundant.-- T. Anthony 06:37, 1 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 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. David Kernow ( talk) 04:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Bandy in the United States, convention of Category:Sports in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Rename per nom. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• rename per nom. Calsicol 17:31, 28 October 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 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. David Kernow ( talk) 04:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Billboard Adult Contemporary number-one singles to Category:Billboard Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks number-one singles

• Rename, the chart is now titled Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks. Extraordinary Machine 14:58, 26 October 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 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. David Kernow ( talk) 05:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Indian Council of Agricultural Research, to match Indian Council of Agricultural Research. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Rename per nom. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per most abbreviations. Calsicol 17:32, 28 October 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 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 20:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Holocaust to Category:The Holocaust, to follow main article The Holocaust. Perhaps leave redirect. David Kernow ( talk) 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as nom. David Kernow ( talk) 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, and naming conventions. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Wouldn't consistency also require the renaming of subcats "Holocaust books", "Holocaust charities and reparations", "Holocaust commemoration", "Holocaust documentaries", "Holocaust denial", "Holocaust victims", "Images of the Holocaust", "Holocaust massacres and pogroms", "Holocaust museums? Only this subcat is consistent with the new name: "People who helped Jews during the Holocaust". gidonb 13:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Should the article The Holocaust also therefore be renamed...?  Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • David, I wanted to know your your opinion in these matters and the question you posed only adds question marks. Regards, gidonb 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I was trying to indicate the distinction between "The Holocaust" as a (proper) noun and "Holocaust" as its adjectival. Regards, David ( talk) 05:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Weak opposition. I don't know of any naming convention which requires a rename. All of the Wikipedias in other languages (except fr) use "Holocaust," and I like to see a category use basic language. - GilliamJF 13:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • See query above. Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. It works as an adjective ("Holocaust victims") but not as a noun, as there are many lowercase usages of the term "holocaust" that have nothing to do with Nazi Germany. For example, nuclear holocaust would fit into this category as currently named, though "Holocaust victims" would not, since we haven't had a nuclear holocaust (at least on a global scale).-- Mike Selinker 21:33, 28 October 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 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, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Existentialist films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a completely subjective category. Entries are added by an individual's interpretation, not by any actual facts that can be proven. -- LGagnon 12:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Calsicol 18:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Hopelessly POV. Prolog 00:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Don't Delete Interesting and not POV 30 October 2006
• Don't delete The Truthish 30 October 2006
• Don't Delete Could be interesting User:New Jack Swing 31 October 2006
• Delete per nom. We probably should also delete the recently-created Category:Existentialist works while we're at it. - EurekaLott 04:10, 1 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 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, empty -- Kbdank71 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Computer and video game additions into Category:Expansion packs

• Merge, The category text describes the contents as basically being expansion packs. Quoting: "This category contains articles about extra additions to computer and video games that are neither remakes nor mods." Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - only member is up for deletion, and User:Pascal.Tesson gives several examples where these type of articles have been deleted in the past at Talk:Refuge (race). Let's determine if they should exist before having a category for them. (Note: I personally think there's room on Wikipedia for such articles (Wikipedia is not paper...), I just am noting prior consensus.) - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per prior consensus. Doczilla 02:28, 27 October 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 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 delete. FreplySpang 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Films directed by Hussein Tajvidi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, category is referencing to an article Hussein Tajvidi which was deleted for non-notability. Furthermore, the category has only one entry in it. -- Brad Beattie ^(talk) 09:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete if current single member under AfD ( Three Island) deleted. David Kernow ( talk) 13:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Three Island's AFD resulted in a delete. As such, the category has no entries at the moment, which I believe qualifies it for speedy deletion under CSD C1. -- Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My bad, it was the Hussein Tajvidi article that was deleted. Three Island is still pending in the AFD queue. -- Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Not any more; I've speedied. FreplySpang 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - single member. If more members possible, then feel free to recreate : ) - jc37 01:52, 27 October 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 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 (for the record, a recreation from a cfd from a year ago probably shouldn't be speedied, no, but from a month or week ago? speedy.) -- Kbdank71 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Type-D stars ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Appears to be a recreation, after a previous CFD consensus said delete. Not sure whether it qualifies for speedy, so brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:White dwarfs, per previous discussion. (As consensus can change, I am now hesitant to ever suggest speedy for recreations.) - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:White dwarfs - I am trusting that the Wikipedia page on spectral classification is accurate. I have never heard of type D stars. George J. Bendo 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Yes, merge to Category:White dwarfs - I was an astronomy major, and "D" is more subclassification based on size rather than temp/color like the other letter-name classes. Roman numerals I-V are generally used for size. — ChristTrekker 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I guess I was drawn into thinking that D was a spectral type and not a description of size. Silly. George J. Bendo 16:10, 2 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 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 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Wikipedians for Tampa 2008

• Delete. No longer useful, as the site of the 2008 Republican National Convention is Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1ne 08:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• UpMerge to Category:Republican (US) Wikipedians (which could probably do with a rename itself : ) - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Nobody's in the category. How could you merge it? 1ne 03:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

My experience is that we often see empty categories on CfD, usually because someone empties them prior to nomination, out of process. Also, this suggests that if a userbox is involved, that the category in the userbox (possibly through <includeonly>) should be changed as well, for future use/reference. - jc37 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I never emptied the category. 1ne 07:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Never said you did. Just answering a question : ) - jc37 10:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Well then how is it useful to merge it? 1ne 17:35, 27 October 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 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:English cricket seasons from 1890 to 1918 -- Kbdank71 20:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:History of English cricket from 1890 to 1914 to Category:English cricket from 1890 to 1918

• Rename – remove "History of" so that it is consistent with similar titles and extend range to 1918 given scope of the category. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, seems a justified move. Sam Vimes | Address me 06:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Clarifying: Rename to English cricket seasons from 1890 to 1918, per RobertG. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename seems to make the most sense. Pax:Vobiscum 08:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:English cricket seasons from 1890 to 1918, to avoid tempting people to put articles like C. B. Fry and K S Ranjitsinhji in it. But I've no objection to a rename per nom. -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Stephen Turner ( Talk) 09:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comments. I agree with making it 1918: Jack's our chief cricket historian, and if he says it should be 1918, that's good enough for me. I'm not opposed to Jack's exact proposal, but I wonder if an even better solution would be to add "History of" to the names of categories without it, rather than remove it from this one, for RobertG's reason: we probably don't want to start putting players in these categories. (There may be an even better wording, but RobertG's precise suggestion isn't quite right, because the cat contains more than just articles about individual seasons). Stephen Turner ( Talk) 09:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There are only a couple of similar categories at present (I thought there were more). It would be no problem to rename the others after agreeing a title for this one. There are sound historical reasons for starting in 1890 and ending in 1918 (see the category intro) so it's really about the words rather than the years. I think the points made by Robert and Stephen are both valid and should be considered. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I should add that we have category:English cricket in the 18th Century which is mainly for clubs, seasons and general articles about the period while a sub-category of it has been created for players at category:English cricketers of the 18th Century. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename It makes more sense to see the cricket that was played during World War I as an afterward to the Edwardian era than the start of a new era. Calsicol 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. My only complaint with this when it was listed for speedying was procedural - the rename/rescope seems a good idea. Grutness... wha? 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:English cricket seasons from 1890 to 1918, per User:RobertG, and precision. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• 'Rename to Category:English cricket from 1890 to 1918 It is absolutely essential that the word seasons is not used as that would exclude overseas tours by English teams in that period, which are one of the main things that should be covered. Piccadilly 13:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:English cricket seasons from 1890 to 1918. I disagree with Piccadilly above: the MCC tour of Australia in 1903-04, for example, is not part of any "English cricket season"; it's part of the 1903-04 Australian cricket season and can be covered there. Loganberry ( Talk) 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I would certainly expect to see in due course a similar category for Australian cricket and so the MCC tour articles would belong there. I have no particular objection to the word seasons as long as it understood that the category is not just about season reviews such as 1905 English cricket season: it must include articles about clubs, venues, laws, specific events, general cricket-related matters and so on. I share Robert's concern about hundreds of players being added to it but the answer to that is a sub-category like category:English cricketers of the 18th Century, which works very well: you will not see a single player in category:English cricket in the 18th Century. Thanks to everyone for their interest in this. -- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:08, 28 October 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 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:Hammer Film Productions films -- Kbdank71 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Hammer Films to Category:Hammer films Capitalisation fix. A category for films produced by Hammer. JW 11:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Moved from speedy; the company name is Hammer Film Productions, so I recommend rename to Category:Hammer Film Productions films. Pegship 04:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Pegship, most clear to unfamiliar readers. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Pegship/Dhartung. David Kernow ( talk) 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Because it's not the actual company name, don't capitalize films if it stays Hammer films. Doczilla 02:29, 27 October 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 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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Body horror to Category:Body horror films

• Rename. Don't know if this is a legitimate genre, but at least it should be named accurately. Pegship 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• If not deleted, at least rename per Pegship. David Kernow ( talk) 13:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - WP:OR, another neologism in the making : ) - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT. Doczilla 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per previous. Calsicol 17:32, 28 October 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 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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Celebrity Gamers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This category is for celebrities who are said to enjy playing computer games. Categorisation by hobby is not useful or significant. Delete Merchbow 03:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, we don't have categories for celebrities who drink milk or enjoy snowboarding. Neither useful nor significant indeed. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete; validity aside, an ambiguous, malformed name. David Kernow ( talk) 13:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I'm still waiting for Category:Celebrities who stick beans up their collective noses (What? I needed an example : ) - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete useless, unmaintainable category. Doczilla 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. See also Category:Celebrity Roleplayers/Wargamers, similarly unmaintainable and misnamed. Percy Snoodle 12:27, 31 October 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 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 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, seems a little too narrow to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 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 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 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Worldwide animals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Not required, duplicate of Category:Animals by geography and Category:Fauna by country. Octopus-Hands 01:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete redundant, covered by more technicaly accurate (and underused) Category:Cosmopolitan species. If needed cats Cosmopolitan family and Cosmpolitan genus could be created. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Sabine's Sunbird. Calsicol 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Commnent: classification animals by geopgraphy is being discussed these days on Category talk:Biota by country. Pavel Vozenilek 18:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Cosmopolitan species, per User:Sabine's Sunbird. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 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 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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:2006 United States Senate candidates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete as a bad precedent. If politicians get an extra category each specific time they stand for office many of them will accumulate a great many repetitive and non-defining categories. Sumahoy 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment as this is an obvious organizing tool (even though Wikipedia is not a campaign guide, many candidates are notable and many have articles regardless), what about naming it Category:Current United States Senate candidates? -- Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

And I realize that means that the renaming will be completed around the time of the election. What about just waiting? -- Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete This belongs on Wikinews, if anywhere. Really it is better not to serve up these articles on a plate to anyone who might want to manipulate them at this time. Calsicol 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - relevant, not POV, and even (gasp) notable. While I realise that the election is nearly upon us, I don't want this to be a precedent which may be pointed to in 2008. - jc37 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Listify. The function here is better served by a list where you could see who won and who lost and any other useful information. Vegaswikian 04:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a news service and if we allow this we will end up with dozens of the, which would make the categorisation of politicians worse as they already suffer from category clutter. Piccadilly 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. All the information is already found at United States Senate elections, 2006. Do not make a list. Do not pass go. Do not collect EIGHT PAY RAISE??? --- RockMFR 14:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 22:55, 27 October 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.