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 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 debate was rename Category:Dutch people by province of birth to Category:People by province in the Netherlands. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Dutch people by province of birth to Category:People by province in the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Following my earlier mass nomination of remaining Category:Natives of Foo examples to Category:People from Foo, I noticed this parent category. Assuming its subcategories are renamed, (a) "by province of birth" will be inappropriate(since its province sub-categories will then be open to articles on non-natives of each province) (b) "Dutch" will be inappropriate, as the sub-categories could be used for non-Dutch residents, and (c) and the new name would fit with Category:People by city in the Netherlands. Bencherlite 23:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Wimstead 00:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename per nom. I am the creator of the category. I used the format of another country for the name, but do not recall which one now, as this was in August 2005. We are now in June 2007, and Wikipedia has more and better standards, which I of course support. gidonb 09:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Greg Grahame 16:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 22:38, 3 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was merge Category:Fox Broadcasting Company to Category:Fox Entertainment Group. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fox Broadcasting Company to Category:Fox Entertainment Group

• Merge - Category:Fox Broadcasting Company is mostly an unnecessary layer of categorization between Category:Fox Entertainment Group and Category:Fox television network (which is a subcategory of the broadcasting company and the entertainment group categories). Aside from the one subcategory, Category:Fox Broadcasting Company only contains Fox Broadcasting Company. The merge would help strealine the organization of the material. Dr. Submillimeter 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Unnecessary intermediate category. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:53, 7 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Pre-Reformation UK bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Split. The category name is an oxymoron; before the Reformation (and indeed for a few centuries afterwards) there was no United Kingdom, so this category makes as much as much historical sense as Category:56BC in the United States or Category:16th century in the Soviet Union.
I understand what the category is trying to do, to group together pre-reformation bishoprics in the area which is now known as the United Kingdom, but apart from the fact that it only extends to Great Britain (no Northern Irish bishops here!), I deplore the anachronistic use of a country name. We already have Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in Scotland as a sub-cat, and I propose that Category:Pre-Reformation UK bishops should be split into Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in England and Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in Wales. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete/Listify - This type of material is worth discussing in an article, but it is not really necessary for categorization. The term "Pre-Reformation" refers to the position but not the people. Hence, the Archbishop of Canterbury is in this category because the position was created before the reformation. Modern-day people, such as the modern-day Archbishops of Canterbury, are being listed as "Pre-Reformation" because of this. I really do not think that much is lost in the way of navigation if this category is listified and deleted. Since the category is not necessary for navigation and since the category will create confusion, it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Would the wording: pre-reformation bishoprics or pre-reformation dioceses be any better? DGG 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

It is certainly very confusing: we have Matthew Hutton (1529-1606) listed (via category inclusions) under Pre-Reformation UK bishops, well before there was a UK. Will the nomination place the current Archbishop of Canterbury in Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in England? (Dr S seems to be suggesting this would be correct.) Also my understanding of the Primate of All Ireland article is that churches don't necessarily follow national boundaries anyway, so UK is misleading. ( List of Archbishops of York seems to give a good clue for a better categorisation system, in 3 eras.) -- roundhouse 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - total nonsense; most member sub-cats are things like Category:Bishops of Hereford containing both pre-Reformation & Anglican individuals. If the intention was to categorise Pre-Ref dioceses, then all the wrong members have been included - but that could perfectly well be a list (and doubtless is somewhere). I suppose Category:Bishops of English dioceses that pre-date the Reformation could be used (or British). Johnbod 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It would probably be appropriate to split some bishop categories (such as Category:Bishops of Hereford) into Catholic and Anglican subcategories. Nonetheless, the nominated category is still too confusing to keep. Dr. Submillimeter 12:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Johnbod 23:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep but rename - This is a category consisting almost entirely of subcategories. Almost all of those are the ancient dioceses of England and Wales. The Anglican Church claims to be a continuation of its predecessor, and this is a practical historical reality. The Welsh bishoprics were in the Proivince of Canterbury and a few northern bishoprics in that of York. Accordingly segreagating the four Welsh dioceses from those of England would be anachronistic. The status of the Scottish bishops was a matter of dispute (politically) between England and Scotland. However having a single subcategory for the Scottish bishops seems appropriate. Since Scotland abolished its bishops at the Reformation and rebelled when Charles I tried to reimpose them. Oddly we have just one Irish bishopric in the list of subcategories. I am not sure if this is in Northern Ireland or Eire, but it does not sit well with the rest of the category, being subject to the Archbishop of Dublin (I think). I would suggest renaming to Category:Pre-Reformation bishops in Great Britain. Great Britain is the correct name of the island consisting of England, Scotland and Wales, so that the name should be politically uncontroversial. Another alternative name might involve bishoprics. There have been two post-Refomation increases in the number of bishops: Henry VIII divided certain very large dioceses, such as Lichfield (creating Chester), Worcester (creating Gloucester), and Lincoln. In the 19th century, some of these were divided further. There is no continutity between the 19th century Catholic dioceses and the pre-Reformation dioceses, so that hardly needs to be mentioned. Peterkingiron 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

But that still makes Rowan Williams a "pre-Reformation bishop", which he ain't. Johnbod 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Could this material be covered in an article instead? It is a clumsy, confusing system for categorization (as people have problems discerning what "Pre-Reformation" refers to in these category titles), but it is a topic worth discussing on Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 07:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment Historical development of Church of England dioceses seems to do the job, at least for England & Wales. I'm sure no one would object to the Bishops of eg Hereford being sub-categorised between Cat & Prod, but we do not need to decide on that here. So this category is neither needed nor accurate. Johnbod 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete As currently constituted this category is grossly inaccurate, as the subcategories contain hundreds of articles about post-Reformation bishops. On the other hand, dividing them all into pre- and post-Restoration groups would be cluttersome and not worth the effort. Osomec 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I think that deletion may be a temporary solution, but we have a problem here which cannot be resolved simply by deletion: the pre-reformation bishops are recognised by both the Anglican and Catholic churches; to categorise them only as Anglicans or only as Catholics other would breach our neutrality policy. I can see only two NPOV solutions:

1. Split the "Bishops of foo" categories into pre- and post-reformation. Messy, and cluttersome.
2. Devise some form of name for a parent category for those "Bishops of foo" categories which acknowledges that pre-reformation bishops of those dioceses are claimed by both Catholic and Anglican churches. I suggest Category:Bishops of pre-reformation dioceses in Scotland and Category:Bishops of pre-reformation dioceses in England and Wales

I don't see any way of achieving an NPOV outcome by lists, unless all Anglican bishops from dioceses which existed pre-reformation are removed from an Anglican bishops hierarchy, which seems deeply unsatisfactory. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Why not just have "Anglican" and "Catholic" subcategories for bishoprics that were established before the reformation but later taken over by the Anglican Church? For example, Category:Bishops of Hereford could be split into a Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Hereford and a Category:Anglican Bishops of Hereford. The Catholic categories could then be gathered into a new "Pre-Reformation Bishops of England", while the anglican ones can be left out of that superstructure. Dr. Submillimeter 09:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reply Because of the doctrine of apostolic succession, that's why! The Anglicans regard their bishops as valid because of the unbroken line of apostolic succession, and they therefore claim the pre-reformation bishops as their own. The Anglican Communion considers itself to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and as being both Catholic and Reformed. It may not matter much to secular people like me, but is quite central to the way that the Anglican communion defines itself. It sure does make for categorisation headaches, though. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

We did previously remove all pre-UM bishops of predecessor churches from the UM-bishops hierarchy - is this not comparable? ( United Methodist Church, with a history of schisms, alliances and mergers over a mere 200 years or so.) Dr S's suggestion sounds OK to me. (Or Category:Bishops of Hereford (pre-1534), Category:Anglican Bishops of Hereford (post-1534) so anyone can tell whether a given bishop fits.) On the other hand BHG's rival suggestion involves much less work. One could do both: the BHG parent category solution followed in due course by Dr S's partition. -- roundhouse 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that the situation with the UM bishops was easier, because the predecessor denominations ceased to exist. The difficulty here is that the pre-reformation bishops are claimed by two different current denominations, and I fear that the only accurate solution may in the end be a split of he categories: e.g. Category:Bishops of Hereford to be split into a Category:Pe-reformation Bishops of Hereford and a Category:Anglican Bishops of Hereford. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Except of course for the Evangelical United Brethren Church, an arm of which stayed outside the UM fold and is now the Church of the United Brethren in Christ (not to be confused with the earlier Church of the United Brethren in Christ, needless to say) and perhaps regrettably has bishops. I actually think the entire rationale behind categories is strained beyond the limit by any of these fractured church categories, especially when nationality is tossed into the mix. Must go and decimate my watchlist. (I can't argue with apostolic succession - that beats WP:this&that hands down.) -- roundhouse 11:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

It might well be useful at some point to have a broader discussion on the categorisation of these fissiparious religions. They really do make for a categorisation nightmare :( -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - As BrownHairedGirl has indicated a semantics problem with my first proposal, so I would like to suggest a second: Split the individual categories on bishops into "Anglican" and "Pre-Reformation" counterparts (so Category:Bishops of Hereford would be split into Category:Pre-Reformation Bishops of Hereford and Category:Anglican Bishops of Hereford). Would this be acceptable? Dr. Submillimeter 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - After writing the above comment, I saw that BrownHairedGirl already suggested this. Maybe this is the way to go? Dr. Submillimeter 14:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment with all due respect to BHG, to maintain that any Anglican sees the Pre-Reformation Bishops as not being Catholic is just wrong; there is no POV objection to a simple Catholic/Anglican split. However some individuals were both over the Reformation period. One would also have to watch the Henry/Edward/Mary sequence (Catholic bishops reappearing under Mary). Johnbod 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Reply I think you may have misunderstood my point, or maybe I wasn't clear :) I agree that it is appropriate and NPOV to categorise them as Catholic (and that Anglicans don't disagree), but my argument is that because of the apostolic succession issue, the Anglicans also claim them as part of the Anglican episcopal line, so that it is not sufficient to categorise them only as Catholic. Does that seem right? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The Anglican position is that their clergy are a valid & unbroken continuation of the Apostolic Succession, but not that pre-Ref clergy were other than Roman Catholic. See "Origins" in History of the Anglican Communion: "The only branches of the Anglican Communion with unbroken history stretching back to the pre-reformation Catholic church are to be found in Great Britain: the Church of England, the Church in Wales...". Apostolicae Curae may, or may not, help explain. Actually the problem is more with Celtic Christianity; a few bishops like Colmán of Lindisfarne and his two predessors should probably not be called Catholic - but there were few Celtic bishops as such. That would be rather a useful distinction in fact. But I think this is all very academic; who is volunteering to to do all the necessary sorting anyway? Johnbod 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Even if a split is required on a diocese-basis in response to the Reformation, which I doubt, this is not a suitable starting point. Perebourne 17:37, 9 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Articles that are too long ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete The category name is pure POV masquerading as fact. The article on which I came across this is not too long for me. The intro says that it is supposed to be on talk pages, but it is added by template, and it is not technically possible to make a template on a talk page add a category to a talk page. But the category is a bad idea anyway. Haddiscoe 17:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep - As long as the template is still used, the category should be kept. However, the warning itself has problems. The warning may have originally been used for techincal reasons rather than subjective ones. However, the technical limitations may be too severe. Wikipedia:Article size does not state any specific technical limit except one related to mobile phones, which apparently can only display 32 kilobytes. This simply seems too short, as articles that contain only a modest amount of text may be considered too long by this technical criterion. Dandelion Wine, for example, has a Template:Long warning in a section that is 150 kilobytes. Perhaps more discussion is needed on the application of Template:Long and similar templates, or perhaps the template should be removed from articles on a case-by-case basis. Deleting this category may not be quite appropriate as long as the templates are in use. Dr. Submillimeter 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete subjective category that's redundant to the template. This is a very rare instance in which I disagree with Dr. S. Doczilla 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete An attempt to actually use this category was made at a wikiproject on Extralong articles, and was totally rejected by the community and the project disbanded. (I remember because I was one of the participants--I have since learned better).If kept, should be revised. DGG 22:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and DGG. Alex Middleton 23:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As was determined in the discussion around the Wikiproject DGG mentions, this is a bad idea. Judgements on whether an article is too long must be made by people who actively edit the article; it's not appropriate for a cleanup category for people to indiscriminately shorten articles from. - Amarkov moo! 23:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. If one thinks an article ought to be deleted, the first byte makes it "too long". Carlossuarez46 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV. Probably originates in technical concerns that are almost obsolete. Osomec 13:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment isn't this for any article over 32k, subdivided into various amounts above 32k? MediaWiki does complain about any article over 32k. 70.55.87.222 03:39, 6 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Sophie Ellis-Bextor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people. As with many other eponymous categories, this one is unnecessary for navigation. Eponymous categories should be reserved for those which contain large amounts of material that cannot be easily interlinked, which is not the case here. The main article, including the navigation template, serve as a better navigational hub. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 15:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per nom, overcategorization. Everything i accessible through the template and everything is otherwise adequately categorized. Otto4711 15:17, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Corymore Productions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category for an apparently inactive production company. A complete list of its productions is in its article. The category isn't needed for the material. Otto4711 14:49, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was merge into Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes - Season 1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes - Season 12 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes - Season 2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes - Season 3 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes - Season 4 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge all to Category:Murder, She Wrote episodes - our general rule of thumb has been to maintain a single episodes category and generate lists of the episodes. No reason for these subcategories. Otto4711 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Alex Middleton 23:01, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename Category:Fictional armor to Category:Fictional armour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Fictional armor to Category:Fictional armour

Nominator's rationale: Rename, As per previous listings, it makes sense to use "armour" as the main article is there. John Smith's 11:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom Johnbod 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• If renamed, retain the old as a redirect. Otto4711 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete fictional armor is silly and nonsensical. - N 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Why? If it's fiction and its armour, it's fictional armour. Alex Middleton 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support rename per nom. since the main article is Armour and Armor just redirects to it. As silly as the category sounds, it does have a decent number of articles in it to justify its existence unless a number of those articles failed some AfDs. Doczilla 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match main article Armour, do not delete Rename to match the category's main article Armour. Do not delete as the category is useful as a way to distinguish articles about actual types of armour from fictional ones, much like Category:Fictional automobiles is a subcat of Category:Automobiles, etc. Dugwiki 21:28, 4 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename Category:Armor to Category:Armour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Armor to Category:Armour

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The main article is at armour, so it makes no sense to have the category using American English. John Smith's 11:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom Johnbod 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• If renamed, retain the old as a redirect. Otto4711 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename and redirect. This should be a British English category, because armour was once worn in the British Isles, but the U.S. wasn't around in that era. Mowsbury 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. The British spelling seems more appropriate. We don't have a lot of American armor. Had General Custer worn breastplate and helmet, he might have survived. Doczilla 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match main article Armour The bottom line is that almost without exception a category's name should match the spelling of its associated main article, which in this case is Armour. Personally I have no realopinion on whether the spelling of the main article should be "armour" or "armor", but either way the category should match it. Dugwiki 21:31, 4 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: moved to SfD.-- Mike Selinker 14:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Moved to WP:SFD. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename Category:Medieval armor to Category:Medieval armour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Medieval armor to Category:Medieval armour

Nominator's rationale: Rename, The main article is at armour, so it makes no sense to have the category using American English. Also other categories such as "Category:Medieval armour stubs" use GB English. Most wikipedia entries on Medieval armour also use GB English. John Smith's 11:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom Johnbod 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• If renamed, retain the old as a redirect. Otto4711 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename and redirect. This should be a British English category, because armour was once worn in the British Isles, but the U.S. wasn't around in that era. Mowsbury 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per above. Doczilla 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match main article Armour See above. Category should match main article's spelling. Dugwiki 21:32, 4 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename Category:Personal armor to Category:Personal armour. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Personal armor to Category:Personal armour

Nominator's rationale: Rename, As per other nominations, central wikipedia articles use "armour" and not "armor", so for commonality it makes sense to use "armour" in categories. John Smith's 11:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom Johnbod 12:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• If renamed, retain the old as a redirect. Otto4711 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename and redirect. This should be a British English category, because armour was once worn in the British Isles, but the U.S. wasn't around in that era. Mowsbury 14:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Suggestion: modern armour and historical armour should be distinguished, somehow. Pavel Vozenilek 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The Medieval and personal categories do most of that. Alex Middleton 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I would be more aggresive and rename it to "Modern personal armo[u]r" with explanation what era the 'modern' covers. Pavel Vozenilek 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 23:04, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename Category:Alexander Pope to Category:Works of Alexander Pope. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Alexander Pope to Category:Works of Alexander Pope

Nominator's rationale: Rename, All bar the article Alexander Pope itself is a work by Pope, so I suggest that a "works of" category is better than an eponymous category in this case. Tim! 10:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom Johnbod 12:44, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:List Of PopFusion Album Number Ones ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - This cat. is an un-categorized list of articles that fail WP:NOT and have themselves been tagged for deletion. Kralizec! ( talk) 05:40, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn

Propose renaming Category:Autobiographical graphic novels to Category:Graphic autobiographical non-fiction books

Nominator's rationale: Rename, similar to nom below, as the contents are articles about non-fiction books. I'm happy to consider a less awkward name if anyone can think of one. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Fact is, these things are called graphic novels in common parlance, and we should maintain that usage regardless of whether the contents are based on truth. In this case, graphic isn't really an adjective; it's part of the phrase that means "perfect-bound comic book."-- Mike Selinker 05:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not taking issue with the term "graphic"; it's "novel" that's the question. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • My point is that "graphic novel" is a phrase that cannot be separated, regardless of whether a different adjective like "autobiographical" is added to the front.-- Mike Selinker 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. That doesn't mean the same thing at all and is simply an incorrect splitting of a specific term. Does the nominator know what a graphic novel is? That would be like (but actually a step worse than) taking a category about autobiographical comic books and trying to call it "comic autobiographical non-fiction books". No. It doesn't mean a kind of book in the way most people use the word book. Doczilla 08:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I understand that "common parlance" uses "novel". If a book is an autobiographical novel, i.e. fiction based on a person's life story, that makes sense. If it's a factual autobiography and not altered by fictional elements, it's not a novel. But until the word "novel" becomes synonymous with "book" in The Rest Of The World, I maintain that there is a distinction and I hope that some kind of nomenclature evolves to deal with it. I'm not adamant on this issue but I think it should be considered. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Unfortunately it looks like you are missing something. The point that is trying to be made is that both "novel" and "graphic novel" a separate types of books, both of which can contain material from different genres.
      In these two cats the type of book being listed is " graphic novel" not "a novel that incorporates illustrations" or "a novel that presents graphic descriptions or uses graphic language".
      Doczilla's statement re comic book/book is OTT, but not by much since the proposed changes do change the definition of the material to be in the cats. - J Greb 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks, but I'm not missing anything, I just don't agree with it. I take your point though, so withdraw the nomination. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. We can't wait for the nomenclature to evolve. These things are called graphic novels and, for now, that's what we're stuck with. Comic books are seldom comedic anymore, but nonetheless that's what they are called. Neither term may be completely accurate, but that never got in the way of usage in modern English. To rename the category as suggested would be overly verbose and confusing. -- GentlemanGhost 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Opposed As per my comment above, the suggested change alters the target cat contents. - J Greb 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Rename, per amended proposal (insert hyphen).-- cjllw ʘ TALK 13:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Nonfiction graphic novels to Category:Graphic non-fiction books Category:Non-fiction graphic novels

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Novels are by definition fiction; this is a more accurate description. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• OpposeSupport modified nomination. Though the hyphen change is fine.-- Mike Selinker 05:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Does the nominator know what a graphic novel is? Doczilla 08:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, indeed she does, has cataloged and read many, and is interested to see how the format (and naming) of graphic books will evolve. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • P.S. We should at least use "non-fiction" rather than "nonfiction", per consistency with other uses on WP cats & articles. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose As above. This change would be unhelpful. -- GentlemanGhost 22:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose with a caveat... The juggling is not a good idea, but inserting the hyphen is. Support modified suggestion - J Greb 04:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• OK then, I will revise the proposal. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:00, 3 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was merge Category:Magic: The Gathering storylines to Category:Magic: The Gathering. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Magic: The Gathering storylines to Category:Magic: The Gathering

• Merge - I'm not seeing any organizational utility in maintaining this category or its contents separate from the parent. Otto4711 03:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge - Alright. There are only 6 pages in the category, and they fit well enough in Category:Magic: The Gathering. - Deadbraincell 20:34, 3 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delay for now. The association does not merit a category, but the articles have not been taken to AfD. Until they are, the category should stay.-- Mike Selinker 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Punjab State Carrom Association ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete and merge all articles into the Punjab State Carrom Association article or none of them will survive AfD, because they are not notable enough local organizations. The category itself is overcat. There is just not enough material to start splitting up the <sarcasm>huge array</sarcasm> of carrom-related articles geographically. Do not delete category if no merge, though, unless the articles are successfully AfD'd. All three other articles there are clubs within the Punjab state-wide organization. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Indian carrom players, a subcategory of Category:Carrom players. We already have a scheme of geographical representation for games and sports, such as Category:Scrabble players and Category:Go players. However, by-state categorization is more than we allow for any game/sport.-- Mike Selinker 14:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Carrom Players Of Punjab to Category:Carrom players

Nominator's rationale: Rename — Original name malformed, and there are nowhere near enough notable players of carrom to support geographical categorization. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Rename all, as proposed, and change parent of "by country" cat to Category:Aerial tramways. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 13:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Aerial tramway transport by country to Category:Aerial tramways by country

Category:Aerial tramway transport in Canada to Category:Aerial tramways in Canada

Category:Aerial tramway transport in the United States to Category:Aerial tramways in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Remove excessive wording. Vegaswikian 02:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: also move into the Category:Aerial tramways (and somebody clean this up please). Pavel Vozenilek 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Pavel Vozenilek's change is covered by another nomination at the bottom of this page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:45, 5 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Keep, and repopulate; no consensus for merge, also nominator indicates intention to pursue consensus for the wider class of cats.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 02:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Pseudoscientists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge – Too prone to abuse, inherently problematic for POV conflicts, these can all be more appropriately included in Category:Pseudoscience anyway. Sapphic 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep for now, while I try to organize a discussion to form a consensus on the larger issue of how to deal with list-style categories that are controversial. -- Sapphic 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Clarification – The reason I emptied the category is the same reason I nominated this category for deletion/merger.. nothing should really ever be listed here. Remember, if article X is a member of category Y that does not mean X is Y (or a Y), it means that the topic of X is notably associated with the topic of Y. That just doesn't make sense in the case of Category:Pseudoscientists. Somebody was clearly trying to use categories as labels (which they are not) when they created this category, and that's simply an error. -- Sapphic 04:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Question When was this emptied? Alex Middleton 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I moved the member articles to different categories, either the parent ( Category:Pseudoscience) or to some more specific sub-category of the parent. This was done earlier in the day, prior to my nomination of the article. Most of the other biography articles were already listed under the parent category rather than this one, and I have since sorted many of those into their appropriate sub-categories (e.g. Category:Pseudophysics, Category:Pseudoarchaeology, Category:Creation Science, etc.) -- Sapphic 20:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Repopulate and keep First off, you should never depopulate a category simply because you intend to nominate it for deletion. It makes it very difficult to see how the category is being used, and also if the category ends up being kept then you'll end up having a more difficult time properly repopulating it. So please don't depopulate categories simply because you're nominating them here. Second, I recommend keeping this category as a way to seperate biographies about people who study the various topics under Category:Pseudoscience from other articles about Pseudoscience. This is analogous to seperating Category:Physicists out as a subcategory of Category:Physics. While I somewhat share your POV concerns with labelling articles under "pseudoscience", the fact is that Category:Pseudoscience has already undergone cfd review with a decision to keep and therefore, by extension, it is useful to maintain a subcategory within it specifically for biographies of professionals in those fields. If you don't want these subjects labelled in that manner, then you'll need to find a way to eliminate the parent Category:Pseudoscience first. Dugwiki 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

P.S. I notice in the process of trying to repopulate this prematurely depopulated category that there were a number of biographies under Category:Pseudoscience that probably should have instead been under Category:Pseudoscientists. I'll see if I can repopulate this a bit more.... Dugwiki 21:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

P.P.S. I also found Category:Homeopaths and included it as a subcategory of this, since Category:Homeopathy is similarly a subcategory Category:Pseudoscience. Dugwiki 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, I didn't depopulate the category because I was going to list it here, I depopulated it because I thought the member articles were better listed elsewhere, and then found out about CfD when I was trying to figure out what the do with the (then empty) category. I've already been informed of the proper procedure, and intend to follow it going forward. Also, I think a distinction needs to be drawn between treating this category as a list vs. treating it as a topical grouping (see Wikipedia:Categorization_FAQ, "What is the purpose of categories?"). I was viewing this category (and it's parent Category:Pseudoscience) as topical groupings, in which case I hope you'll agree Category:Pseudoscientists doesn't really make much sense. Now that I'm more aware of the list interpretation of categories, I still think Category:Pseudoscientists should be deleted because of the POV issues involved in inclusion. If inclusion in Category:Pseudoscientists really does mean to imply that the subject of the article is a pseudoscientist, then that's a gross violation of NPOV. We are NOT allowed to assert that people are pseudoscientists, we are only allowed to point out that various reliable sources make the assertion, and since categories do not allow for references to be attached, they cannot be used in these cases. -- Sapphic 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, and I have no problem with Category:Pseudoscience (which I've actually been working hard to clean up!) because I view it strictly as a topical grouping rather than a list of examples of pseudoscience. As a topical grouping I think it's arguably less controversial to say that (e.g.) "Intelligent design" is associated with pseudoscience, and the only controversy is in whether this association (though notable) is warranted. -- Sapphic 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Follow-up Ok, I've done a pass on the Pseudoscience articles and subcats and various other bios and I think I've managed to repopulate the category. I included as subcategories things any category which is specifically for biographies of people who study and advocate something categorized as a pseudoscience. For example, since Category:Homeopathy apppears under Category:Pseudoscience, it follows that Category:Homeopaths likewise belongs here. Note that by following this categorization scheme we are simply organizing the categories that are already labelled as "Pseudosciences", so it is reasonable under that scheme to label the scientists of that discipline as "Pseudoscientists". If you don't agree that Homeopathy is a pseudoscience, for example, then you should argue for its removal as a discipline categorized under Category:Pseudoscience. Dugwiki 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Or to put it another way, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to label a discipline as a pseudoscience, then you logically should accept labelling scientists of that discipline as pseudoscientists. Dugwiki 22:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

One final note. Technically only disciplines which have strong consensus as being pseudosciences should be categorized under Category:Pseudoscience. That category shouldn't include topics which are simply "possibly associated" with pseudoscience. So if, using your hypothetical example above, someone thinks Category:Intelligent design is not a pseudoscience then they should argue for its removal from Category:Pseudoscience. Dugwiki 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't agree. Categories can be thought of as either lists or as topical groupings (see Wikipedia:Categorization_FAQ, "What is the purpose of categories?"). Category:Pseudoscience includes noted skeptics such as Michael Shermer and by your reasoning he should be recategorized under Category:Pseudoscientists, which is absurd. The problem here is that Category:Pseudoscience is quite clearly a topical grouping while Category:Pseudoscientists can very reasonably be interpreted as a list type category. I don't think the list interpretation of categories should be allowed for controversial topics, because of the inability to provide references or qualifications to the inclusion. -- Sapphic 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No, reread what I said above and the category description for Category:Pseudoscientists. I specifically said that this category is for advocates of the pseudoscience, not for skeptics and critics. And while there might be debate on whether or not some of the disciplines labelled as pseudosciences should be categorized that way, there is no ambiguity on whether or not a biography of a person is about someone who studies that discipline and advocates it. So assuming you accept the definition of a particular discipline as a pseudoscience then it becomes immediately clear whether or not a biography of a scientist in that discipline belongs here. Dugwiki 16:00, 5 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename Category:Wildlife of Himachal Pradesh to Category:Wildlife sanctuaries of Himachal Pradesh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Wildlife of Himachal Pradesh to Category:Wildlife sanctuaries of Himachal Pradesh

Nominator's rationale: Rename,Reason(s) for the proposed rename. To make it alighn with the parent category-Wildlife sanctuaries of India Shyamsunder 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• RenameIt should be renamed as Category:Wildlife sanctuaries of Himachal Pradesh to reflect the pages in the category and also to align it with the parent category.Wildlife sanctuaries of India. Shyamsunder 13:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)}}} reply
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 00:53, 3 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Delete, as redundant with Category:Pseudoscientists.-- cjllw ʘ TALK 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Lists of pseudo-scientists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge – Too controversial, hardly used (only 2 members, already relocated to Category:Pseudoscience) and not needed. Sapphic 01:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Addendum — if for whatever reason this category is retained, can it at least be renamed to exclude the dash, since the current name is inconsistent with those of related categories and pages. -- Sapphic 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Do not empty a category you're going to nominate for CfD. Doczilla 06:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, I thought you were supposed to move the articles to a new category ahead of time, because otherwise it would be too difficult to do after the fact (i.e. after the category has been deleted). I guess there's some sort of grace period after a merge/delete is approved, before it's actually carried out? Anyway, sorry, I won't do it that way again. It certainly won't be a problem for me to move the 2 members back into this category, should it be retained. -- Sapphic 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

If there is a merger, it is done by a bot, ie automatically. It is no trouble at all. LukeHoC 00:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as redundant with Category:Pseudoscientists. Do NOT delete Category:Pseudoscientists I agree that this category is redundant with Category:Pseudoscientists and can be deleted as unneeded. However, do NOT delete Category:Pseudoscientists as it is useful for separating out biographies under Category:Pseudoscience from other articles (much as biographies of Category:Physicists are separated from other articles in Category:Physics). Dugwiki 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as redundant: the Category:Pseudoscientists is all we need. Generally, "list of" should (if anything) be an article not a category. Peterkingiron 22:16, 6 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Look and Read ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - after moving the episode/series articles to a subcat, the subcat and the show article don't warrant the category for navigation. Otto4711 01:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete: okay by me -- my intent was to categorise the individual L&R stories in a separate section, since there were so many of them over the years. And since we now have a new category for them, you can delete this original category. -- azumanga 20:23, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Barker's Beauties ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - an improper performer by performance category. There is a list at Barker's Beauties and a template, which is more than sufficient. Otto4711 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:Overcategorization. Bulldog123 04:16, 5 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:South of Nowhere ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - following the recategorizing of the charcter articles to a characters subcat, that subcat plus the show article are all that's left. Category is not needed. Otto4711 00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and per precedent. Carlossuarez46 05:18, 3 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was speedy rename to fix capitalisation, per WP:CFD#Speedy_criteria#2. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Aerial Tramways to Category:Aerial tramways

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Inconsistent capitalisation EdJogg 01:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename Mowsbury 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename, close. Pavel Vozenilek 21:51, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was Merge into Category:Aerial tramways, then delete. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Aerial tramway transport ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Aerial tramways

• Merge, Duplicated categories. Note that this one has sub-categories which may also need renaming EdJogg 01:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • (They have since also been listed on this page. See Category:Aerial tramway transport by country above. EdJogg 20:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)) reply
• Merge/rename per nom. Mowsbury 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge. Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 2 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.