- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Just another WoW-vandalism page that was missed when most of the vandal pages and related pages were deleted some time ago. --
Azer Red
Si?
22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Click the link. The page has been deleted and protected from recreation.--
Azer Red
Si?
22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oopsies. I thought it had been overturned at DRV, apparently it was not. -
Amark
moo!
23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). 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The result of the debate was withdrawn.
the wub
"?!"
07:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Disaster movies to
Category:Disaster films
- Rename, Per naming conventions (all other genres are under "films")
Wizardman
22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename, it seems that it would make sense for the category to be 'disaster films', seeing as the article is 'distaster film', don't you think?
Michael Billington (
talk •
contribs)
22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. -
LA @
22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep The last nomination only just closed, and as was pointed out in that discussion, "disaster movie" is the standard term.
Sumahoy
01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep the standard term. Everybody calls them "disaster movies." Nobody says "disaster films."
Wryspy
04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I finally found the previous discussion. Perhaps I was hasty in nominating this. Since this was done so quickly any admin is free to close this CfD. I believe it should be changed but I withdraw my nom. --
Wizardman
04:25, 22 January 2007 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
delete, up to 90% of the population of some Latin American countries is mestizo. This category is going to be ridiculously large, and it will never be complete.
Mixcoatl
22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Churches in Alberta
Category:Villages in Silesia
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Villages in Silesia (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
The whole collection of subcategories of
Category:Silesia created by
LUCPOL (
talk ·
contribs), such as
category:Universities and colleges in Silesia must be investigated for deletion. The point is that "Silesia" is a historical region, now split beween Poland and Czechia. I am strongly against having anynhing but history-related subcategories for such things. Whate else? Shall we create
Category:Universities in Siberia?
category:Towns in Tanganyika?
Category:Mountains in Holy Roman Empire? `'
mikka
21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
Without exaggeration. Silesia is region such how
Bavaria,
Bohemia or
Chechnya etc. This category is OK. PS. I created the part of subcategories, different also created:
Category:Dukes of Silesia,
Category:Natives of Silesia,
Category:Lower Silesian Voivodeship etc.
LUCPOL
21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Generally only current boundaries should be used in categorization to avoid confusion, overlap and POV pushing.
Sumahoy
01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom and
Sumahoy.
Pinoakcourt
17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Categories may be reasonable for recognizable (usually formerly independent, autonomous, or otherwise defined) areas subsumed within the boundries a modern state, even without current status or central-government-imposed borders. For example, we have categories for
Category:Byzantine emperors rather than calling them Turkish Emperors,
Category:Cantons of the Helvetic Republic rather than calling them Former Swiss cantons not now in Switzerland or some other circumlocution., etc....
Carlossuarez46
21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Your cited examples don't back up this claim, that it is a reasonable use "...for recognizable ... areas subsumed within the boundaries a modern state, even without current status or central-government-imposed borders." Your examples are being used for historical topics, topics for which it would be an anachronistic to use present day names etc. This is not what is happening with this, and the other, 'Silesia' categories. This is an attempt to force modern-day Polish entities through a Silesian-shaped hole.
-
Xdamr
talk
15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom and
Sumahoy. Anachronistic territorial categorisations should be strenuously avoided unless there is compelling justification. No such reasons have been presented here.
-
Xdamr
talk
15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American conservatives
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete first, merge the second.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
Category:American conservatives (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Upmerge
Category:American constitutionalists to
Category:American people by political orientation
Per discussion at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 19#Category:American liberals, as something of a counterpart, I nominate
Category:American conservatives.
'Conservative' (like 'Liberal') is a vague term, encompassing a wide range of opinions over a wide range of topics—topics such as social issues, economics, personal morality, abortion, etc, etc. Both 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are simply too imprecise to cover such a multiplicity of areas. If we want to categorise by view/outlook (which it seems that we are happy to do—see
CFD (11/16) then it is far better to follow the practice within the parent category,
Category:American people by political orientation, where we have specific categories for American socialists, American pacifists, American libertarians, etc.
Xdamr
talk
21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete/Merge per nom --
Xdamr
talk
21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete/merge per nom; "conservative," like "liberal," is (to quote myself regarding the other CFD) "incapable of precise, objective definition and meaningless without cultural/historical context and explanation. The meaning of the term has shifted too much over its centuries of usage and has too much breadth for this to accomplish anything informative." Anything that requires explanation to make sense, and to prevent equivocating unlike things, is not proper material for a category.
Postdlf
21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete/merge per nom. In addition to the varieties of contempirary conservatism, these terms havce changed meaning over time. As one example of the confusion, many of those who call themseves "conservatives" advocate economic policies which, 100 years ago, would have been called "liberal" (minimal trade barriers etc, minimal state regulation). Since these categories don't have historical time limts, the categories become unworkable; someone accurately described as "conservative" in 1907 would probably disagree vehemently with somone so described in 2007. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete if the liberal category is also deleted/Keep if opposite.
Veracious Rey
t •
c •
r
03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per various precedents like the liberal category. This invokes POV, OR, and speculation.
Wryspy
04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete American conservatives for same reasons that American liberals should be deleted; altho AmCons is slightly less vague than AmLibs, it's only slightly, and still presents problems of having to be defined before it's understood. --
lquilter
00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, whether or not
Category:American liberals is deleted. Two wrongs doesn't make one right.--
Per Abrahamsen
01:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all
both this and its liberal counterpart. Remember that many people's political beliefs change over time. It's unfair and inaccurate to categorize them so broadly.
Lovelac7
03:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete both, vague.
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Is this 'delete both conservative and liberals' or 'delete both conservatives and constitutionalists'?
-
Xdamr
talk
20:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- All.
Lovelac
7
02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- That was very unclear of me... I'm surprised I wrote that. I meant "delete conservatives and liberals". I would vote to delete either even if the other vote failed, per Per Abrahamsen. I'm not convinced that American Constitutionalists is a good idea for a category, but I'll forgo a vote either way due to uncertainty.
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete category. Not very accurate. Not very useful.
Nerdland
06:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rip-offs of Gimmick!
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Rip-offs of Gimmick! (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Not only does there not need to be categories of "rip-offs", but this one has no basis whatsoever that the articles included in the category reflect the category itself.
The S
20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
delete and merge -
WP:OC --
Vs22
20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Locales in Andorra
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Locales in Andorra to
Category:Settlements in Andorra
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sagas of Iceland
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Sagas of Iceland (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. I can't even undestand what it means. Does it refer to sagas written in Iceland? Most of them were, and in that case, Icelandic sagas would be a better name. Does it mean sagas dealing with Icelandic matter? Obviously not, since, for instance Hrólfs saga kraka (which deals with a Danish king), Yngliga saga (about lengendary kings of Sweden) and many others are listed here. We already have all the categories we need (especially
Category:Sagas, where most of the articles of the category could me moved.
Sigo
16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Members of the Welsh Assembly
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Members of the Welsh Assembly to
Category:Members of the National Assembly for Wales
- Rename, to align with the name of the main article, which is at
Members of the National Assembly for Wales.
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
15:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. --
Mais oui!
15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Renqme per nom. --
Xdamr
talk
18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom.
Xiner (
talk,
email)
19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom.
Sumahoy
01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. --
Mikedk9109
(hit me up)
SIGN
04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. Rgds, -
Trident13
21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Hairspray actors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, or at least Rename to
Category:Night Stalker cast members. --
Prove It
(talk)
15:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - short-lived show, cast list in main show article is sufficient along with appropriate notation in cast members' articles.
Otto4711
15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Otto4711.
Xiner (
talk,
email)
19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
Otto4711. --
Xdamr
talk
20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - short-lived show(s) already covered by cast list.
Doczilla
01:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete no need for a cat when there is already a list. --
Mikedk9109
(hit me up)
SIGN
04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Cast list is sufficient. --
Samuel Wantman
20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete When the reader can view the entire cast list of a film or tv series within the main article, there is little benefit to having it as a category.
Dugwiki
21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as redundant.
Prolog
05:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to Nigh Stalker cast per
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_15#Actors_to_Cast_Members. No compelling reasons to delete have been given.
Tim!
07:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Otto4711. The most overriding reason, IMHO, is that to categorize an actor for each (part of an) hour of work s/he does is neither meaningful or encyclopedic, and will obscure meaningful category attributes of the actor (perhaps, Academy Awards categories lost among how many movies/tv shows/radio shows/advertisements s/he has guested or starred -- no distinction apparently -- on, <rant> not to mention his/her religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political views, handedness, car-ownership, ipod ownership, </rant> but I digress.....)
Carlossuarez46
23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete, list already present so no information lost.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, The list in the
John Hobbs Medal article will do. --
Prove It
(talk)
14:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Award recipient categories should be used only for awards that define the recipient (e.g., "Nobel laureates), lest they lead to category
cruft clutter for multi-award-winners. --
lquilter
17:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Out of interest, does this view extend toward decorations/orders as issued by the state (not awards though)? Would you regard
Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross as being an example of 'cruft'? cf. debate on
WP:ODM talk page.
-
Xdamr
talk
20:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The Victoria Cross is the top award in its field and in most cases it is the main reason why holders have an article. A better comparison would be with lower military decorations, and I would say that they should not have categories.
Honbicot
17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep This is a serious award, one which deserves far more respect than
Category:Australian Big Brother Award Winners and the like. On this ground I prefer that it be kept. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether categorisation is the best thing for an award which has only been bestowed on 9+ recipients. On the whole though, I incline towards keeping it, albeit weakly.
-
Xdamr
talk
23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I said "cruft", which is unduly and inappropriately contemptuous. "Clutter" would be better & I've changed it above.
- Xdamr, I'm not familiar enough with the ODMs by state awards to know how they're applied or how many winners there are, or what sorts of people get them, and so on.
- My concern for award-winner cats in general (and maybe it applies to ODMs-by-states) is that well-known people can receive many awards of various sorts. Scientists, actors, philanthropists, artists, and so on can get dozens, scores, of awards. I am incredibly inclusionist on articles for awards, but creating categories for the winners of individual awards seems of little value and actually, actively, confusing to people.
- Browsing the winners could as easily be accomplished through lists on the award page, or separate lists if big enough. More easily, actually, because oftentimes not all winners of a particular award will have their own articles, thus rendering the category incomplete.
- Unlike the list, you can't tell that a category incomplete; and the name of the category "X award winners" suggests completeness more than some kinds of category names (e.g., "Churches of England"). With lists it's much more obvious if they're incomplete. So categories of award-winners are, I feel, confusing if not deceptive. --
lquilter
00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Don't worry too much about 'cruft', I' didn't mind it too much :)
- Really I was just wondering if you made a distinction between private (or state) awards/prizes and state decorations. An award is an award—it may be a worthwhile one such as the Nobel prize, or it may be that you have won 'Big Brother' or something equally trivial. State decorations on the other hand, especially those for bravery/military service, don't tend to be given out for no reason. With these sort of decorations, receiving them becomes more of a biographical detail rather than something intrinsically bound up with the decoration itself; that being the case I regard categorisation as being reasonable. Further, with recipients typically running into the hundreds/thousands, it would be tricky to maintain as an article.
-
Xdamr
talk
01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- On a side note, since it came up, I think it is also worth considering nominating
Category:Australian Big Brother Award Winners for deletion for the same reasons this category is up for deletion. If anyone seconds that notion, feel free to cfd it and I'll probably support the nomination.
Dugwiki
17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Providing the award is well known and reputable I don't think it matters who awards it. The question is whether or not it is the leading award in its field and therefore a career defining achievement.
Honbicot
17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I encourage you, Dugwiki, to go for that CFD nomination, and I will vote for its deletion. --
lquilter
17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Days of our Lives actors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename, insufficient consensus for deletion.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Days of our Lives actors to
Category:Days of our Lives cast members
- For a soap opera a cast list in the article would be untenable. It would amount to thousands of names and completely overwhelm the article. A separate "list of" is better but still problematic.
Otto4711
20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- You are probably right, in which case perhaps some sort of notability test needs to be derived for soap operas, or, as you suggest, a 'List of ...'. Either way though, I remain unconvinced that categories are the answer.
-
Xdamr
talk
20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This would be much better as a list, split off from the main article. A list can add information that a category cannot, such as the years the actor was part of the cast, the character played, a picture, etc... --
Samuel Wantman
21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom, to exclude guest stars; no strong objections to deleting in favor of lists.
Postdlf
21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. --
Mikedk9109
(hit me up)
SIGN
04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Xdamr.
Doczilla
06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or rename per Otto4711 .
Mr. Stabs
14:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename (assuming its kept) Without commenting on keep vs delete, assuming it's kept rename to cast per previous similar discussions.
Dugwiki
21:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete this and all cast list categories. --
Samuel Wantman
21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Xdamr. Actors don't need to be categorized by their performances. "List of" article should work better.
Prolog
05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete cruft.
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Gilmore Girls actors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: ditto.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Gilmore Girls actors to
Category:Gilmore Girls cast members
- Rename - per many previous "actors" to "cast members" CfR discussions.
Otto4711
13:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom.
Tim!
14:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Categories are an unsuitable vehicle for conveying this sort of information. Far better to have a cast list in the main article, and to place the appropriate acting credit on the individual actor's WP page. --
Xdamr
talk
20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom, to exclude guest stars; no strong objections to deleting in favor of lists.
Postdlf
21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. --
Mikedk9109
(hit me up)
SIGN
04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Xdamr.
Doczilla
06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or rename per Otto4711.
Mr. Stabs
14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Xdamr. Whether we keep or delete these categories should not be based on a popularity poll on the series. They should ALL go. --
Samuel Wantman
20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename (if kept) or delete Assuming the category is kept, rename to cast. I'd also support deletion, since the cast list is already included in the main article and the category offers little extra utility, but there isn't yet a strong consensus one way or another on which actor-by-tv series categories to delete or which to keep.
Dugwiki
22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Even if it were renamed to "cast", the regular cast is about a dozen folks; easily manageable with a list. --
lquilter
01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Actors don't need to be categorized by their performances. Therefore, list article is more suitable.
Prolog
05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Prolog.
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
03:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - These actor categories are not feasible.
Dr. Submillimeter
22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Will & Grace actors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: ditto.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Will & Grace actors to
Category:Will & Grace cast members
- Rename - per the many, many other CfRs deciding to rename "actor" categories to "cast members."
Otto4711
13:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom.
Tim!
14:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Categories are an unsuitable vehicle for conveying this sort of information. Far better to have a cast list in the main article, and to place the appropriate acting credit on the individual actor's WP page. --
Xdamr
talk
20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom, to exclude guest stars; no strong objections to deleting in favor of lists.
Postdlf
21:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. --
Mikedk9109
(hit me up)
SIGN
04:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Xdamr.
Doczilla
06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or rename per Otto4711.
Mr. Stabs
14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Xdamr. -
Samuel Wantman
20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename (if kept) or delet Assuming it's kept, rename using "cast" (do we need "cast members"? Or is just "cast" sufficient?) I also would support deletion, since the cast list is easily accessible from the main article.
Dugwiki
22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - even if it were renamed to "cast", that would only include, what, half a dozen actors? And it was a pretty stable cast, too, so it will be easy to list them. --
lquilter
01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Actors don't need to be categorized by their performances. Therefore, list article is more suitable.
Prolog
05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as overcategorisation (since cast list is readily accessible), otherwise rename for clarity. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Prolog.
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
03:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - These actor categories are not feasible.
Dr. Submillimeter
22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tamil filmmakers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Tamil filmmakers to
Category:Tamil film directors
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, due to
subjective inclusion criteria, who is a champion? --
Prove It
(talk)
06:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as hopelessly vague category title (the title appears to have been taken from the opening sentence of one of the category's two articles
John Harris (critic)). --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete POV.
Xiner (
talk,
email)
19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, meaningless. I was just considering creating
Category:Countries that sound like they're named after 1960's garage bands for
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; this could go in
Category:Categories that sound like really lame 1980's cartoons.
Postdlf
21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Sumahoy
01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete You could say anyone was a champion. --
Mikedk9109
(hit me up)
SIGN
04:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Queen might say "We are the champions", but aside from that it's too subjective.
Dugwiki
22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete lol @ Dugwiki
146.186.44.199
19:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED, misplaced article.
Postdlf
21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, non-category in category space. --
Prove It
(talk)
05:46, 21 January 2007 (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 already SPEEDY DELETED.
Postdlf
21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, not actually a category. --
Prove It
(talk)
05:43, 21 January 2007 (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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, Directors by company is no better than
Models by company was. --
Prove It
(talk)
03:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
>Radiant<
14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, three months old, and still only one article. --
Prove It
(talk)
03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Philanthropic Organizations