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 18:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Campaigning to Category:Election campaigning

• Rename. I would have suggested the broader rename "Political Campaigning", to tally with what appears to be the main article ( Political campaign), but there's already a separate Category:Political activism which pretty much covers the difference. I have already added a note to the Category, based on the articles currently listed, to the effect that it's not about any old campaign (that's a disambig page, BTW). Currently, among the 35 pages and 4 subcats, only Category:Community organizing and List of Palestine solidarity organizations would appear to be outside the electoral remit. Within the main article, the third sentence ("Political campaigns also include organized efforts to alter policy within any institution.") is the only reference to non-electoral campaigning, so that could probably change too; if this CFR gets through I'll suggest that. The articles in the category are rather US-centric at the moment, which may have affected the choice of terminology for the names. Fixing this will be a step towards fixing that wider problem. jnestorius^{( talk)} 23:54, 25 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 18:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Assassinated police officers to Category:Murdered police officers

• Rename. Of the two names listed, once could possibly be classed as an assassination, but the other was simply murdered. There are quite a few police officers who have been murdered, but very few who have been assassinated. -- Necrothesp 23:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, or possibly to Category:Murdered or assassinated police officers...?   David Kernow ( talk) 04:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, just to ensure that another of David's weird suggestions doesn't get any traction. Edton 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - "Weird suggestions"?? I wholly disagree with that sentiment. Now that said... is assassination, murder? - jc37 18:36, 2 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 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 18:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

• 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)." - Said by Twittenham in the debate over the deletion of Category:Same-sex marriage supporters which ended up being deleted. I agree with Twittenham's argument and see it as hypocritical if one category is erased while the other remains. Gdo01 22:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I created this based on a somewhat false idea and it was never used in a correct way in any event.-- T. Anthony 23:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Neutrality ^talk 04:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unmaintainable, open to POV abuse. -- tjstrf 05:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per Gdo01. Crockspot 16:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per nom. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete 75.3.23.157 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'm beginning to think we need a speedy for categories that represent a person's opinion (e.g. people who support motion foo, or people who vote for that party, etc). Happens frequently enough, all we need is a good wording. And no, I'm not talking about user categories. >Radiant< 22:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete as per all above. Category is speculative and open to abuse as was the supporters category. Jasper23 06:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above Dugwiki 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep for the same reasons that Category:Pro-life politicians and Category:Pro-choice politicians were kept after being marked for deletion. To allow those and not allow this would give an impression of favoritism for certain issues and a bias against others. Chris24 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Same-sex marriage supporters was deleted so in light of this deletion we should, in your words, not "give an impression of favoritism for certain issues and a bias against others". Keeping the opposers category while deleteting the supporters category would be favoritism and bias while also showing sheer hypocrisy in categorizing. Gdo01 02:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Same-sex marriage supporters should also be included, but if that category remains deleted and if this category is deleted, so should all other categories that may be perceived as contoversial or political. The deletion of categories pertaining to same-sex marriage while allowing categories pertaining to right-to-life or pro-choice show a point of view as to what is allowed and what is not. Picking and choosing as to what subjects can be in a category shows a point of view, and if one is discarded then all others should be discarded as well. Chris24 05:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The ones you mention specify politicians as their status on issues is pertinent. This does not specify such a thing. As I recall Category:Pro-life celebrities was deleted. If you wish to create a category on this issue that is devoted solely to politicians and or activists I would support it.-- T. Anthony 06:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

If one is created the criteria for inclusion should be very high. In my opinion, that is the problem with category types like these. Its all just opinion. Jasper23 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I would think a consistent voting record on the issue would suffice. This is more specific than "LGBT rights opposition" which could be interpreted as anything from demanding all LGBTs be imprisoned to getting under 50% from the Human Rights Campaign. I'm skeptical people would restrict themselves to politicians who have a consistent record on SSM, but at least that would give it a measurable quality.-- T. Anthony 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, a measurable set of criteria would go a long way in making this kind of category npov. However, it may be very difficult to find an applicable set of criteria that can be agreed upon by the community. Is it really worth it? Jasper23 00:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete as per all above. Mickmaguire 16:36, 29 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 no consensus -- Kbdank71 18:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Richard Morris Hunt buildings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, The buildings in this category already poptulate Category:Richard Morris Hunt. The addition of "buildings" is not needed because all RMH is known for is his architecture and only architecture inhabits the category named for him. Charles 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep this category and merge the contents of Category:Richard Morris Hunt into it. This category matches the other categories in Category:Buildings and structures by architect. Edton 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The category seems well named for the parent Category:Buildings and structures by architect. I think the rverse merge suggested by Edton might be the right choice here. Vegaswikian 04:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge definitely, per Edton. No need for the parent cat. -- Dhartung | Talk 11:22, 26 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 no consensus -- Kbdank71 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Categories under Category:Ships by navy go both ways with no clear direction, although the preponderance, especially among older and more established cats is Fooian Navy ships (18 categories) as opposed to Ships of the Fooian Navy (8 categories). Thus propose the following changes to sub-cats to standardize them:

• Category:Ships of the Argentine Navy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Argentine Navy ships
• Category:Ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Austro-Hungarian Navy ships
• Category:Ships of the British Army ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:British Army ships
• Category:Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Imperial Japanese Navy ships
• Category:Ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Islamic Republic of Iran Navy ships
• Category:Ships of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force ships
• Category:Ships of the Kriegsmarine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Kriegsmarine ships
• Category:Ships of the Reichsmarine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Reichsmarine ships

• Rename Josh 21:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• The opposite rename: Rename "(navy name) ships" categories to "Ships of the (navy name)". That seems to be more in line with other ship categories, like Category:Ships by country, and seems to be in the spirit of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). Also note that Ships by navy has many subcategories below the country level, like Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy, all of which should also be included in this rename. TomTheHand 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I am aware that there are significant sub-cats under these and once a direction is decided, I will put the necessary ones up for reformatting. When the matter was discussed earlier in the year, one item that was mentioned was that by organizing navy ship cats as X Navy ships helped differentiate the tree from the Ships of Nation scheme. This helped avoid some confusion. One item of note was that while every ship should be categorized by country if known, organization by navy was only required where it added value, either in the case of very large navies such as the Royal Navy or United States Navy, or where a country had several distinct navies historically, such as Germany or Japan's cases. Thus, like other adjective categories for ships, it seems best left ot the editors to decide when and if such categorization was appropriate and how deeply so. I am not personally all that concerned which way things go as long as we have a direction so I can go fix the templates for example, which right now don't work well when there are two different formats in play. There are some minor additional reasons I chose to nominate the above method first, including that all the names will be a bit shorter, and sorting is not dependent on adding a piped adder to the category link. Neither abig deal, but worth a mention. If people decide to go the other direction, then we can put up the longer list, but I just thought I'd propose the shorter one first. Josh 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that consistency is the most important issue. If, toward the end of the discussion period, "(Navy name) ships" has a majority but not a clear consensus, I'll gladly change my vote to help get a change made. I do prefer the "Ships of (navy)" format though. TomTheHand 16:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Retain "Ships of..." (and rename those on that longer list!). Results such as "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy ships" seem too cumbersome to me; I suspect "Ships of..." produces less cumbersome (if, yes, a little more lengthy) names. Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 04:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that consistency is the most important thing here. Personally I also am in favour of "Ships of the..." but so long as there is consistency it doesn't matter too much. I do also agree though that "Ships of the..." seems a little less cumbersome than the alternative. Martocticvs 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. For no other reason than that I think it scans better. Jinian 16:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy ships"...?   David Kernow ( talk) 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Well, if we can't "Iranian Navy ships", "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy ships" seems better than "Ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy". Obviously, you disagree. Oh, well. Jinian 21:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Not so much disagreeing as wishing to understand preferences; I think I'd favo/ur "Ships of the Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran" (unless "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy" or something else is the official English name). I agree that this Iran example is pretty awkward whichever way it's cast, but categories elsewhere have persuaded me that "Xs of Country" works more generally... I think...!  Regards, David ( talk) 22:03, 1 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 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 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Natives of Sefton to Category:People from Sefton

• Rename. For consistency with other similar categories. -- Necrothesp 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Badbilltucker 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Mereda 09:01, 28 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 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Natives of Bootle to Category:People from Bootle

• Rename. To be consistent with other similar categories. -- Necrothesp 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Badbilltucker 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Mereda 09:02, 28 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 per newer CFD -- Kbdank71 18:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Actors by television series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, It is generally a bad idea to create individual categories for specific movies and television shows to sort actors. The reason is that most actors have up to 50 or 100 or more movies and shows on their IMDB listings, which would mean that if you create a new category for every movie and show called "Actors in fill-in-the-blank" each actor will have 50 to 100 or more categories at the end of their article. Moreover, actor articles should have relatively complete "works" listings within the article showing what television shows and movies they've appeared in, so further cross-referencing by category isn't adding any additional search utility. Likewise, a TV show article or movie article should include the cast, so again you can presumably read the article to see a list of all the actors that took part. Thus Category:Actors by television series and its subcategories could potentially create 50 or 100 or more categories per actor article with little to no benefit gained. I recommend deleting this and also any subcategories related to non-notable shows. Dugwiki 19:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• SPEEDY delete this unnecessary and unmaintainable category. Doczilla 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Under what criteria could this be speedily deleted? Tim! 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Additional comment - I should mention one possibly complicating issue is that there are potentially some television series that are notable enough to warrant their own categories. For example, I think you could reasonably argue that Category:Star Trek is a perfectly fine category, and Category:Star Trek actors is a natural subcategory of that, because Star Trek as a whole has importance that extends beyond just being a television series. By contrast, I doubt the Category:The 4400 actors is necessary since "The 4400" has no real notability outside of being a television show, which means all or almost all the articles in "Category:The 4400" would be either actors in the show or episode listings. Therefore it might be necessary to keep Category:Actors by television series to sort notable television series subcats, but if so a tight lid should be established to keep the category from growing exponentially with non-notable programming. Dugwiki 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Further reference - For more reference, I found a discussion for deletion for Category:Actors by series at Actors by series and its sub-categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 26. The result of that discussion was to keep Category:Actors by series, with the apparent assumptions being that 1) only "main actors" or "regular cast members" would be listed, and 2) only notable "series" would have their own categories. Although I'm somewhat skeptical of both assumptions, this would be a similar discussion. Dugwiki 20:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per previous discussion and on a procedural note, none of the subcategories are tagged. Tim! 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I don't think such categories are a good idea for individual films, but they can be useful for television series. A lot of these categories seem to be filling with guest stars who only appeared on one or two episodes of series though. They should only include the main/recurring cast. If used in this way, they will not clutter articles as the film ones would. Categories for non-notable series should be deleted. -- musicpvm 01:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Cart before horse. If the individual categories are deleted, then this can be deleted. Not the other way around.-- Mike Selinker 04:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Good point above. Probably a better way to go is to review the individual subcategories and see which should be considered for deletion. Subcategories of series that cross genres or that have multiple articles associated with them outside of television, such as Star Trek, are probably worthwhile, but categories for otherwise relatively unimportant television series can probably be deleted. So rather than delete this parent category, we should probably scan the subcategories for possible deletions. Dugwiki 16:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Update Someone subdivided the category by genre, assuming that would end the discussion. Note that the problem wasn't subdividing the category, but rather the more general problem of what happens if most television shows and movies have their own unique categories (eg actor articles with 50 categories, one per show or film they appeared in). Dugwiki 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep: It bothers me that people are added to these categories when they are only one one episode of the series, but I do think the categories should exist for actors who played main or recurring characters. I do think the categories are being misused but I don't think misuse of categories is reason to delete. Q0 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep I agree that all this needs to be culled, but need to deal with the subcats first or tag 'em all and do an umbrella. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I think it would be a good idea to have an article like List of actors who have appeared on Star Trek so that people can get the information about the people who made a guest apperance and so that people's articles will not be full of categories of series where the actor only made one appearance. Q0 09:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Umbrella CFD nomination for subcats made - Ok, per the discussion above, I've gone ahead and created an umbrealla cfd nomination for all the subcats. I recommended converting all the subcats into list articles, to reduce the per-actor category amount and also because lists allow for more information (eg. including the character name next to the actor on the list). This category would remain in place to hold all the list articles. The umbrella nomination and discussion can be found here Dugwiki 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and delete all subcategories as well. Yes, some actors are know best (or only) because of their appearance in a specific TV series, but some actors are also known best (or only) by their appearances in specific films. Note that Category:Actors by film does not exist, because it is a) redundant with the films' cast lists and the actors' filmographies, and b) impossible to maintain. The exact same princip;e holds true here as well. - Sean Curtin 19:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Michael 20:29, 1 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 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 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Films by rating ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Not needed at all. This seems like one of those "make it because the user wanted to". Films are sorting by many other things, rating doesn't need to be part of it. This is not an all movie site. RobJ1981 19:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this useless and unendinglessly expansive category. Doczilla 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'm going to vote keep on this for a couple of reasons. First, it doesn't present much overhead per article; it only adds one category per movie article. Also, it's easily verified and objective. Finally, I can see some possible use for it. For example, let's say I'm doing an essay or reviewing data on similarities between R-rated movies, such as trying to compared R-rated movies for the purpose of determining if the rating has an impact on sales or if the rating has a correlation with violent current events. Or maybe I want to see if the guidelines for what constitutes an R-rating have changed over the years, meaning a movie that drew an R rating in 1970 might only draw a PG-13 rating today. Then I would want a list of all the movies with R-ratings from which I could draw a sample. With that in mind, I can see some use for the category and no significant downside in terms of maintaining it once it's established. Hence my vote to keep. Dugwiki 21:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It only adds one category if only American categories are used. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia, it is a global encyclopedia.
• Delete Each film has dozens of ratings around the world. Edton 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Impossible to manage - different countries. -- Beardo 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I personally don't want to have to add these to every movie page ever.-- Mike Selinker 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the argument that there are multiple ratings systems and only having the American system would not be a good thing. Recury 13:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with the arguments raised. Ratings are not important and are very dependent on where you are. Some films are available in more than one cut. Mallanox 23:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per global concerns. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reply on global concerns - The point of multiple rating systems for multiple countries is a valid one. On the other hand, it doesn't negate the potential utility of sorting films by rating as I described above. In other words, while there is a question of how many different rating systems exist, it would still be useful to have a list of, for example, all R-rated movies for people looking to study movies with similar rated characteristics and to look at how the rating systems work. In fact, it becomes even more useful when you consider the global perspective, allowing you to compare how the same movie is rated in different countries and therefore compare how different countries' rating systems operate. It might be interesting to know how Europe rates movies versus the US, for instance. So at this point I'm not completely sold on tossing out the idea of being able to search movies by ratings, but I do understand the concern about how many rating systems might be involved. Dugwiki 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • "Europe" doesn't rate films, each European country does, and there are about 50 of them. Your idea is totally impractical. Edton 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per Mallanox. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:47, 27 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 17:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:R-rated films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Pretty useless category, we don't need categories for each rating. Alot of the time, articles list the rating itself: there is no need to be redundant. RobJ1981 19:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this useless category. We've gone through this before. Doczilla 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete These ratings only apply to the United States. Edton 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete multiple jurisdictions use the R rating, and it means different things in different jurisdictions. Further films R in one jurisdiction are often not R in another. 70.51.11.116 03:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As per above.-- Mike Selinker 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Films by rating CFD. Recury 13:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:45, 27 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 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Media in Colorado ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, redundant fork of Category:Colorado media. - EurekaLott 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Doczilla 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. David Kernow ( talk) 04:42, 26 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 17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The categories serve the same purpose and are pretty small. Merge. >Radiant< 19:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge - It looks like one is for project pages and the other is for users, but since this is an administrative category, I think that the distinction isn't necessary. -- Cswrye 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename category:Wikipedia clerks to category:Wikipedian clerks, as a sub-category of Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status per all Wikipedian categories.
• Merge - all entries that are not wikipedians to category:Wikipedia Clerk's Office (should the C and O be upper or lower case, in your opinion?) - jc37 11:46, 28 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 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Acquired genetic disorders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Ambiguous. See discussion at Category_talk:Genetic_disorders apers0n 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete NCurse _work 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this vague, undefined category. Doczilla 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No such clinical entity InvictaHOG 12:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Peta 12:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Sandy 16:23, 2 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 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 17:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Simpsons characters to Category:The Simpsons characters

Category:Simpsons villains to Category:The Simpsons villains

The name of the show is The Simpsons. David Kernow ( talk) 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename both as nom. David Kernow ( talk) 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename the first, delete the latter. The Simpsons not being a good-vs-evil kind of show, the distinction of "villains" is not very useful, and most of them are ambiguous at that. >Radiant< 19:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename the first, delete the latter. Even good characters do some terrible things on that show. Judging which fit villain invokes POV. Doczilla 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename the first, delete the latter. I don't even think those characters would qualify as antagonists.-- Mike Selinker 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename the first, delete the latter - The line between antagonists and protagonists on The Simpsons is too small to call some of them "villains". -- Cswrye 00:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename the first, delete the latter per Radiant. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 16:47, 26 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 no consensus -- Kbdank71 17:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:U.S. Highways in Virginia to Category:U.S. Routes in Virginia

• Rename, these routes are known as U.S. Routes in Virginia. NE2 17:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. If this is renamed, then every other one of these sub cats also needs to be renamed. I would delay any action here untill after the local routes issue is resolved on WP:SRNC. Vegaswikian 19:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The parent category has already been renamed; why does it matter if they're renamed all at once or separately? -- NE2 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If this change is the right name, then all of the other similar named cats should be changed at the same time. Doing one and leaving the others would leave to confusion. Is there a problem doing all of these if this one is correct? Vegaswikian 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
      • There may be arguments in states that internally use U.S. Highway, but Virginia uses U.S. Route. -- NE2 05:24, 26 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 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Roads with non-normative or unusual designators ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, I don't think this is a useful category. This categorization might also lead to issues where a road does not follow one system but does follow another - which one applies? NE2 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify so that the reason for inclusion can be made obvious. Poor use of categories. -- Dhartung | Talk 11:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Where would you suggest listing them? Road number? -- NE2 16:40, 27 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 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Born-again Christian actors into Category:Christian actors

• Merge, This category seems awfully POV, as well as being hard to verify. I think it should be merged into the parent category. Shannernanner 10:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete, overcat. >Radiant< 19:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete per above. Doczilla 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I created this because many in the main cat seemed to be identified this way that it seemed permanent. In hindsight the main category was never crowded enough to justify it so I'm good with a merger. Possibly Category:Presbyterian actors should also be merged back into the main cat.-- T. Anthony 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. I don't think that the distinction is necessary. -- Cswrye 00:32, 26 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 17:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I created Category:Feminism opposition, but I'm no longer certain it's useful or that the name even sounds right. Possibly it could work if renamed, but ehh.-- T. Anthony 06:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• If kept, rename to Category:Opposition to feminism. David Kernow ( talk) 06:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no need to cat politicians by every single standpoint, not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 19:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, agree with above. Neutrality ^talk 03:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Any person who was notable solely for their opposition to feminism could be in Category:Feminism or something similar. -- tjstrf 05:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, all of these "political stance" categories should be purged, as they are prone to POV abuse, and difficult to verify. Crockspot 16:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, open to POV and general silliness Jasper23 02:17, 27 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 no change, categories not tagged for renaming -- Kbdank71 17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Encyclopedias restructure
  • Category:General encyclopedias
  • Category:Domain specific encyclopedias to Category:Specialized encyclopedias
    • Category:Encyclopedias on gastronomy: move single article to Category:Cookbooks, then delete.
    • Create Category:Mathematics, natural science, and technology encyclopedias
      • Merge Category:Encyclopedias on science and mathematics with newly-created parent.
    • Category:Social sciences and humanities encyclopedias
      • Category:Encyclopedias on culture and ethnicity to Category:Culture and ethnicity encyclopedias
      • Category:Encyclopedias on history to Category:History encyclopedias
      • Category:Encyclopedias on music to Category:Music encyclopedias
      • Category:Encyclopedias on literature to Category:Literature encyclopedias
        • Merge Category:Encyclopedias on fictional worlds with (renamed) parent.
      • Category:Encyclopedias on literature to Category:Literature encyclopedias
      • Category:Encyclopedias on religion to Category:Religion encyclopedias
      • Category:Encyclopedias on the military to Category:Military encyclopedias
  • Category:National encyclopedias
  • Category:Encyclopedias by language
    • Category:Arabic encyclopedias et al to Category:Arabic-language encyclopedias et al.
  • Category:Children's encyclopedias
  • Category:Online encyclopedias
  • Category:Encyclopedists
  • Category:Fictional encyclopedias

-- Neutrality ^talk 06:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Note: None of these are tagged. Please tag them so the debate can involve all interested parties.-- Mike Selinker 11:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Re Category:Domain specific encyclopedias, if kept, amend to Category:Domain-specific encyclopedias;
  Re Category:Arabic encyclopedias et al to Category:Arabic-language encyclopedias et al, might the category be meant for encyclopedias on these subjects regardless of where or in what language they might be written...?  Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 07:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Seems a fine scheme. I would say that category:Science and mathematics encyclopedias is a better name than Category:Mathematics, natural science, and technology encyclopedias. It's a little unclear to me that the language categories need to change the way newspapers did, but I certainly don't have an objection.-- Mike Selinker 14:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Looks good to me. I have added Larousse Gastronomique into Category:Specialized_encyclopedias , it is an important reference work for food and drink see [1] GameKeeper 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, with concerns per David Kernow. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I created most of the "<language> encyclopedias" a few days ago to organize the general encyclopedias. I would suggest to rename them to "<language>-language general encyclopedias" instead of (as well as) creating an "encyclopedias by language" subdivision. A category like "English-languge encyclopedis" wouldn't be very useful if it contained not only Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, ..., but all specialized encyclopedias as well. — Ruud 21:41, 25 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.