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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Same-sex marriage supporters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This is better represented in the already-existing Category:LGBT rights activists. Plus, it's too broad. You could fit just about every other entertainer in here. Crumbsucker 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Not all those who support LGBT rights actually support same-sex marriage. NorthernThunder 23:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - you don't have to be any sort of activist for LGBT rights more generally to express support for same-sex marriages. That is the only reason for deletion that has been given, and I can't think of another one. Metamagician3000 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I seem to remember that one of the dissenting justices in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (the Massachusetts decision on same-sex marriage) was an open lesbian! — Dale Arnett 02:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Narrow the scope. Supporter can be just anybody. How about an egineer who openly supports the issue but does not advocate it. Will that be of interest? -- Swift 02:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete (or merge) per nom. -- kingboyk 12:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Very strong delete We should not categorise people by stance on issues (as opposed to actual political action). There are hundreds of issues, and doing so will either (a) create chronic category clutter or (b) skew Wikipedia towards trendy issues of the moment in an unencyclopedic way (as here). Twittenham 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Wilchett 13:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete if you delete Category:Same-sex marriage opposition which I created.-- T. Anthony 14:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep we have categories for gay marriage opponents, and it helps to categorize the supporters in the same way. We also have support and opposition categories for abortion and the death penalty. gunsnroads
  • But we shouldn't have. Choalbaton 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I created Category:Same-sex marriage opposition because I hoped it would be more accurate than Category:LGBT rights opposition, which I felt was being misused. I decided awhile back it wasn't working as it's also being misused, see the talk page for it, and is not very helpful. I'm considering putting it up for Cfd myself as I favor both of these being deleted. That said I could tolerate both surviving and for consistency if this survives I'll support the other surviving on cfd.-- T. Anthony 05:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this and all similar categories. Wikipedia is not a campaigning resource. Greg Grahame 01:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Twittenham. - EurekaLott 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Categories can't handle nuances. Choalbaton 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, or create an individual wikipedia page for same-sex marriage supporters. It is a useful guide for people looking for a shortlist of people who support same-sex marriage-- Mr Beale 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Delete this and all similar type categories. There is plenty of gray area in a category of this type. Jasper23 02:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete "Supporter" is too fuzzy a qualifier to survive the WP:OR rule. As per the submitter, the already-existing Category:LGBT rights activists is much more clear-cut, useful and objective. -- Frescard 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment The category Category:Pro-choice politicians exists and survided CFD. Perhaps this category should be renamed/rescoped to Pro-Same Sex Marrage politicians? - Ravedave ^{( help name my baby)} 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Very strong delete per Twittenham. Along with its counterpart Category:Same-sex marriage opposition Mickmaguire 17:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep more anti-LGBT action here, folks; per my position on the LGBT rights category above; the fact that the counterpart has not been nominated speaks volumes on the POV being pushed here. Carlossuarez46 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  Reply from nominator: FYI, I support SSM. I didn't know the other category existed until now. That, too, should be deleted. I may nominate it after this vote is done (or someone else can do it if they want). Crumbsucker 12:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Ultra strong delete Carlossuarez46's is seeing a Wikipedia I don't recognise. IMO Wikipedia has a massive bias towards pandering to the LGBT agenda. The other category only exists because of the LGBT control of the news agenda, with the assistance of the liberal media, so it is really a "LGBT agenda" category too. Golfcam 03:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I created the Category:Same-sex marriage opposition category if that's what you mean by "the other category." I am Roman Catholic and do not believe my church even can, let alone should, accept SSM. See Talk:Mychal F. Judge for evidence that, I trust, shows I'm not beholden to some secret gay-conspiracy. Admittedly on a governmental level I'm not actively interested in this as I think Catholics, like myself, should just be clearer that all civil marriages are not real marriages and should not be recognized by the Church. I fear that opposing civil-marriage for gays too strongly makes it sound like we accept civil heterosexual-marriage and I'm intent that the Catholic Church never does that. Still it would be wrong to think I'm a supporter of SSM. I'm basically neutral or don't really care. I suppose if pressed I'd say it should be decided on a state-by-state vote. (State as in US state and as in nation)-- T. Anthony 11:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete (ignoring the apparently "ultra strong" bias accusations in the varied comments above) - Supporters of "x" /critics of "x" categories require citations/evidence, which is not possible in a category. Listify if wanted, but only with specific citations. - jc37 03:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep When same-sex marriage ceases to be an issue, this category's existence can be reviewed. Yonmei 05:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete With regard to the preceding comment, Wikipedia is not a news service. Any category that is not of permanent value is an inappropriate category. Calsicol 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The only people this is directly relevant to can be placed in a category like LGBT rights activists. Everyone else, it's basically pointless. -- tjstrf 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Together with [[Category:Same-sex marriage opposition]]: Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- HailFire 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete People support all sorts of things, but Wikipedia should only cateogorise major contributions. Edton 18:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Canadian army brigades of World War 1 to Category:Canadian World War I brigades

• Rename, in line with naming of similar categories. See also September 14th. GregorB 19:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 03:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Streetpunk, to match Streetpunk. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 18:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn -- Kbdank71 14:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Redirects from abbreviation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. This category has no apparent use. The issue was raised on the talk page seven months ago, but no-one came out in defense of it. If no-one points out any good reason for it, I think we should get rid of it. Swift 16:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  Withdrawn. While I still feel that this category and the others like it are a distraction and complication of the overall Wikipedia article layout, I bow to community consensus, accept their argument and withdraw my vote. -- Swift 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. - R. S. Shaw 21:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I believe that this is created by a template. Perhaps we should take the discussion to WP:TFD Bluap 14:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  Done. Still, the discussion here is warranted. The template is set up to explain the redirect to prevent its deletion. Adding it to a category is an extra feature (one which I think is useless and should be removed). -- Swift 01:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Redirects are not a fact of the universe, they are simply the current work-around for the fact that there will sometimes be a one-to-many relationship between articles and article titles. We may change at some future point to a different system, and classifying redirects now will save effort then. Even if you think that the possibility of future change is unlikely, I fail to see any rational argument for throwing away all the effort already put into it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  Redirects are a fact of the MediaWiki software. They are not work-arounds — they are solutions. The redirect solution is not lacking in features, as far as I can see. If we cannot forsee the future system we shouldn't be wasting resources complicating things just-in-case.

  Furthermore in the case that some feature is added, much of the work may be wasted anyway if it doesn't fit the feature, or the developers may result in opting for a less useful feature as it better fits existing categories on WP. If we don't know, we should be conservative in how we spend our resources. This category and it's template do little but draw attention from more important work. -- Swift 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As per Antaeus Feldspar, why delete this category for the sake of it when there may be uses for it in the future? -- apers0n 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  See comment on Antaeus Feldspar's vote. Also, the category doesn't fit any of the categorization gudielines, it isn't useful and it is unencyclopedic. -- Swift 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Categorization guidelines say that "categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles". Since nobody wants to browse through redirects, does that automatically mean that redirects should not be categorized at all? I'd say no, it doesn't: there's Category:Unprintworthy redirects that serves a legitimate purpose. Subdivision - as opposed to lumping everything together - is generally a good thing, even if its usefulness isn't immediately obvious. As for drawing attention from "more important work", I think this is a red herring: all Wikipedians are free to do whatever they consider important; it's not like anyone's compelled to maintain this category against his better judgement. GregorB 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  The Categorization guidelines are just that; guidelines. They say what should be done, not what has to be done. The Unprintworthy redirects is thus justified since, though breaking the guidelines, they serve the purpose of distinguishing pages that should not be in the m:Paper Wikipedia. The redirect category has no (in my oppinion, but I seem to be the only one here) good reason for bending the guidelines.

  Your point about the red herring is right on the spot, though. -- Swift 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. While I see no particular current benefit to this categorization, there is no particular harm in keeping it, either, along with a possible future benefit. Perhaps this template/categoery should be deprecated, but that discussion should be taken to TfD or to WP:R; even if the template is deprecated for future use, there's no reason to remove the category from the older ones that still use it. SnowFire 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's a maintanence category, and it will save a lot of work if we ever decide to actually do something with all those pages. -- tjstrf 00:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep similar to other categories for redirects. -- User:Docu

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Politicians who lived to be over 90, due to wikipidia policy, because of the upkeep issue. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I can understand this proposal, as the category could prove difficult to upkeep. However, it would be interesting to know who the living elder statesmen of the day are. Under the proposed rename there would be no way of knowing if they are alive or not. I created the category as I find this aspect of it interesting. -- Dovea 18:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is trivia. In most cases they won't have done anything notable at over 90 so it is just human interest trivia and it is a bad precedent. Twittenham 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. I agree with Twittenham, this is just trivia, and serves no helpful or meaningful purpose in the encylopedia. On another note, why 90? Why not 91? Why not 93.5? This category is based on a randomly selected age, which has no real connection to the politician in question. I agree, it's interesting, but not encyclopedic.

Picaroon9288 20:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I just edited Bill Deedes and I assumed that categorising him as a "Living politician over 90" was a joke. Edton 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Swift 02:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Having read the above comments on my creation of this category (which I anticipated), I think we should go along with the proposal of ProveIT on 17 September and rename to "Politicians who lived to be over 90" whether they are living or not. Why 90? Because it's a round figure, not many politicians live to 100 and there are too many over 80. We already have categories such as "Entertainers who died in their 40s" which have not been deleted. I was hoping Wikipedians with an interest in politics could have some way of knowing who the world's oldest politicians and elder statesmen are and were, and can not think of a better way of doing this - perhaps someone else can? I do not agree that it's a trivial subject on the basis of what I've said. -- Dovea 11:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nonsense. -- kingboyk 12:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I have to say, it would be an anomaly if we can have a category as specific as "Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s" (see Peg Entwistle) and yet Michael Foot can't be categorised under "Politicians who lived to be over 90" as proposed by ProveIt. If Wikipedia can keep the former I can't see why we can't also have the latter -- Dovea 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep as is I should go rename as this just confuses things, but I don't think I can. Alot more politicians lived to be over 90 than you might be aware of. [1] Granted many in that link were non-notable people who ran for mayor of Podunk, but many of them weren't and that site is just limited to the US. "Living" keeps it from getting unmanageable. Although I'd support a rename to Category:Politicians who lived to be over 100 even if that's peculiar and takes out existing names.-- T. Anthony 14:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Radiant!. The proposal for category intersection should be able to generate this type of category on the fly in the future if someone really needs it. Vegaswikian 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Contrary to the argument above it is trivial category. Most of the politicians with articles are minor local figures. Greg Grahame 01:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure about that. If they were so minor there wouldn't be articles on them - that's what makes this encyclopedia different from others - it includes major and minor articles. I've seen all kinds of what I regard as so-called "trivia" on Wikipedia but appreciate it might be more important or interesting for someone else. -- Dovea 16:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• We have articles on whatever gets written and not deleted. Much of it is of very narrow interest. Choalbaton 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Absurd category and a bad precedent. Living to 90 doesn't define a politician's importance in any way. Choalbaton 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete upkeep.

I'm not trying to define a politician's importance, only what I have outlined above. I assume all those above advocating deletion of this category or its renamed version will be nominating "Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s" etc for deletion which I have mentioned above (which I incidentally support)? There are plenty of those. I honestly can't understand what the earth-shattering problem is. -- Dovea 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• • It would have been deleted last time it was nominated if the discussion had been closed promptly after 7 days but it wasn't and a couple of days later someone organized some meat-puppetry that saved it. If you want to get it deleted go ahead and nominate it again. Two broader points: 1) A bad precedent is no defence of a bad category. 2) Very little on here is "earth-shattering", but once a category is created it is permanent, and if the bad ones don't get deleted as we go along, before we know it there will be thousands of bad categories. Golfcam 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Maintaining this would be a total waste of time. Golfcam 03:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm saying I support keeping the Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s, to illustrate my point. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. -- Dovea 20:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Alumni of the University of Central Florida to Category:University of Central Florida alumni

• Rename, Non-standard category name. I propose a change to what appears to be the standard naming convention for alumni categories. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 06:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, per nom, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename -- Swift 03:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. VegaDark 07:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Reality TV Programs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Attempts to duplicate, very broadly, already existing categories. Another contribution by an overeager newbie. CovenantD 03:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  What are examples of categories which this one duplicates? -- Swift 03:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

  Category:Reality television series CovenantD 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, since it's empty. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty -- Kbdank71 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:The Simpsons Characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Duplicates already existing Category:Simpsons characters. CovenantD 03:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Aside: As the series name is The Simpsons, perhaps rename Category:Simpsons characters to Category:The Simpsons characters and leave redirect...?  Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 03:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Category:Simpsons characters. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge both category:Simpsons characters and category:The Simpsons Characters to category:The Simpsons characters (lower case "c" per naming conventions) per David Kernow. " The Simpsons" is the series name. Compare to The West Wing and category:The West Wing characters.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Notable Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• As has been pointed out recently in an unrelated incident, the accuracy of this category is rather hard to verify. It's possible, by asking for an email from the subject's official site or similar, but that's time-consuming and we should have a good reason to make the effort. And the reason is... well, not much. The only compelling argument for the existence of this category is that it helps us understand when people are editing autobiographically - and a reading of the edit history and the full talk page will usually tell you that. Most subjects will admit it freely, and we don't need to slap a great big DANGER WILL ROBINSON banner on the talk page. Remember also that WP:BLP has weakened the taboo on people editing their own articles if they're removing poorly sourced negative information; this category encourages an "automatically revert the subject of an article" mentality which Jimbo has cautioned against. Apart from that this is just self-serving, and people can always state that they have a Wikipedia article on their userpages. Delete. ( Template:Notable Wikipedian should of course be deleted too - I'll nominate that if this nomination succeeds.) Sam Blanning ^(talk) 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Put the information all in Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles Basically like with the discussion in WP:ANI on Phil Sandifer said that this category is original research since which famous person uses which Wikipedia account isn't verified by a major news source or even the famous person going on TV. (OFFTOPIC:What about that Stephen Colbert account--was that really him or not? It's not on the list.) Another reason is that Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles is sorted better whereas this category links all to talk pages so there's no way I can see to sort alphabetically. For why the move and not the deletion, is that off mainspace I suppose it wouldn't hurt to just keep the information around. Anomo 07:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm? The category is sorted alphabetically, for the most part. - EurekaLott 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unverifiable. Frankly, I feel that way about Wikipedians with articles, too. Nandesuka 12:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles since a person must be notable to have an article. Jonathunder 15:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as useful information, but make certain it's only categorized with other user categories. Attempting to merge a category with a list would likely be problematic. - EurekaLott 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge, very interesting information. I don't think verifiability is a major difficulty with this, and it's not so much a warning of people editing their own articles, as a celebration of it. DWaterson 18:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Vanity category. Twittenham 19:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Merge into Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles. -- Swift 03:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as useful. The category isn't the problem; if we need a verification process for notable Wikipedians (as already happens if a user uses the name of a famous person) that's a seperate issue. -- kingboyk 12:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as self-reference. Wilchett 13:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per EurekaLott and Kingboyk. Many, if not most of the entries in the category have been verified; it's appropriate to call for more stringent verification, but deletion of the category is not warranted. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to category:Wikipedians with articles. While there may be notable people who do not have articles on wikipedia, those who don't have their own article obviously won't have a need to edit it since it doesn't exist (unless they create one). If the need for this cat exists due to related articles (such as the discoverer of "x"), then perhaps a "reverse merge" would be a better solution. - jc37 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Found this template: Template:Notable Wikipedian. I would presume that since it says to also update Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, merging to category:Wikipedians with articles would be the obvious thing to do. - jc37 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Embarrassingly self-regarding. Choalbaton 01:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge with Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 16:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Roman Catholic devotions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge It appears that this category is intended to relate to Roman Catholicism. Twittenham 19:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Catholicism#Other_Catholics states that there are more than just the Roman Catholic devotion. Make Category:Roman Catholic devotions a subcategory of Category:Catholic devotions. -- Swift 03:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge It is a subcategory of another Roman Catholic category and all the articles are relevant to Roman Catholic devotion. Wilchett 13:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge for clarity. Greg Grahame 01:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was cat redirect -- Kbdank71 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Category:Shi'a Islam. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect -- Swift 03:21, 18 September 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.