Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

Category:Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, or Keep. Not sure about this one, leaning towards delete. What say you all? -- Prove It (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Greetings, there is an ongoing discussion about the articles in this category, here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment. Also see here: Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment; "Spiritual Unfoldment" and "Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment" are not at all new terms, they are being used in various contexts and have been pre-existing in other wikipedia articles, so this distinct category was proposed. Please check Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment; as it is observed, the other mentioned wikipedia articles that have a connection of a variable degree with Spiritual Unfoldment and Meditation for Spiritual unfoldment will be summed up to form this category. So keep; it is advisable to observe the discussions and the results in the discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment. Thanks. MarekTT 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • postpone decision If the page is kept, the use of this category will be for the articles about groups in various countries. they well might not be kept. I suggest re-listing in two weeks, though I do not know if this is a standard sort of action,so the alternative would be keep and nominate for CfD again if appropriate DGG 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even if (and it's a big if) the main article Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment is kept, this category should still be deleted. There's no reason this particular type of mediation needs its own category; the articles included here can already appear in a "See also" list in the main article. So regardless of whether or not the main article is kept, the category should be deleted as an unnecessary overcategorization. Dugwiki 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "Spiritual Unfoldment" as a term is diversely used. Please carefully review the articles under the category and the main article, referring specifically to Spiritual Unfoldment and meditating towards achieving it, from different backgrounds and point of views. Because of this diversity of opinions (some conflicting) regarding this topic, I therefore believe that the existence of this category will assist to defuse this. Again, please do your research on "Spiritual Unfoldment" (on wikipedia and internet... -note: even the World Bank has a "Spiritual Unfoldment Society" [1]... creepy-) , review the other articles and books carefully, before making your decision. Thank you. MarekTT 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Meditation category. Statements in favor of keeping this category apply to meditation as a whole. --- Safemariner 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meditation is the way to sit and just meditate. Spiritual Unfoldment is meditation AND putting conscious effort in daily living to overcome the individual's weaknesses. Meditation lasts 20-30 minutes and maybe (for some kinds)twice a day. Spiritual Unfoldment is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So it is very challenging. So you see you can't meditate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's why it is different from Meditation. People's approach on those who just meditate and don't put consious effort in daily living is very different from those who does. The spirituality gained and the results and benefits of the Spiritual Unfoldment method are extremely faster and stronger than just meditating. Don't get confused by just seeing the word 'meditation' in Spiritual Unfoldment that they belong in the same category. I agree with MarekTT. Doing a small research online you can notice that Spiritual Unfoldment is different from Meditation. You can even see this from the references used in this article. So having this in mind i think that it should stay in a different category. Damianosk 11:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP There are many Meditation techniques going on in the world. Some are only to relax the mind and do nothing more. Meditation For Spiritual Unfoldment goes beyond. The technique of meditation is used as a tool for the spiritual unfoldment. It is a Unique form of meditation, as Damianosk mentioned above, it helps you to live spirituality 24/7. I strongly reconment it should be in a category of its own because it is unique. Adimi 17:47, 30 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.

Category:Metro Manila Newspapers and Magazines

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Metro Manila newspapers and magazines, or Delete. -- Prove It (talk) 23:21, 28 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:Fictional characters who have had abortions

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: listify, per creator's comments at the bottom, because the context is needed for this to be meaningful. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional characters who have had abortions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kinda silly category. What's next? Category:Fictional mothers? Category:Fictional characters who got shot? Category:Fictional characters who love pizza? Actually, Category:Fictional mothers got deleted recently, twice. [2] The whole Category:Fictional characters by situation needs watching for similar entries, IMHO. -- Conti| ✉ 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • The sheer number of fictional mothers or fictional characters who have been shot was as I understood it a large part of the reason that those catgeories were deleted. Despite what Radiant says below, character having abortions is not a particularly common plot point on soap opeas or in any other mode of fiction with which I'm particularly familiar and the number of notable characters who have had abortions is and for the foreseeable future remain small enough that a category isn't going to have the same sort of size-related problems that a mothers or got shot category would have. As for its being a defining characteristic, while I haven't researched it in any great depth I would argue that to at least some extent and for some characters it did become such a characteristic. Google "Maude abortion" and her having an abortion pops up in everything from a CNN retrospective on the abortion debate to a discussion on whether it was the abortion episodes that led to the show's jumping the shark. Otto4711 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and listify. It's fine to know what books/TV shows have mentioned abortions, but categories about media/people which have featured/experienced events at one point or another should typically be avoided. -- Vossanova o< 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. List would be better, and this phenomenon happens reasonably often in soap-like series. >Radiant< 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • In my viewing experience, what generally happens (at least on American TV) is that the character talks about having an abortion and then either miscarries or decides to have the baby. Otto4711 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
there are always books, you know! Johnbod 17:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As a member of WikiProject Abortion, I created Category:Abortion in media and its subcategories to accommodate abortion-related articles that didn't fit elsewhere, and I'm all for creating new categories to help increase navigation even more. But I don't think this category is helpful to that goal. Yes, an argument could be made that it is uncommon for fictional media to touch upon abortion, and, thus, having had one is a notable aspect of a character. But categories don't allow for context, or sources, so I think this would be much more appropriately handled as a list. - Severa ( !!!) 11:50, 8 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:Fenerbahçe sporters

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fenerbahçe sporters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of already deleted cat: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_17#Category:Famous_Fenerbah.C3.A7e_S.K._fans. Mais oui! 22:19, 28 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.

Category:Fenerbahce sporters

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fenerbahce sporters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of already deleted cat: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_17#Category:Famous_Fenerbah.C3.A7e_S.K._fans. Mais oui! 22:19, 28 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.

Category:TV shows that use Descriptive Video Service

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: listify. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:TV shows that use Descriptive Video Service to Category:Television shows that provide Descriptive Video Service
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:Guests on Koffee with Anu

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, we've decided many times that Guest star categories are not a good idea. -- Prove It (talk) 22:00, 28 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:UTC+3

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, better served by a list, and already covered by lists in UTC+3 and Moscow Time. -- Prove It (talk) 21:12, 28 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.

Category:Silver Buffalo awardees

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. Most keep-comments are procedural or based on personal preference, rather than guidelines, or on the assumption that a list of awardees would be 'cruft'. It's not a problem if something was also discussed here three months ago. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Silver Buffalo awardees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Perhaps an important award within Scouting but a rather trivial thing to hang a category on. Otto4711 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment This user is not a member of the Scouting WikiProject and has not received a Scouting barnstar. Johntex\ talk 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Observation Dr. Submillimeter has established an impossible criteria to use. How does one measure "importance" or "selective"? Until this can be resolved, all you will ever get is an opinion battle. For me, this award is in fact more important than the Spingarn Medal (which I have never heard of) and arguably more selective that the Golden Glove Award (what percent of potential candidates received the award?). Of course, it would be silly to use such a criteria, so until there is a more concrete, objective measure, we have to rely on the "Wiki-way." Does this category make sense? Most of the arguments for keep are convincing to me, specifically: 1) high level - within its sphere, it is extremely high-level, 2) More useful as a category than as a list, 3) already decided recently (the appropriate response to something you don't agree with should *not* be to re-nominate. -- NThurston 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The overcategorization guideline I quoted below is a good guideline for determining "importance" for an award. As for the keep arguments you cite, 1) "Employee of the Year" for the company where I work is extremely high-level in its sphere but there's no way in hell it should be noted anywhere on Wikipedia. 2) For navigation purposes, it's doubtful that the category would be the first route of navigation accessed instead of the article on the award where a list would reside. 3) Consensus can change. Otto4711 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This category is more useful for navigation than Category:1924 births, which sits happily uncontested on the same George H. W. Bush article. The fact that these people received the Silver Buffalo award is a much more interesting thread for navigation than them being born in the same year. The 1924 births category contains far too many entries to expect any reader to navigate them. Johntex\ talk 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I believe that the birth year categories are maintained in part for legal reasons, much like the category for living persons. Regardless, the "worthiness" of one category is irrelevant to the "worthiness of another. Otto4711 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmmm... You may be right about the first part. I don't know, it is not obvious to me why there would be a reason to keep birth years. To your second point, others here have made comparison to other awards, notably Dr. Submillimeter above. Johntex\ talk 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per previous CfD. — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Dr. Submillimeter said it as well or better than I could have, no I'll add a few points. 1) "In general, the winners of all but the most internationally well-known awards should be put in a list rather than a category. It may nevertheless be useful to note the awards in the article." From the guideline on overcategorization. Yes, it's a guideline and not a policy, but it's a guideline that makes sense for application here. 2) A list either in the article or as a separate linked article makes much better sense for purposes of navigation. Anyone interested in researching the award is not going to go to the article for a recipient and then navigate to the category. They're going to go to the award article, so there should be a list there or a linked list article. 3) Quite frankly, I question that the article on the award is itself notable under Wikipedia guidelines. I find no independent third-party coverage of the award itself on google; what's there is either material generated by one unit or another of the BSA or it's trivial mentions of someone receiving the award. Otto4711 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the award isn't directly connected to the BSA, it could be seen as being an even bigger honor than the Eagle Scout, and I don't think anyone would suggest deleting all Eagle Scout/Gold Award winners or cats? -- JohnDBuell 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It is given by the BSA but recipients do not have to be closely associated with the BSA. They have to epitomize the ideals of Scouting, whether or not they are a member of a Scouting organization. Johntex\ talk 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, the award is associated with Scouting. My point is that the BSA selection criteria does not include a need for the recipient to be directly tied to Scouting. Rather, they must expemplify the ideals of Scouting. Johntex\ talk 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You may feel it is a bigger honor than the Eagle Scout, but I feel it is a less defining characteristic. Eagle Scouts have made a decision to work towards a goal and spent years of their life achieving that goal. I don't think that Hank Aaron, Bill Clinton, or George Bush ever set out to be awarded the Silver Beaver. ~ Bigr Tex 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That's more of a statement than a suggestion, but regardless I would respond that consensus can change and just because a previous CfD had a different result that is no reason not to put critical consideration into the new CfD process. If the previous CfD reached a wrong result for a poor reason (speking generally here, not specifically about the last CfD of this cat) then simply repeating "keep" because of the mere existence of the previous CfD is rather uncompelling reasoning. Otto4711 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 1) Please define trivial in a non-objective manner. What is trivial about this award? 2) A recent CfD resulted in a keep- this sets a precedent (something most legal systems are based on). I am reluctant to against that precedent without some overwhelming factors that have not yet been presented. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: This seems to really be about the number of awards that appear to clutter the category section on articles. Perhaps a better solution would be to devise an awards infobox or a template that would put these in categories without appearing in the category section. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Excuse me I'm wrong here, but you seem to be implying that editors with a demonstrated interest in a subject are biased in these discussions. This is an obviously tautological statement.
Most of the arguments presented here to delete this category deal with it's "triviality" as compared to other awards. Thus, I do not see this CfD as regarding this category per se, but as a sweeping argument that could result in the deletion of series of categories. If so, then this should be dealt with at a different level. Simply stating that the Silver Buffalo is trivial is really not definitive reasoning.
If the real desire is to clear up category clutter, then perhaps there needs to be a better way to do this. I'm not an expert in WikiMedia, but I can only think that there should be a way to list and categorize this type of information without "cluttering".
  • Delete Non-defining scouting-centric trivia. ReeseM 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment regarding the definition of "trivia." I would say that an award that has been the subject of no independent third-party coverage would qualify as trivial. If you don't like the word "trivial" than substitute "non-notable." I searched for information on the award on google (which I recognize is not the end-all be-all of sourcing, but still) and checked several dozen of the results. I could find none that discussed the award in any depth that were not from a Scouting website, either the official site of the BSA or the site of a local troop or council. Non-Scouting sites that mention the award do so in passing, mostly along the lines of press releases announcing a recipient or a half-sentence mention of the award in a much larger article on the recipient. I'm not saying that the award isn't important to those who receive it. My dad was a Scouting executive for 20+ years and I know how much people value their Scouting awards. What I am saying is that a person's status as a Silver Buffalo Award recipient is not a particularly important fact in the lives of most of them and that a category devoted to its recipients is not encyclopedic enough for inclusion here. Otto4711 14:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the clarification. FWIW, a quick search reveals the Time article when the award was created. [4] (I'll add that to the article later).
I see that Theodore Roosevelt Award recipients is currently up for deletion. Presidential Medal of Freedom_recipients was up for deletion some months ago. I have not looked for other samples.
Since there does seem to be some consensus for deleting these types of categories, perhaps it would be better to refer the entire issue to some group to come up with a working plan. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals would be interested in this?
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know anything about any other similar categories being up for deleteion nor did I notice that this one had been up for deletion back several months ago. I can assure you that as far as I know there is no organized movement afoot to strip Wikipedia of its awards categroies, and if there is such a movement I am not a part of it. I ran across this category while looking at Bill Clinton's article. Looking at the cat and then the award article I formed the opinion that the category was not one that was appropriate for Wikipedia for the reasons I stated in my nomination. No conspiracy, just a random category spot and nom. Otto4711 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Don't go X-Files on me :-) No, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. It does seem that this has come up before, and if this category is retained, then it will probably come up again. I am more inclined to have the whole awards issue worked by an informed group rather than piecemeal additions and deletions.
Not to dilute this discussion, but I think you might simply be chipping away at one ice cube in the berg. The whole category system for medals and awards is... interesting. Just a quick look at categories, we have Category:Medalists with a whole bunch of stuff I never heard of (which does make it interesting). This in turn is a subcat of Category:Award winners. And it just keeps going. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per previous CfD, and recommend block of re-nomination. -- NThurston 15:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify - If receipt of this award by a person is a defining moment in their life, then it should be included in their article with a link to the award article, which should contain or link to a list of recipients. ~ Bigr Tex 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Scout-cruft. Nothing wrong with just listing the winners in the award's article. Recury 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a minor award of no general interest. Pinoakcourt 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Normally I don't like renominating previously debated categories, but the exception is when either the category or a relevant guideline or policy has significantly changed. In this case, the guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization was discussed and drew pretty strong consensus starting in late November 2006, after the previous cfd for this category. In the section Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners it recommends that "in general, the winners of all but the most internationally well-known awards should be put in a list rather than a category." That is slightly stronger language than I personally applied when I suggested a "weak keep" on the last discussion for this category. Since I'm not convinced that this award is one of the "most internationally well-known awards", I'm changing my recommendation to a Weak Delete from my stance a few months ago to try an be consistent with that guideline. Dugwiki 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and Delete per Dugwiki. It is not even clear that you need to do anything notable to get the award. Vegaswikian
  • Delete This is a pretty random way to connect people. It's much the same as having a category for people with an honorary degree from a particular university. Potentially there could be thousands of such categories, but Wikipedia is better off without them. Craig.Scott 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are three similar categories nominated elsewhere that are all heading for deletion, and this one should be no different. It simply doesn't meet the guidelines mentioned above. Wimstead 12:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and listify per Dugwiki. Good info to keep around, but OC. Lesnail 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This seems to be pretty much an automatic perk for recent American Presidents. It is one of the categories on Bill Clinton for example, but he is hardly well known for his services to youth. Abberley2 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. Doczilla 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Proposal Based on several comments, it appears that current methods of using the category system to link persons with awards is going to go away. The thinking seems to be that the categories at the bottom of the page are cluttered and distracting, that awards should be presented within the article, there should be a linked article for the award and there should be a list of people who have received the award. Some of the comments indicate that awards might be presented as a list within the article, but my experience shows that lists within articles are deprecated and rarely survive FAC, and are usually changed to a template. Thus, it appears that the consensus is to replace the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of award categories with an awards infobox template within the article and potentially an article on the award and a list of recipients. To demonstrate, I have added an awards and honors infobox to Arthur Rudolph. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - This is much better than the category system and more useful. I suggest adding inline citations for each entry within the infobox. We also have to consider what happens wehn someone very famous (e.g. George H. W. Bush or Bill Clinton) has won so many awards that an awards infobox is infeasible. In this situation, listing the awards on a separate page may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, citations should be included. That is a good idea for handling long lists. If this is going to become a guideline or policy, it needs to be presented or codified in some manner. btw, The infobox I made for Arthur Rudolph is not a template yet.-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Agree with proposal - Seems like there is support for each award or honor having a list, so this type of template (perhaps fancied up a bit) would be a reasonable way of presenting the same information in a less cluttered fashion. Simple is good. The process for implementation would be: 1) Place the honors/awards template on every page in the category, including all current award categories in the box, 2) remove the category once the award is in the box, 3) ensure that the award page contains a complete list ("what links here" would be handy), 4) delete the category when it is empty. -- NThurston 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
agree with proposal, it's clean looking and a really dignified way not to lose the work put in at this category. Thanks Ed! Chris 03:30, 2 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:British Convert Muslim Terrorists

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. Loaded phrasing is not good for categories, and it's near-empty anyway. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:British Convert Muslim Terrorists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Biased title, in violation of the NPOV policy. Picaroon 20:23, 28 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:Jinnah

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, without prejudice towards a renomination for deletion; it is unclear how many of the rename-commenters object to deletion. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Jinnah ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Muhammad Ali Jinnah
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:Iqbaliat

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Iqbaliat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This seems to be intended as a category for the Iqbal bibliography along with some spillover of Iqbal scholars. We already have Category:Books by Muhammad Iqbal and Category:Iqbal scholars so between the two of those this category seems redundant. Otto4711 19:06, 28 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:Fictional Northern Irish people

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional Northern Irish people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No one fits in this category, and in theory if a first fictional character with a wiki article did, we could add them to both the British and Irish categories, or re-create categories, but as it stands this is an empty category and therefore has no value.

I feel I should also note that this category survived a previous CfD due to being kept with other categories but this was under separate rationale to this nomination. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 17:42, 28 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:Fictional Irish

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional Irish ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy merge into Category:Fictional Irish people - duplicate. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 15:51, 28 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:Fictional traitors

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 to Category:Fictional characters who have committed treason. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional traitors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To whom? In what sense? Do betrayals of trust count? Political treason or just lying to your mother? Indefensibly POV.~ Zythe Talk to me! 15:41, 28 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:Rivers of Styria

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Uperge into Category:Rivers of Austria, with a current population of only 52 rivers, it doesn't make sense to divide them amoung 9 states. -- Prove It (talk) 15:36, 28 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:People from Rudrapatna

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 mainly because there's only one article in there. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:People from Karnataka, Rudrapatna is just a small village in Karnataka. -- Prove It (talk) 15:21, 28 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:Electricity companies of the United Kingdom

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 because it really is the sole exception in the parent cat. I'm sure that most countries have slightly different terms. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Power companies of the United Kingdom convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:13, 28 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:New Zealand electricity retailers

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Power companies of New Zealand convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:03, 28 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:Electric Utilities in India

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Power companies of India convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:59, 28 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:Electricity companies of Norway

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:Power companies of Norway, convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:52, 28 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:The Facts of Life characters

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Facts of Life characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - I combined the five character articles into a single article per WP:FICT and the category is now unneeded. Otto4711 14:19, 28 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.

Category:People form Erzincan

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 delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:People form Erzincan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:Deep Throat people

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Deep Throat people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Basically a relisting of people who are connected to this one film, all of which are already mentioned in the article for the film. It's simply pointless repitition. Dismas

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.

Towns in the Netherlands

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.
Category:Towns in Drenthe to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Drenthe
Category:Towns in Flevoland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Flevoland
Category:Towns in Friesland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Friesland
Category:Towns in Gelderland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Gelderland
Category:Towns in Groningen to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Groningen
Category:Towns in Dutch Limburg to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Dutch Limburg
Category:Towns in North Holland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in North Holland
Category:Towns in North Brabant to Category:Cities, towns and villages in North Brabant
Category:Towns in South Holland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in South Holland
Category:Towns in Overijssel to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Overijssel
Category:Towns in Utrecht to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Utrecht
Category:Towns in Zeeland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Zeeland
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:Major League Baseball Draft Picks

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Major League Baseball Draft Picks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Only two teams listed as sub-categories, one of which only has one. Unnecessary information, best used if each team would have their own draft pick list. Neonblak 12:23, 28 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:Boys & Girls Club alumni

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Boys & Girls Club alumni ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This lists people who participated in Boys and Girls Club of America when they were children. Categorizing people based on their childhood affiliations is impractical, as many people participate in many activities when they are children. The category also communicates little about the accomplishments of the individuals in the category, such as Bill Clinton and Denzel Washington. Moreover, the category contributes to category clutter, as can be seen in the article on Bill Clinton. The category should be deleted. A list of the notable alumni, however, may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 28 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.

Category:Debaters

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Debaters by nationality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indian debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:1996 campaign finance scandal

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:1996 campaign finance scandal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:Politicians killed during election campaign

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Politicians who died during an election campaign, for grammatical correctness, and the fact that not all the politicians were killed, some died of disease.-- Jack Cox 05:15, 28 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.

Category:Virgin hilltowns

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 09:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, "Medieval hill towns in near pristine state and little known to tourists." Sounds like a travel magazine. -- Prove It (talk) 03:30, 28 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.

Category:Albums from Rap-A-Lot Records

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Rap-A-Lot Records albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy rename. Cjmarsicano 04:07, 28 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:Jewish Simpsons characters

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Jewish Simpsons characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Unneeded category cruft. Also, there are only a few Jewish Simpsons characters. Scorpion 02:07, 28 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28&oldid=1136103348"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

Category:Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, or Keep. Not sure about this one, leaning towards delete. What say you all? -- Prove It (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Greetings, there is an ongoing discussion about the articles in this category, here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment. Also see here: Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment; "Spiritual Unfoldment" and "Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment" are not at all new terms, they are being used in various contexts and have been pre-existing in other wikipedia articles, so this distinct category was proposed. Please check Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment; as it is observed, the other mentioned wikipedia articles that have a connection of a variable degree with Spiritual Unfoldment and Meditation for Spiritual unfoldment will be summed up to form this category. So keep; it is advisable to observe the discussions and the results in the discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meditation_for_Spiritual_Unfoldment. Thanks. MarekTT 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • postpone decision If the page is kept, the use of this category will be for the articles about groups in various countries. they well might not be kept. I suggest re-listing in two weeks, though I do not know if this is a standard sort of action,so the alternative would be keep and nominate for CfD again if appropriate DGG 02:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even if (and it's a big if) the main article Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment is kept, this category should still be deleted. There's no reason this particular type of mediation needs its own category; the articles included here can already appear in a "See also" list in the main article. So regardless of whether or not the main article is kept, the category should be deleted as an unnecessary overcategorization. Dugwiki 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "Spiritual Unfoldment" as a term is diversely used. Please carefully review the articles under the category and the main article, referring specifically to Spiritual Unfoldment and meditating towards achieving it, from different backgrounds and point of views. Because of this diversity of opinions (some conflicting) regarding this topic, I therefore believe that the existence of this category will assist to defuse this. Again, please do your research on "Spiritual Unfoldment" (on wikipedia and internet... -note: even the World Bank has a "Spiritual Unfoldment Society" [1]... creepy-) , review the other articles and books carefully, before making your decision. Thank you. MarekTT 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Meditation category. Statements in favor of keeping this category apply to meditation as a whole. --- Safemariner 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meditation is the way to sit and just meditate. Spiritual Unfoldment is meditation AND putting conscious effort in daily living to overcome the individual's weaknesses. Meditation lasts 20-30 minutes and maybe (for some kinds)twice a day. Spiritual Unfoldment is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So it is very challenging. So you see you can't meditate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's why it is different from Meditation. People's approach on those who just meditate and don't put consious effort in daily living is very different from those who does. The spirituality gained and the results and benefits of the Spiritual Unfoldment method are extremely faster and stronger than just meditating. Don't get confused by just seeing the word 'meditation' in Spiritual Unfoldment that they belong in the same category. I agree with MarekTT. Doing a small research online you can notice that Spiritual Unfoldment is different from Meditation. You can even see this from the references used in this article. So having this in mind i think that it should stay in a different category. Damianosk 11:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP There are many Meditation techniques going on in the world. Some are only to relax the mind and do nothing more. Meditation For Spiritual Unfoldment goes beyond. The technique of meditation is used as a tool for the spiritual unfoldment. It is a Unique form of meditation, as Damianosk mentioned above, it helps you to live spirituality 24/7. I strongly reconment it should be in a category of its own because it is unique. Adimi 17:47, 30 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.

Category:Metro Manila Newspapers and Magazines

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Metro Manila newspapers and magazines, or Delete. -- Prove It (talk) 23:21, 28 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:Fictional characters who have had abortions

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: listify, per creator's comments at the bottom, because the context is needed for this to be meaningful. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional characters who have had abortions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kinda silly category. What's next? Category:Fictional mothers? Category:Fictional characters who got shot? Category:Fictional characters who love pizza? Actually, Category:Fictional mothers got deleted recently, twice. [2] The whole Category:Fictional characters by situation needs watching for similar entries, IMHO. -- Conti| ✉ 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • The sheer number of fictional mothers or fictional characters who have been shot was as I understood it a large part of the reason that those catgeories were deleted. Despite what Radiant says below, character having abortions is not a particularly common plot point on soap opeas or in any other mode of fiction with which I'm particularly familiar and the number of notable characters who have had abortions is and for the foreseeable future remain small enough that a category isn't going to have the same sort of size-related problems that a mothers or got shot category would have. As for its being a defining characteristic, while I haven't researched it in any great depth I would argue that to at least some extent and for some characters it did become such a characteristic. Google "Maude abortion" and her having an abortion pops up in everything from a CNN retrospective on the abortion debate to a discussion on whether it was the abortion episodes that led to the show's jumping the shark. Otto4711 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and listify. It's fine to know what books/TV shows have mentioned abortions, but categories about media/people which have featured/experienced events at one point or another should typically be avoided. -- Vossanova o< 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. List would be better, and this phenomenon happens reasonably often in soap-like series. >Radiant< 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • In my viewing experience, what generally happens (at least on American TV) is that the character talks about having an abortion and then either miscarries or decides to have the baby. Otto4711 17:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
there are always books, you know! Johnbod 17:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As a member of WikiProject Abortion, I created Category:Abortion in media and its subcategories to accommodate abortion-related articles that didn't fit elsewhere, and I'm all for creating new categories to help increase navigation even more. But I don't think this category is helpful to that goal. Yes, an argument could be made that it is uncommon for fictional media to touch upon abortion, and, thus, having had one is a notable aspect of a character. But categories don't allow for context, or sources, so I think this would be much more appropriately handled as a list. - Severa ( !!!) 11:50, 8 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:Fenerbahçe sporters

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fenerbahçe sporters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of already deleted cat: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_17#Category:Famous_Fenerbah.C3.A7e_S.K._fans. Mais oui! 22:19, 28 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.

Category:Fenerbahce sporters

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fenerbahce sporters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplicate of already deleted cat: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_17#Category:Famous_Fenerbah.C3.A7e_S.K._fans. Mais oui! 22:19, 28 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.

Category:TV shows that use Descriptive Video Service

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: listify. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:TV shows that use Descriptive Video Service to Category:Television shows that provide Descriptive Video Service
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:Guests on Koffee with Anu

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete, we've decided many times that Guest star categories are not a good idea. -- Prove It (talk) 22:00, 28 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:UTC+3

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, better served by a list, and already covered by lists in UTC+3 and Moscow Time. -- Prove It (talk) 21:12, 28 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.

Category:Silver Buffalo awardees

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. Most keep-comments are procedural or based on personal preference, rather than guidelines, or on the assumption that a list of awardees would be 'cruft'. It's not a problem if something was also discussed here three months ago. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Silver Buffalo awardees ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Perhaps an important award within Scouting but a rather trivial thing to hang a category on. Otto4711 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment This user is not a member of the Scouting WikiProject and has not received a Scouting barnstar. Johntex\ talk 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Observation Dr. Submillimeter has established an impossible criteria to use. How does one measure "importance" or "selective"? Until this can be resolved, all you will ever get is an opinion battle. For me, this award is in fact more important than the Spingarn Medal (which I have never heard of) and arguably more selective that the Golden Glove Award (what percent of potential candidates received the award?). Of course, it would be silly to use such a criteria, so until there is a more concrete, objective measure, we have to rely on the "Wiki-way." Does this category make sense? Most of the arguments for keep are convincing to me, specifically: 1) high level - within its sphere, it is extremely high-level, 2) More useful as a category than as a list, 3) already decided recently (the appropriate response to something you don't agree with should *not* be to re-nominate. -- NThurston 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The overcategorization guideline I quoted below is a good guideline for determining "importance" for an award. As for the keep arguments you cite, 1) "Employee of the Year" for the company where I work is extremely high-level in its sphere but there's no way in hell it should be noted anywhere on Wikipedia. 2) For navigation purposes, it's doubtful that the category would be the first route of navigation accessed instead of the article on the award where a list would reside. 3) Consensus can change. Otto4711 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This category is more useful for navigation than Category:1924 births, which sits happily uncontested on the same George H. W. Bush article. The fact that these people received the Silver Buffalo award is a much more interesting thread for navigation than them being born in the same year. The 1924 births category contains far too many entries to expect any reader to navigate them. Johntex\ talk 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I believe that the birth year categories are maintained in part for legal reasons, much like the category for living persons. Regardless, the "worthiness" of one category is irrelevant to the "worthiness of another. Otto4711 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Hmmmm... You may be right about the first part. I don't know, it is not obvious to me why there would be a reason to keep birth years. To your second point, others here have made comparison to other awards, notably Dr. Submillimeter above. Johntex\ talk 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per previous CfD. — mikedk9109 SIGN 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Dr. Submillimeter said it as well or better than I could have, no I'll add a few points. 1) "In general, the winners of all but the most internationally well-known awards should be put in a list rather than a category. It may nevertheless be useful to note the awards in the article." From the guideline on overcategorization. Yes, it's a guideline and not a policy, but it's a guideline that makes sense for application here. 2) A list either in the article or as a separate linked article makes much better sense for purposes of navigation. Anyone interested in researching the award is not going to go to the article for a recipient and then navigate to the category. They're going to go to the award article, so there should be a list there or a linked list article. 3) Quite frankly, I question that the article on the award is itself notable under Wikipedia guidelines. I find no independent third-party coverage of the award itself on google; what's there is either material generated by one unit or another of the BSA or it's trivial mentions of someone receiving the award. Otto4711 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As the award isn't directly connected to the BSA, it could be seen as being an even bigger honor than the Eagle Scout, and I don't think anyone would suggest deleting all Eagle Scout/Gold Award winners or cats? -- JohnDBuell 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It is given by the BSA but recipients do not have to be closely associated with the BSA. They have to epitomize the ideals of Scouting, whether or not they are a member of a Scouting organization. Johntex\ talk 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, the award is associated with Scouting. My point is that the BSA selection criteria does not include a need for the recipient to be directly tied to Scouting. Rather, they must expemplify the ideals of Scouting. Johntex\ talk 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You may feel it is a bigger honor than the Eagle Scout, but I feel it is a less defining characteristic. Eagle Scouts have made a decision to work towards a goal and spent years of their life achieving that goal. I don't think that Hank Aaron, Bill Clinton, or George Bush ever set out to be awarded the Silver Beaver. ~ Bigr Tex 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That's more of a statement than a suggestion, but regardless I would respond that consensus can change and just because a previous CfD had a different result that is no reason not to put critical consideration into the new CfD process. If the previous CfD reached a wrong result for a poor reason (speking generally here, not specifically about the last CfD of this cat) then simply repeating "keep" because of the mere existence of the previous CfD is rather uncompelling reasoning. Otto4711 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 1) Please define trivial in a non-objective manner. What is trivial about this award? 2) A recent CfD resulted in a keep- this sets a precedent (something most legal systems are based on). I am reluctant to against that precedent without some overwhelming factors that have not yet been presented. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: This seems to really be about the number of awards that appear to clutter the category section on articles. Perhaps a better solution would be to devise an awards infobox or a template that would put these in categories without appearing in the category section. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Excuse me I'm wrong here, but you seem to be implying that editors with a demonstrated interest in a subject are biased in these discussions. This is an obviously tautological statement.
Most of the arguments presented here to delete this category deal with it's "triviality" as compared to other awards. Thus, I do not see this CfD as regarding this category per se, but as a sweeping argument that could result in the deletion of series of categories. If so, then this should be dealt with at a different level. Simply stating that the Silver Buffalo is trivial is really not definitive reasoning.
If the real desire is to clear up category clutter, then perhaps there needs to be a better way to do this. I'm not an expert in WikiMedia, but I can only think that there should be a way to list and categorize this type of information without "cluttering".
  • Delete Non-defining scouting-centric trivia. ReeseM 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment regarding the definition of "trivia." I would say that an award that has been the subject of no independent third-party coverage would qualify as trivial. If you don't like the word "trivial" than substitute "non-notable." I searched for information on the award on google (which I recognize is not the end-all be-all of sourcing, but still) and checked several dozen of the results. I could find none that discussed the award in any depth that were not from a Scouting website, either the official site of the BSA or the site of a local troop or council. Non-Scouting sites that mention the award do so in passing, mostly along the lines of press releases announcing a recipient or a half-sentence mention of the award in a much larger article on the recipient. I'm not saying that the award isn't important to those who receive it. My dad was a Scouting executive for 20+ years and I know how much people value their Scouting awards. What I am saying is that a person's status as a Silver Buffalo Award recipient is not a particularly important fact in the lives of most of them and that a category devoted to its recipients is not encyclopedic enough for inclusion here. Otto4711 14:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the clarification. FWIW, a quick search reveals the Time article when the award was created. [4] (I'll add that to the article later).
I see that Theodore Roosevelt Award recipients is currently up for deletion. Presidential Medal of Freedom_recipients was up for deletion some months ago. I have not looked for other samples.
Since there does seem to be some consensus for deleting these types of categories, perhaps it would be better to refer the entire issue to some group to come up with a working plan. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals would be interested in this?
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know anything about any other similar categories being up for deleteion nor did I notice that this one had been up for deletion back several months ago. I can assure you that as far as I know there is no organized movement afoot to strip Wikipedia of its awards categroies, and if there is such a movement I am not a part of it. I ran across this category while looking at Bill Clinton's article. Looking at the cat and then the award article I formed the opinion that the category was not one that was appropriate for Wikipedia for the reasons I stated in my nomination. No conspiracy, just a random category spot and nom. Otto4711 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Don't go X-Files on me :-) No, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. It does seem that this has come up before, and if this category is retained, then it will probably come up again. I am more inclined to have the whole awards issue worked by an informed group rather than piecemeal additions and deletions.
Not to dilute this discussion, but I think you might simply be chipping away at one ice cube in the berg. The whole category system for medals and awards is... interesting. Just a quick look at categories, we have Category:Medalists with a whole bunch of stuff I never heard of (which does make it interesting). This in turn is a subcat of Category:Award winners. And it just keeps going. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per previous CfD, and recommend block of re-nomination. -- NThurston 15:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify - If receipt of this award by a person is a defining moment in their life, then it should be included in their article with a link to the award article, which should contain or link to a list of recipients. ~ Bigr Tex 17:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Scout-cruft. Nothing wrong with just listing the winners in the award's article. Recury 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a minor award of no general interest. Pinoakcourt 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Normally I don't like renominating previously debated categories, but the exception is when either the category or a relevant guideline or policy has significantly changed. In this case, the guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization was discussed and drew pretty strong consensus starting in late November 2006, after the previous cfd for this category. In the section Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners it recommends that "in general, the winners of all but the most internationally well-known awards should be put in a list rather than a category." That is slightly stronger language than I personally applied when I suggested a "weak keep" on the last discussion for this category. Since I'm not convinced that this award is one of the "most internationally well-known awards", I'm changing my recommendation to a Weak Delete from my stance a few months ago to try an be consistent with that guideline. Dugwiki 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Listify and Delete per Dugwiki. It is not even clear that you need to do anything notable to get the award. Vegaswikian
  • Delete This is a pretty random way to connect people. It's much the same as having a category for people with an honorary degree from a particular university. Potentially there could be thousands of such categories, but Wikipedia is better off without them. Craig.Scott 01:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are three similar categories nominated elsewhere that are all heading for deletion, and this one should be no different. It simply doesn't meet the guidelines mentioned above. Wimstead 12:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and listify per Dugwiki. Good info to keep around, but OC. Lesnail 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This seems to be pretty much an automatic perk for recent American Presidents. It is one of the categories on Bill Clinton for example, but he is hardly well known for his services to youth. Abberley2 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. Doczilla 05:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Proposal Based on several comments, it appears that current methods of using the category system to link persons with awards is going to go away. The thinking seems to be that the categories at the bottom of the page are cluttered and distracting, that awards should be presented within the article, there should be a linked article for the award and there should be a list of people who have received the award. Some of the comments indicate that awards might be presented as a list within the article, but my experience shows that lists within articles are deprecated and rarely survive FAC, and are usually changed to a template. Thus, it appears that the consensus is to replace the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of award categories with an awards infobox template within the article and potentially an article on the award and a list of recipients. To demonstrate, I have added an awards and honors infobox to Arthur Rudolph. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - This is much better than the category system and more useful. I suggest adding inline citations for each entry within the infobox. We also have to consider what happens wehn someone very famous (e.g. George H. W. Bush or Bill Clinton) has won so many awards that an awards infobox is infeasible. In this situation, listing the awards on a separate page may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, citations should be included. That is a good idea for handling long lists. If this is going to become a guideline or policy, it needs to be presented or codified in some manner. btw, The infobox I made for Arthur Rudolph is not a template yet.-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Agree with proposal - Seems like there is support for each award or honor having a list, so this type of template (perhaps fancied up a bit) would be a reasonable way of presenting the same information in a less cluttered fashion. Simple is good. The process for implementation would be: 1) Place the honors/awards template on every page in the category, including all current award categories in the box, 2) remove the category once the award is in the box, 3) ensure that the award page contains a complete list ("what links here" would be handy), 4) delete the category when it is empty. -- NThurston 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
agree with proposal, it's clean looking and a really dignified way not to lose the work put in at this category. Thanks Ed! Chris 03:30, 2 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:British Convert Muslim Terrorists

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. Loaded phrasing is not good for categories, and it's near-empty anyway. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:British Convert Muslim Terrorists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Biased title, in violation of the NPOV policy. Picaroon 20:23, 28 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:Jinnah

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, without prejudice towards a renomination for deletion; it is unclear how many of the rename-commenters object to deletion. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Jinnah ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Muhammad Ali Jinnah
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:Iqbaliat

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Iqbaliat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This seems to be intended as a category for the Iqbal bibliography along with some spillover of Iqbal scholars. We already have Category:Books by Muhammad Iqbal and Category:Iqbal scholars so between the two of those this category seems redundant. Otto4711 19:06, 28 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:Fictional Northern Irish people

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional Northern Irish people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No one fits in this category, and in theory if a first fictional character with a wiki article did, we could add them to both the British and Irish categories, or re-create categories, but as it stands this is an empty category and therefore has no value.

I feel I should also note that this category survived a previous CfD due to being kept with other categories but this was under separate rationale to this nomination. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 17:42, 28 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:Fictional Irish

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional Irish ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy merge into Category:Fictional Irish people - duplicate. ~ Zythe Talk to me! 15:51, 28 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:Fictional traitors

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 to Category:Fictional characters who have committed treason. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional traitors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To whom? In what sense? Do betrayals of trust count? Political treason or just lying to your mother? Indefensibly POV.~ Zythe Talk to me! 15:41, 28 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:Rivers of Styria

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Uperge into Category:Rivers of Austria, with a current population of only 52 rivers, it doesn't make sense to divide them amoung 9 states. -- Prove It (talk) 15:36, 28 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:People from Rudrapatna

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 mainly because there's only one article in there. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:People from Karnataka, Rudrapatna is just a small village in Karnataka. -- Prove It (talk) 15:21, 28 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:Electricity companies of the United Kingdom

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 because it really is the sole exception in the parent cat. I'm sure that most countries have slightly different terms. >Radiant< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Power companies of the United Kingdom convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:13, 28 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:New Zealand electricity retailers

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Power companies of New Zealand convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 15:03, 28 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:Electric Utilities in India

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Power companies of India convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:59, 28 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:Electricity companies of Norway

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge into Category:Power companies of Norway, convention of Category:Power companies by country. -- Prove It (talk) 14:52, 28 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:The Facts of Life characters

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Facts of Life characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - I combined the five character articles into a single article per WP:FICT and the category is now unneeded. Otto4711 14:19, 28 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.

Category:People form Erzincan

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 delete. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:People form Erzincan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:Deep Throat people

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Deep Throat people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Basically a relisting of people who are connected to this one film, all of which are already mentioned in the article for the film. It's simply pointless repitition. Dismas

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.

Towns in the Netherlands

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.
Category:Towns in Drenthe to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Drenthe
Category:Towns in Flevoland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Flevoland
Category:Towns in Friesland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Friesland
Category:Towns in Gelderland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Gelderland
Category:Towns in Groningen to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Groningen
Category:Towns in Dutch Limburg to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Dutch Limburg
Category:Towns in North Holland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in North Holland
Category:Towns in North Brabant to Category:Cities, towns and villages in North Brabant
Category:Towns in South Holland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in South Holland
Category:Towns in Overijssel to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Overijssel
Category:Towns in Utrecht to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Utrecht
Category:Towns in Zeeland to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Zeeland
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:Major League Baseball Draft Picks

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Major League Baseball Draft Picks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Only two teams listed as sub-categories, one of which only has one. Unnecessary information, best used if each team would have their own draft pick list. Neonblak 12:23, 28 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:Boys & Girls Club alumni

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Boys & Girls Club alumni ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - This lists people who participated in Boys and Girls Club of America when they were children. Categorizing people based on their childhood affiliations is impractical, as many people participate in many activities when they are children. The category also communicates little about the accomplishments of the individuals in the category, such as Bill Clinton and Denzel Washington. Moreover, the category contributes to category clutter, as can be seen in the article on Bill Clinton. The category should be deleted. A list of the notable alumni, however, may be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 10:22, 28 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.

Category:Debaters

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Debaters by nationality ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:American debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:British debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Canadian debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indian debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish debaters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:1996 campaign finance scandal

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:1996 campaign finance scandal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:Politicians killed during election campaign

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 08:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Politicians who died during an election campaign, for grammatical correctness, and the fact that not all the politicians were killed, some died of disease.-- Jack Cox 05:15, 28 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.

Category:Virgin hilltowns

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. Woohookitty Woohoo! 09:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, "Medieval hill towns in near pristine state and little known to tourists." Sounds like a travel magazine. -- Prove It (talk) 03:30, 28 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.

Category:Albums from Rap-A-Lot Records

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Rename to Category:Rap-A-Lot Records albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy rename. Cjmarsicano 04:07, 28 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:Jewish Simpsons characters

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< 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply
Category:Jewish Simpsons characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Unneeded category cruft. Also, there are only a few Jewish Simpsons characters. Scorpion 02:07, 28 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28&oldid=1136103348"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE