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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Greek Pederasty to Category:Pederasty in ancient Greece

• Rename, The category is specific to ancient Greece, and the name should be of the form "Foo in country" (or in this case, cultural region). --Akhilleus ( talk) 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. As per nom. Haiduc 02:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Renaming helps clarification of the subject and historical accuracy.-- Yannismarou 16:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: inclusion of Santorini makes me wonder how such category could be maintained. Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Yannismarou.-- Aldux 17:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 17:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Richard Morris Hunt buildings, found languishing in Category:CfD 2006-10. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Wimstead 16:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge. (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 25#Category:Richard Morris Hunt buildings) - EurekaLott 22:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Censorship advocates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As much as I'd like to tar and feather every one of these bastards (check out how many books Anthony Comstock was responsible for destroying), I think the category is too vague to be meaningful because censorship is regrettably too pervasive. It's a very slim minority of the politicians presently in office in the United States that don't support some form of government-enforced censorship, whether it's of depictions of sexuality on the internet, violence in video games, or profanity on broadcast media. And that's in an ostensibly free country...this would additionally become a dumping ground for every leader from a nation that suppresses political speech. Postdlf 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I started the category. Tarring & feathering aside, I think it's important to be able to understand the work of those involved on all sides of the free expression / censorship continuum. Your point that it is too vague is well-taken. I'm not sure I agree -- possibly, it could be defined well enough to be meaningful. The point about the dumping ground is a little different. Yes, almost everyone agrees on "censorship" in some instances and "free expression" in other instances, but that's a problem with any short description of a political or activist perspective.... However, maybe there's a better way to slice this. The category/ies that I think would be helpful to support the work in First Amendment, censorship, First Amendment caselaw, and other articles, would be categories that gather individuals who have played a role in developing the free expression/censorship debates, dialogs, disputes. I set up Category:Free speech activists as part of that larger project. Thoughts? -- LQ 23:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It sounds like an article might be better suited to your goal of documenting the history of the "debates, dialogs, and disputes" between free expression and censorship in this country. Censorship in the United States or Free speech in the United States, for example. Postdlf 23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Indeed, those articles need a lot of work. But look at Free speech in the United States which has see refs to Floyd Abrams; or the see also free speech advocates on Censorship in the United States. Both of these are completely inadequate--why just Floyd Abrams, for instance? Categories to pull together organizations and individuals who work in this area -- on whatever side -- would, IMO, be useful and would support these pages. -- LQ 23:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Floyd Abrams is mentioned because a certain Wikipedian happens to be a really big fan. And because there really aren't that many notable attorneys whose careers were so significantly defined by their First Amendment work. But regarding this category, I just don't think it makes sense to lump "censorship advocates" together without regard to what they want to censor, or how they sought to do it. Without that context, it just expands to "People who support governmental regulation of the content of at least some speech." Which is unfortunately most people at all times in history at all places. The consequence of this can be seen already in this category, in the equivocation of Wertham with Comstock. I'd be happy to work with you elsewhere to expand Wikipedia's objective coverage of these issues and this history, but this category is not the way to do it. Postdlf 00:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete An attack category that is highly likely to be misused. Cloachland 02:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: There should be a brief paragraph on the page Category:Censorship advocates to explain who is included or excluded. As it stands, one would have to read over all three articles to figure it out. Flibirigit 10:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Category is broad and vague. These articles are better suited being linked to an article on censorship. Flibirigit 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete for muddled thinking. Anyone who thinks that practical demonstrations of methods of child abuse shouldn't be broadcast on primetime television advocates censorship. In the Western world "Censorship" is mainly a term of abuse used by people who advocate laxer controls to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them, and there is also the irony that the liberals who denounce censorship take a hard line against the expression of conservative opinions they disagree with, to the point for example of hounding the President of Harvard into resigning for making a moderate comment as part of a serious debate. This acts to censor anyone else who might dare to utter an unfashionable opinion. If that isn't censorship, there is no censorship in the Western world. The term has been debased to the point where it is inadvisable to use it in the context of Western culture or society. Merchbow 14:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This topic can only be properly covered by an article, where each example may be placed in context. Wimstead 17:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The word "censorship" could easily be liberally interpreted here, thus creating a POV problem. I can simply imagine that publishers that do not want to fund all submitted publication, news sources that do not want to include graphic or inflammatory journal, or academic journals that do not want to accept all submitted articles could easily be labeled as committing "censorship" by some angry Wikipedians. It would be better to delete this category. George J. Bendo 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete At first this category looks like libel, but really it's just naive. Metthurst 05:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Carlossuarez46 00:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Cities in Mongolia to Category:Cities and towns in Mongolia

• Rename, This category appears to cover both cities and towns so the name should reflect that, in line with various of its siblings, unless anyone is aware of an official distiction between cities and towns in Mongolia. Hawkestone 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Fundraisers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What do Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, and Jerry Lewis have in common? They all have raised money. For something. Somehow. Yeah, that's all this category is formed around. Delete as vague to the point of total uselessness. We already have useful categories specific to issue/cause advocates, lobbyists, and politicians. Postdlf 20:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete but definitely create Uncyclopedia entries for the Howard Dean Vermont cannabutter bake sale, Pat Robertson bikini car wash and of course Let's Save Tony Orlando's House. - choster 21:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Completely unencyclopedic. SupaStarGirl 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Is there anyone who is notable who was not a fundraiser? Vegaswikian 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In much of the world the Big Men only raise funds for their own pockets. Does that count? Nonomy 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Detroit Jr. Red Wings alumni to Category:Detroit Junior Red Wings alumni

• Rename category as per team's article being renamed from Detroit Jr. Red Wings to Detroit Junior Red Wings. Flibirigit 19:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Postdlf 17:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Women Politicians - Bolivia to Category:Women politicians - Bolivia

Category:Women Politicians - Republic of Botswana to Category:Women politicians - Republic of Botswana

Category:Women Politicians - France to Category:Women politicians - France

Category:Women Politicians - Ireland to Category:Women politicians - Ireland

Category:Women Politicians - Sweden to Category:Women politicians - Sweden

Category:Women politicians - Iran

Category:Women politicians - United Kingdom

Category:Women politicians - United States

Category:Women in politics by nationality

• Rename [all], Consistency with other sister categories in Category:Women in politics by nationality. — Markles 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete [all]There are thousands of female politicians in the world and the number is increasing rapidly so there is no reason to have these gender categories.The name[s are] malformed in any case. Hawkestone 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - jc37 12:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all as unnecessary breaches of the general policy against gender-categorisation. Merchbow 15:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The other 3 national categories and the parent have now been added to the list. Merchbow 15:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete alll. Pavel Vozenilek 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all and Comment. The "policy" against gender categorization is a guideline, not a policy. The guideline specifically notes that categorizing politicians by sex is legitimate. Otto4711 23:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per Hawkestone. In the event that there is not a consensus to delete, prevailing naming standards should control to rename all to "[Nationality] female politicians," e.g., Category:American female politicians. Postdlf 01:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all (and even if they were kept this is clearly intended as a "by country" categorisation, not a "by nationality" one). -- Mais oui! 10:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Bissinger 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Info From the guidelines: For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Bissinger 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Female heads of government are still uncommon, but female politicians are not. Calsicol 14:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per previous comments. Nonomy 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge/delete all 3. the wub "?!" 20:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Women members of the United States House of Representatives to Category:Female members of the United States House of Representatives
Category:Female United States senators to Category:United States Senators
Category:Women in the United States Congress delete

• Rename, Just to make it the same as Category:Female United States senators. — Markles 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• DeleteThere are thousands of female politicians in the world and the number is increasing rapidly so there is no reason to have these gender categories.The name is malformed in any case. Hawkestone 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• UpMerge to Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives and Category:United States Senators. Some of these articles are only listed in this category and need to be moved to the parent.
  Delete Category:Women in the United States Congress. Vegaswikian 08:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• UpMerge to Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives. - jc37 12:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• UpMerge to Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives. Merchbow 15:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. This is an exception to Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. Categorizing politicians by sex is encyclopedically useful. Otto4711 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per Hawkestone. Listifying would additionally be appropriate, so that the female members of Congress can be documented in order of their election. Postdlf 01:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment added senate category to discussion for consideration for upmerge as well. Category is now tagged. Vegaswikian 03:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete as necessary to remove all politicians by gender categories. Landolitan 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete, overcat. >Radiant< 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Women members of HoR to Female members of HoR just for consistency with the Senate cat, Keep Female US senators, Delete Women in Congress as redundant. Again, the gender guideline specifically states that categorizing politicians by sex is acceptable and reasonable. I am at a loss to understand why, when there's already been concensus reached on that particular point, people continue to try to backdoor past it on rename nominations to delete the cats. It's extremely tiresome. Otto4711 05:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per the guidelines: For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Bissinger 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • These are not heads of government. Vegaswikian 19:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/delete Female heads of government are still uncommon, but female politiicans are not. Calsicol 14:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete/upmerge The time for making a point about politicians's gender has passed. The U.S. Secretary of State and the House Speaker are both women, but they should be judged as politicians, not as women. Nonomy 23:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This category Category:Physical fitness has a scope extremely close to the pre-existing category of Category:Exercise. I don't believe its existence as a broad enough seperate sub-topic is warranted at this time, as evidenced by its size of containing one article after existing for a month and a half. Kurieeto 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. Flibirigit 10:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Suggestion Curves for Women would be better suited in Category:Exercise and Category:Diets. Flibirigit 10:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Spam magnet. Pavel Vozenilek 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Landolitan 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename both. the wub "?!" 20:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:D66 to Category:Democrats 66
Category:VVD to Category:People's Party for Freedom and Democracy
Rename to match parent articles, and to avoid acronyms that are probably unknown to non-Dutch speakers. See also prior CFR for related article. Postdlf 18:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename both, per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename both per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 02:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename both per nom. Nonomy 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 11:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:People from Hempstead, New York. Note that there is also a Town of Hempstead, New York. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, as I recall, we had decided against categorizing people by birthdays. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Deleteper nom. Merchbow 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. There is already a list. Postdlf 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. SupaStarGirl 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Hawkestone 22:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Christmas is Gregorian January 6 or January 7 in Orthodox observance, and the gift-giving and other practices associated with Christmas may take place as early as December 6 and as late as January 13 in various cultures. - choster 22:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. NN, they do not have powers of Midnight Children. Pavel Vozenilek 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This is mildly interesting, but the list already exists elsewhere, and categorizing articles based on this criteria is inappropriate. George J. Bendo 18:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete useless trivia (like astrological sign). Notably Jesus is not included and Anwar Sadat is even though presumably Christmas was meaningless to him. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, premature, due to the missing Laing Rail article. Keep if the article is created before closing time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Manhunt (2004 TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Obscure TV show filled with non-notable biography stubs, several of which I'm going to be putting up for deletion. Otto4711 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. Many TV categories need to go, hopefully this is the start of many CFDs on them. RobJ1981 02:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Computer and video games based on DC Comics. the wub "?!" 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Aquaman video games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Aqua Man has had one starring role, and several appearances in other games. That's certainly not enough to justify a category. This is similar to other video game cats that were deleted, because of the same reason. RobJ1981 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Only lead features X define works such that it makes sense to call them "X works." Postdlf 22:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Computer and video games based on DC Comics - Aquaman simply has not been very notable in video games to warrant a category, but collecting games based on miscellaneous comic book characters is useful. George J. Bendo 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, merge there. Postdlf 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep but rename to Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism to remove ambiguity and for consistency with related categories. the wub "?!" 18:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Roman Catholic converts

This category neither gives a usefull navigational aid nor does it help in systematically categorizing article space. At the very least, it should be restricted to those persons, notable for their conversion. Trivia like Von Neumann agreed to convert to Catholicism to placate her family. (from John von Neumann) earn hardly a place in the article, let alone should be used for categorization. -- Pjacobi 11:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Misuse is possible in any category and isn't a reason to delete. Names that don't fit should be removed and I'm willing to do so to some extent. Other than that this is no different than Category:Converts to Shi'a Islam or Category:Converts to Orthodox Judaism. (As in conversion to a specific stream or denomination of a religion) In addition to that being a convert to a religion can be as, or often more, significant than being born into it.-- T. Anthony 13:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Sigh. We've met at more than one religious category cfd. It seems that the religion-fixation of en.wikipedia is un-curable, but you are a nice one. We can try together to sift the entries after this cfd fails, but I'm fairly certain, that the von Neumann stlye entries will pop up again over time. -- Pjacobi 15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I respect your position, but I think the religious history of a person is often a useful and relevant part of their notability. In this case there's historical interest due to the converts from the Oxford Movement, which I did a presentation on in graduate school, and a few other movements. Still I guess I could tolerate it being deleted as long as every subcategory in Category:Converts is deleted and the conversion lists survive. (I do concede the List of Catholic converts, List of converts to Judaism, etc might be a better/more informative way to deal with this.)-- T. Anthony 07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep - If Category:Former Muslims is kept, then so should this be. - jc37 12:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-defining category. The fact that there are many crappy categories is no reason to multiply their number even more. Pavel Vozenilek 15:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• If kept, the category should be renamed Category:Converts to Roman Catholicism, in order to avoid the ambiguity of the current name and to align with the other categories in Category:Converts. - EurekaLott 23:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename per EurekaLott. — BrianSmithson 08:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Category:Converts to Christianity is good enough. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep and rename per EurekaLott. Carlossuarez46 00:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I know at least one potential Catholic convert who found this category very useful. -- Cat Whisperer 15:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Horsemen of Apocalypse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete trivial comic book supervillain group category. The parent article, Horsemen of Apocalypse, already lists everyone ever considered a member of this. The main problem with this category is that many characters became "members" simply by being brainwashed by Apocalypse, so by virtue of a one- or two- issue plot twist, this becomes additional meaningless clutter on the articles of some major characters, like the Hulk and Wolverine. Plus there's our prior CFD precedents against categorizing the affiliations of comic book characters...but this one fails regardless. Postdlf 05:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. In some sense these are not even these characters, as some are from the world of Apocalypse, where things went differently than in standard continuity.-- Mike Selinker 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. The article covers the Horsemen already, there is no need for a category on it. RobJ1981 02:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Membership in the Horsemen of the Apocalypse is not a defining characteristic for many Marvel characters. George J. Bendo 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Gonzaga to Category:House of Gonzaga

• Rename to match the head article and similar categoriesof category:Italian nobility. Circeus 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Renameper nom. Merchbow 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. It would also prevent ambiguity with Category:Gonzaga University, especially for North American users. Flibirigit 10:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have amended from "Gonzagua" to "Gonzaga" as the former was obviously a typo. Merchbow 15:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. If someone wants to split Category:Television films by decade then go ahead. the wub "?!" 17:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Television films, or Keep. Should there be a Category:Television films by year? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge. The films categories tend to be split by decade rather than individual year, so someday we may have Category:2000s television films, but not today, I think. Cheers, Pegship 05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and use appropriate category:Works by year subcategories (e.g. category:Films by year) subcategories until there is enough warrant. Circeus 16:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Suggestion I feel it would be better to create Category:2000s television films now, rather than having this discussion again later. Flibirigit 21:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • My feeling was that if we were planning to divide them by time, now might be a good time to start. I think going by decade rather than year is a good idea, since there are fewer tv movies, or at least feweer ones that get articles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and create Category:2000s television films per comment above. Flibirigit 10:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• I you can show me a link to this TV film by decade listing (can't seem to find it : ) - Merge to Category:2000s television films per comments above. - jc37 12:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It doesn't currently exist, but it certainly could if there's consensus. Pegship 21:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Superman pastiches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete subjective category. Superman in popular culture already has an extensive list of supposed pastiches and parodies, which can be justified there through explanations and citations (and removed if either is not provided). Keeping this as a category is just begging for subjectivity, original research, and an eventual flood of entries, considering how formative Superman was of the entire superhero genre. We might as well create Category:Superheroes who can fly and wear capes. Postdlf 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete subjective category that expresses POV regarding characters' status as pastiches. Category leaves too much room for POV, OR, and an endless, arguable list of entries. Doczilla 04:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify? and delete... This category is pretty iffy... for instance, Steel isn't a Superman pastiche, he's a character who pays homage to Superman by wearing his symbol. On the other hand, Hyperion and Sentry are... and that's a rather important trait for them. So, consider if a list is viable, but delete the category. -- HKMarks( T/ C) 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oh hey, a list. -- HKMarks( T/ C) 05:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete redundant with list, and subjective. Flibirigit 21:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I know I'm going against the mob here, but as Superman was the first superhero, this topic is actually notable. - jc37 12:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• No one is disputing that the topic of Superman pastiches is encyclopedic, which is why it's covered in its own section in Superman in popular culture. What is being disputed is that it makes for a good and useful category, which you haven't addressed. Postdlf 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• If you agree that it's "encylopedic", and notable, then the only question is whether it's disputable. Reading above, it sounds like this is merely a category in need of some cleanup. - jc37 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• No, the comments above establish that cleanup is insufficient. You still haven't explained why a category is appropriate, in lieu of or in addition to the list that already exists. Postdlf 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I disagree that Postdlf, Doczilla, HKMarks, Flibirigit and Hawkestone constitute a "mob". Merchbow 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply

  I meant "mob" differently than you took it, I merely was euphemistically meaning "grouping of people" (the pack, the hordes, etc), in other words, the majority who voted delete above. However, I also realise that the word can have negative connotations, my apologies for the confusion. - jc37 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. While I may be almost alone in thinking this, I think it's a very useful category. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 15:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• ...because? And please address specifically why it's useful as a category, instead of being kept only as an annotated, sourced list. Postdlf 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speaking for myself, because in my experience, categories up for deletion are rarely actually made into lists, but merely deleted. Also, there is no reason that a List, a category, and a NavBox cannot all exist covering the same things - per: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Here's a link, for anyone who might wish to create such a list: List of Superman pastiches. - jc37 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• There already is a list at Superman in popular culture, as I mentioned above. Yes, sometimes lists, categories, and navboxes are all appropriate to maintain for the same subject, but only when there's a form-specific benefit to doing so that outweighs any drawbacks. Postdlf 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• When looking at Superman in popular culture#Homages and pastiches, my first thought was "where are the references showing this?" So I looked over the category under discussion, with that in mind, and it's worse. Now normally I would suggest clean-up, but I'm thinking that Postdlf is right, anyone who has powers similar to the powers and abilities of Superman, is likely to be listed without reference. I'm convinced. Changing my "vote". - jc37 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Trivial and subjective. Metthurst 06:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete & Listify I created this cat a while back to include together characters who are obvious and intentional pastiches of Supes outside the DCU: Apollo, Mr Majestic, etc but it's been filled with junk ever since (team Superman members, anything with Super in the name). Make it a list to save the relevant info. Perhaps a better name/description would fix the problem? Palendrom 22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and hopefully listify to Superman in popular culture#Homages and pastiches, or send both that list and the category's listing to List of Superman pastiches. Though both lists need cleanup. - jc37 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

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