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. Seems like this has been open long enough.-- Mike Selinker 04:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I am relisting this debate after closing it this morning. Apparently, when I moved it from the speedy list on June 3, I didn't change the nomination tag from speedy to normal CfD on the category pages, so at least one person who might have voted to keep the categories did not know of the debate. So here it is again. Mea culpa.-- Mike Selinker 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Porn stars of Persian Origin to be deleted Category:Porn stars of Persian heritage
• Category:Porn stars of Indian Origin to be deleted Category:Porn stars of Indian heritage

Per capitalization, and naming conventions Heritage criteria. I think these just need to go away. I only suggested renaming because my prior speedy delete nomination failed (I wasn't familiar with CfD at the time.) I fully support deletion. Delete. Joie de Vivre 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• • Delete instead, or at least make it "Persian descent" and "Indian descent". Hawkestone 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Moved from speedy.-- Mike Selinker 02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as partly redundant to other categories (e.g., Category:Indian porn stars) and for overcategorization ( WP:OC#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference) Doczilla 06:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Doczilla. Haddiscoe 10:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, redundant to categories by nationality (which is ideal neither). Pavel Vozenilek 11:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above users. Greg Grahame 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as improper intersection. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Carlos Bulldog123 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Notice The debate has moved to Category talk:Porn stars of Indian Origin. It would be great if we could bring it back here, but if not brought back, it is more preferable to have the debate there. Aditya Kabir 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Erm no, the debate is here. I can definitely see it. Perebourne 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per above-- James, La gloria è a dio 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Irrelevant and redundant. Perebourne 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Since no one seems to be willing to take the trouble of visiting the other page where the renewed debate was happening, I am copying the entire stuff from that page here. Check. Aditya Kabir 13:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

According to the porn stars' origins deletion debate the categories porn stars of Indian Origin and porn stars of Persian Origin are marked for deletion. There seems to be a total consensus in favor of delete, and therefore Mike Selinker, very rightfully, closed the debate as delete. But, I beg to differ (and, I am sorry that I had no clue of this debate while it was going on). I would very much like to see the debate restarted for a better argument. I also have put a notice at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Contested prod. Here goes the simple reasoning:

• While categorizing something we must make some use of the standards, if any available, already in use (thus we shall not superimpose the catrgorization method used in philosophy while categorizing, say, dog breeds)
• "Indian", "Persian", "Latina", "Japanese" and other ethnic idenitities are widely used in the porn industry, and therefore should have some reflection in the method used to categorize pornstar (see Wikipedia:Common knowledge)
• Ethnic categories are no more or no less incorrect politically than national categories (between keeping one or the other I'd propose - delete either both, or none)
• This hardly counts as over-categorization, since multiple categories for the same article is nothing new and these two categories hardly represnt the same criterion for categorization
• And simply - how can you believe that Nadia Nyce is better categorized as a British porn star or someone from Manchester than a porn star of Indian Origin?

Yours. Aditya Kabir 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Reporting a person's legal status as a citizen of the country in which they were born (and any such changes to that status) is a simple, indisputable matter. Fetishizing people according to their ethnic background (or a false ethnic background according to their looks) is entirely another. Joie de Vivre 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

We've got plenty of ethnicity based categories. Category:American people by ethnic or national origin lists dozens. The larger ones are broken down by occupation also. Category:African-American artists. Category:Hispanic American politicians Category:Greek American politicians Nothing wrong with them. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Please, "fetishizing" seems to me like too much of a weasel word here. How about those nationalistic debates all over the Wikipedia? Does those make us feel very politically correct when identifying things and people by nationalities? I really don't believe an encyclopedia should be structured around the flavor of the day, as in national identities. Aditya Kabir 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

It is fetishizing when they are not actually of that ethnicity, which happens frequently in porn. I have edited articles where the same woman is billed variously as "Asian", "Latina", and "Native American", depending on the video. It's pure money-making fantasy. Joie de Vivre 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, you are right at that. And, that gives us all the more reason to identify ethnicity. Citing the porn stars just by nationalities do nothing to countermend the fetish, or even helps to fan the fire of confusion. Aditya Kabir 04:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

It gives us all the more reason not to do so, as accurate information is often not available. Craig.Scott 23:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I forgot to mention that I find Hawkestone's proposal to rename the categories to Category:Porn stars of Persian descent and Category:Porn stars of Indian descent much more agreeable. Aditya Kabir 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hawkestone said very clearly that he or she wants the categories deleted. Craig.Scott 23:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• One more thing. I have just looked into Doczila's argument (i.e. checked the link to a guideline page), and found that the guideline syas - "...people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career... "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorisation, "LGBT quantum physics" is not." Looks like no one bothered to check that link either. Aditya Kabir 13:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Inaccurate category clutter. Postlebury 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It's getting a little tiring here. Are we sure that strong jargons are good argument? Or do we think that this is a voting panel, not a debate? Let's see... There are arguments here claiming "overcategorization", "improper intersection" and "category clutter", but WP guidelines do not seem to support that. There are arguments claiming "redundant", "irrelevant" and "inaccurate", but not one of these claims are explained. And. of course there are quite a bit of agreement to non existent arguments, and a bit of sarcasm, too. Not much of a debate there. Right? Looks like off the cuff voting has outweighed researched understanding :(. Could it be that a category that deals in pornography is stirring some irrational emotions here? I certainly hope otherwise. Aditya Kabir 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete No sensible or credible defence has been put forward, just criticism of people for disagreeing with Aditya Kabir. The proposed names are muddle headed and irrelevant to the matter at hand. Craig.Scott 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Good point. A five point argument, citing a Wikipedia guideline and asking for explanation of one-word arguments is not "sensible or credible" defense. It is even more interesting to notice that the one person who had a real disagreement with Aditya Kabir was one of the people who suggested those "muddle headed and irrelevant" names (the rest mostly presented their views before I did). Are we sure that rude words make a good argument? Aditya Kabir 19:18, 12 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Public transport in the United States to Category:Public transportation in the United States

Category:Public transport in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Public transportation in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As with other US based nominations this is the the correct local usage and is used in most other US categories already. Vegaswikian 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

rename per nom. Per outstanding agreement on all subjects of American vs British English, those articles and categories that pertain solely to the US are to use American English. Editors are supposed to write and keep this pattern in article text; same with categories. Why? Otherwise, we waste time in edit-waring over English dialects Hmains 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose rename - The name is consistent with the parent category, Category:Public transport. While individual articles should be written using one style of English, the category tree should use consistent names if possible. Moreover, as an American, I honestly do not see a problem using "transport" versus "transportation". Dr. Submillimeter 08:48, 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 recat articles and delete cat -- Kbdank71 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merge Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation into parent Category:Pseudoscience

Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The parent category is a topic-style category, not a list-style category, so nothing listed in it necessarily is a pseudoscience, but is merely connected to the topic in some way, ergo all of the articles in this category would fall under the parent whether the accusations are well-founded or not. Having it apart from the parent is confusing because it seems like a POV fork (which it would be if the parent were a list-style category). Sapphic 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge - The two categories appear to be equivalent to each other. Dr. Submillimeter 08:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

merge what is 'fringe' and what is not? Pseudoscience is easier to define. Totnesmartin 10:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Haddiscoe 11:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and nominate for rename or deletion. Yes, the name belongs under Category:Category names you just want to pound and pound and pound with a shovel. However, I've strong reservations about simply voting to merge. There is a difference between Category:Fringe science and Category:Pseudoscience. The fact that the creator of the category saw fit to use the word "fringe" in the category title proves nothing, but it at least raises the question of whether this category was intended to refer to one or the other. Some of the articles listed under the category are clearly referring to pseudoscience, and others appear to be referring to fringe science; possibly the category creator was unaware of the distinction. Careful recategorisation of the articles along these lines would be a less drastic intervention than merging and might obviate the issue by zeroing out the category. I could see a use for a category that refers to fringe science that opens itself to serious critical examination but has simply not received it yet (though I'd prefer Category:Unevaluated fringe science, as a child of Category:Fringe science, for that). -- 7Kim 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete both. POV nightmares. — freak( talk) 12:13, 14 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Microdistricts built in the Soviet Union to Category:City districts and microdistricts built in the Soviet Union

Category:Microdistricts built in the Soviet Union ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:City districts and microdistricts built in the Soviet Union ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Microdistricts had limited size, larger units built in Soviet time were rather called city districts. Cmapm 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Perebourne 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 00:17, 11 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks basketball coaches to Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks basketball coaches

Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks basketball coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks basketball coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose rename Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks football coaches to Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks football coaches

Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks football coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks football coaches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose rename Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks football to Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks football

Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks football ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks football ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose rename Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks football players to Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks football players

Category:Western Illinois Fighting Leathernecks football players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Western Illinois Leathernecks football players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, since nowhere does Western Illinois University refer to themselves as the Fighting Leathernecks. Even the athletics page here is simply called Western Illinois Leathernecks. -- fuzzy510 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename all. The Western Illinois University page calls them Fighting Leathernecks, but I can't find any mention of that formation on the actual WIU Athletics web page.-- Mike Selinker 04:21, 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 merge both into Category:Olympic competitors for Canada and Category:Competitors at the 2000 Summer Olympics -- Kbdank71 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merge Category:Canadian athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics into Category:Competitors for Canada at the 2000 Summer Olympics

Category:Canadian athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Competitors for Canada at the 2000 Summer Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge, these should be all track and field athletes, but only a few are. GregorB 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep why should they all be Track and Field athletes? In American English, Athlete is anyone who plays a sport. It's different in British english (Athlete is T&F only), and maybe Canada has its version. Totnesmartin 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Per Wikipedia conventions. "Athletes" here always means "track and field athletes"; otherwise, it's either "sportspeople" or "competitors". GregorB 10:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep, unless anyone can show me that in Canadian English "athlete" exclusively means track and field. -- fuzzy510 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Per the top of Category:Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics, athletics is commonly used for just the track and field competitors. For consistency with all other countries, the same should be true for these categories as well. Recat the non-athletes to the Competitors category, or the appropriate subcategory. Neier 04:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete both and recat. The intersection of country/year/sport does not normally appear to be categorized. In Category:Olympic competitors, there are subcats for Category:Olympic competitors by country, Category:Olympic competitors by sport, and Category:Olympic competitors by year so, there's no reason to further clutter up all competitors with this type of intersection. Neier 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment how does this clutter things? It'd replace Olympic year, with Olympic year and country. 70.55.87.222 18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Well, look at Category:Competitors at the 2000 Summer Olympics. All the sports are there, and Canada. The article Canada at the 2000 Summer Olympics already has the information about all the competitors for Canada in 2000, with much more detail than the category can provide. Since there are existing categories of competitors by sport/year, and competitors by nation, nothing is lost. Also, as far as defining characteristics go (for categorization), competing for a country is obviously important. Competing for a country in a specific year is not so much. Competing in a sport in a particular year can be important, due to the other people involved and the rate at which the levels of competition improve over the years. Anyway, that's my opinion. I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics to see if anyone there has any opinions. Neier 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete both. As per Neier, delete both as overcategorization intersection of competitors by country and year. (As for the term 'competitor' over 'athlete', I agree. 'Competitor' is not only the proper term in non-North American English - it also is as an appropriate a term as 'athlete' within N.A. English.) Mayumashu 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete both per Neier. Casperonline 22:21, 13 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 both into Category:Olympic competitors for Canada and Category:Competitors at the 2004 Summer Olympics -- Kbdank71 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merge Category:Canadian athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics into Category:Competitors for Canada at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Category:Canadian athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Competitors for Canada at the 2004 Summer Olympics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge, these should be all track and field athletes, but only a few are. GregorB 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep why should they all be Track and Field athletes? In American English, Athlete is anyone who plays a sport. It's different in British english (Athlete is T&F only), and maybe Canada has its version. Totnesmartin 21:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep, unless anyone can show me that in Canadian English "athlete" exclusively means track and field. -- fuzzy510 21:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Per the top of Category:Athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics, athletics is commonly used for just the track and field competitors. For consistency with all other countries, the same should be true for these categories as well. Recat the non-athletes to the Competitors category, or the appropriate subcategory. Neier 04:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete both and recat. The intersection of country/year/sport does not normally appear to be categorized. In Category:Olympic competitors, there are subcats for Category:Olympic competitors by country, Category:Olympic competitors by sport, and Category:Olympic competitors by year so, there's no reason to further clutter up all competitors with this type of intersection. Neier 06:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment how does this clutter things? It'd replace Olympic year, with Olympic year and country. 70.55.87.222 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• NOTE: I am going to stop contributing to this section, and focus only on the 2000 section above. All the comments so far are just duplicated, and I don't think that there is any difference between the 2004/2000 categories. Neier 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete both as per comments in immediately above nomination Mayumashu 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete both per Neier. Casperonline 22:21, 13 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 delete db-author. Vegaswikian 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete: Created accidently. Number 5 7 21:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Now nominated through {{ db-author}}. Number 5 7 22:20, 8 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Ouster by coup to Category:Leaders ousted by a coup

Category:Ouster by coup ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Leaders ousted by a coup ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I think this category should be renamed because this new name makes its purpose more clear. "Ouster by coup" just doesn't sound right. Picaroon (Talk) 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename as above. The category seems to be currently listing oustees by coup, as the proposed new name suggests (an ouster is someone who does the ousting, not someone ousted). Grutness... wha? 02:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  I think ouster was meant to be a verb, not a noun, but this isn't made clear anywhere - which is why the category is ambiguous. I interpret the original naming to have meant "these people were subject to an ouster by coup," but it doesn't really come across as clearly as it could if renamed. For double confusion, see articles like Yakubu Gowon, where the subject gained power in a coup and was ousted by another coup; because of this they have Category:Ouster by coup and Category:Past leaders by coup. The rename to Category:Leaders ousted by a coup will make it clear whether the person in question is the ouster (noun, the one who does the ousting) or the oustee (who was ousted, and whose government was subject to an ouster). Picaroon (Talk) 02:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  I've never heard of ouster as a verb - and neither has any dictionary I've got. Nor wiktionary, for that matter, though that does give a confusing noun form where it means a forceful removing from office, which may be what is being referred to here. Very confusing usage, though, you're right. Grutness... wha? 00:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Haddiscoe 11:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Leaders ousted by coup. Leave out the "a" per how the other cats mentioned here are named. Otto4711 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Leaders ousted by coup. per Otto. Perebourne 17:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Leaders ousted by coup. per Otto. Postlebury 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Leaders ousted by coup. per Otto. Johnbod 00:18, 11 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Bus transport in New York City to Category:Bus transportation in New York City

Category:Bus transport in New York City ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Bus transportation in New York City ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent and common US usage. Vegaswikian 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose rename - The ultimate parent category is Category:Public transport. The category should be renamed to be consistent with the parent. Besides, the difference between "transport" and "transportation" is minimal. Dr. Submillimeter 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually the parent is Category:Bus transportation in the United States which is correctly named. Vegaswikian 22:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - The parent of the parent category is Category:Public transport. Dr. Submillimeter 23:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Note to administrator - Please close this nomination and the nominations under "Category:Bus transportation in the United States" in a consistent way; all United States categories should have the same name. Dr. Submillimeter 21:44, 8 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 -- Kbdank71 14:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose delete Category:Riverside, California

Category:Riverside, California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: one member, no chance for expansion. — Scouter Sig 19:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep Nonsense. Riverside, California is a fast growing city of 305,000 people. Many cities far smaller than that have a category. Mowsbury 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Reply Can you point some out (I'm not sure how to find any)? And as important as Riverside may be to my native Inland Empire, the number of articles that would fall in this category is very small. — Scouter Sig 05:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The correct category is Category:Riverside County, California. I moved the one article to the well used and existing category. I will also note that this one article is nominated for deletion and it is likely to be deleted. Vegaswikian 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep and populate of course. At least 20 relevant articles are linked from Riverside, California. The city has a population of 300,000, the county five times that. They are not the same thing at all. Cities of any size get a category, and counties get separate categories. It doesn't make any difference if the city and the county happen to share a name. See Category:Los Angeles County, California and Category:Los Angeles, California. Haddiscoe 11:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I have added 20 articles, several of which weren't in category:Riverside County, California. There is no doubt there is room for considerable growth. Haddiscoe 11:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nomination makes no sense. Perebourne 17:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. If kept, someone needs to go through the articles and drop the included category of Category:Riverside County, California when Category:Riverside, California was added. Vegaswikian 20:16, 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 -- Kbdank71 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose delete Category:Nintendo DS games with different names in Europe and the U.S.

Category:Nintendo DS games with different names in Europe and the U.S. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Many games for many systems over the years have different names for various countries, it's not that notable. RobJ1981 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong oppose - if so, then make a category for those as well! Why not? It's reasonably encyclopaedic, and there are many other categories like this one. Sala Skan 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment User Salaskan is original creator of category. -- Oscarthecat 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete - blatant overcategorization. -- Oscarthecat 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Many others like this? I don't think so (when it comes to video game categories at least). I'm a regular editor of video game articles and categories, and I've seen none that are used for this purpose (except this one of course). Names differ by country, it's not that important. RobJ1981 20:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Too specific. Plenty of games on other platforms have different names in different countries. We don't have a category for them and we don't need a category for this. -- Temporarily Insane ( talk) 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is a trivial characteristic and it might be interesting to put in the article, but it's certainly not useful categorization. Combination 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Typical is it drum? or is it Conga? issue, basically not enought material to warrant overcategorization. - 凶 22:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, it's useful and I think it's encyclopedic. - MTC 06:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete What's next? Green fishes? Who cares about Nintendo DS games with different names in Europe and the U.S.? User:Microraptor Dude
• Comment Why care? The page is reasonably encyclopaedic, and if it's "overcategorisation", why would that matter, when the category is not about something entirely trivial (e.g. "list of NDS games with green or yellow colours on the cover") but rather about something that's actually related to the game (and included in the articles itself)? Sala Skan 14:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Definite overcategorization, and it makes it seem like it has too much significance. Sleep On It 20:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Absolutely no point in having this as a category - such information belongs in an article. Plus, of course, most games will have a different name somewhere in Europe, with it translated into French or German or ... Tim (Xevious) 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Listify 132.205.44.134
• Delete Non-defining. Casperonline 22:22, 13 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 -- Kbdank71 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose delete Category:Dragon Ball special abilities

Category:Dragon Ball special abilities ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: After the deletion of "List of Dragon Ball special abilities" (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities (2nd nomination) there were two articles left ( Oozaru, Super Saiyan), which I removed. The category has nothing to categorize now that the main article is deleted. It two should be deleted. -- Iamunknown 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, as nominator. Or speedy if possible. Combination 21:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 02:25, 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 rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Plays by Samuel Beckett ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Samuel Beckett plays ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Plays by Wilkie Collins ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Wilkie Collins plays ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Plays by Charles Dickens ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Charles Dickens plays ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Plays by T. S. Eliot ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:T. S. Eliot plays ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Plays by Timothy Findley ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Timothy Findley plays ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Plays by Dario Fo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Dario Fo plays ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Plays by Victor Hugo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Victor Hugo plays ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Convention of Category:Plays by author Tim! 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename all to match convention.-- Mike Selinker 04:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename all. Consistency is good, especially in categories. Xtifr _tälk 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename all but please don't list nominations in small type! Johnbod 00:20, 11 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Moon exploration ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Exploration of the Moon, to match Exploration of the Moon. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge, seconded thirded. -- Seed 2.0 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- 7Kim 19:21, 12 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merge Category:People from Ealing by district into Category:People from Ealing

Category:People from Ealing by district ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:People from Ealing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merge Category:People from Acton into Category:People from Ealing

Category:People from Acton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:People from Ealing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merge Category:People from Greenford into Category:People from Ealing

Category:People from Greenford ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:People from Ealing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merge Category:People from Hanwell into Category:People from Ealing

Category:People from Hanwell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:People from Ealing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merge Category:People from Norwood Green into Category:People from Ealing

Category:People from Norwood Green ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:People from Ealing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merge Category:People from Perivale into Category:People from Ealing

Category:People from Perivale ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:People from Ealing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The subdivisions of the London Borough of Ealing are poorly defined. For example, no well-defined borders exist between Acton and Ealing, between Ealing and West Ealing, or between West Ealing and Hanwell. Diving people by neighbourhood in London, as is done in this category, is therefore problematic. Hence, these people should be merged together into a category that describes a region with well-defined boundaries. Since the London Borough of Ealing has well-defined boundaries, that should be used for categorization instead. Dr. Submillimeter 13:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Note that "Ealing" in the new category name would implicitly refer to the London Borough of Ealing, which has worked for organization in the categories on the boroughs of London. Editors have not had problems with confusing the borough with the neighbourhood of the same name within the borough. Dr. Submillimeter 13:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Also note the recent decision to delete Category:Marylebone because of similar problems. Dr. Submillimeter 13:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This was also discussed at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London#Category:People from Ealing by district. While all people who commented there did not necessarily support merging these categories together, most people did not like the categorization scheme. Dr. Submillimeter 13:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Support - People's specific relationship with a district should be described in text, and without that description is the source of many boundary disputes. Individuals relationship with the borough, birth, or long term residence is less problematic. Kbthompson 14:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep First of all, thanks to the nominator for a detailed rationale and explanation. I appreciate the difficulties in defining area, but most of these locations were not part of London for a very long time. Many were distinct and separate from the conurbation until Post WW1. The boroughs the proposal uses are a 1960s creation so are not appropriate for people prior to that date. Regan123 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This could be a categorization problem in general, as political boundaries shift over time, and smaller political units are combined together to form larger political units. Should, for example, separate categories exist for people from East and West Germany because they lived in Germany between 1949 and 1990? (The category does exist for East Germany, although it has a funny name.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Reply - It is a general issue I suppose. We have the he/she was born in Lancashire before 1974 and Greater Manchester problem which makes life easier using the districts. How do we define them? He/she was born in the London Borough of Ealing? Erm yes if in 1980 but no if in 1960? Shorten it to Ealing and then, but they are from Acton! To come back to your example, East Germany was a distinct nation state and so deserves its cat. In fact there is still some East/West division in the way the two halves of Germany seem to work. I know the topology seems a little redundant but it covers all combinations and possibilities Regan123 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge all These are far too detailed to be of anything but local interest, and Wikipedia is aimed at a global audience. Indeed, one could argue that there should only be a single category for people from London. Mowsbury 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment By that rationale, Category:People from the Bronx should be merged into Category:People from New York City as that is of only local interest. London is an every changing thing and has absorbed towns and villages over the years. To put people from Ealing into London would cause problems with pre-London expansion residents. The whole category structure is designed to account for all circumstances and allow for growth. I have populated quite a few of the sub cats over time and am doing so on a fairly regular basis as People form London is now into the thousands and is unmanageable at that level. Regan123 12:52, 14 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:National University of Singapore chemistry faculty ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:National University of Singapore faculty, overly narrow. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nomination. Resurgent insurgent 13:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Mowsbury 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. The Chemistry Dept of NUS is a fine department and I am sure there are more than one member of it who should have an article in WP. Nevertheless, it will never be a massive list, so merge. -- Bduke 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge for overcat. Doczilla 02:27, 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 rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Saudi astronauts to Category:Saudi Arabian astronauts

Propose rename Category:Saudi aviators to Category:Saudi Arabian aviators

Propose rename Category:Saudi journalists to Category:Saudi Arabian journalists

Nominator's rationale: Rename per Category:Saudi Arabian people by occupation. Casperonline 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename all per nom. (Though renaming the others without the word "Arabian" might also be acceptable). Mowsbury 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. (Though I'd be a little more comfortable if we check for a possible difference in meaning or implication between "Saudi" and "Saudi Arabian".) -- 7Kim 19:39, 12 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 to Category:Public transportation in the Boston area -- Kbdank71 13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Boston-area public transportation to Category:Public transport in the Boston area

Category:Boston-area public transportation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Public transport in the Boston area ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The category should be named following the convention for most of the subcategories in Category:Public transport. Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Public transportation in the Boston area which is the correct US usage. Vegaswikian 20:02, 8 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian businessmen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Australian businesspeople, convention of Category:Businesspeople by nationality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 12:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Australian businesspeople, speedy if appropriate. Creation was probably a mistake by the looks of it. Picaroon (Talk) 02:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect Perebourne 17:23, 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 keep United States and New Jersey (yay NJ!), rename Category:Boston-area buses to Category:Bus transportation in the Boston area and rename Category:Bus transport in New York City to Category:Bus transportation in New York City -- Kbdank71 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Bus transportation in the United States to Category:Bus transport in the United States

Category:Bus transportation in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Bus transport in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose rename Category:Bus transportation in New Jersey to Category:Bus transport in New Jersey

Category:Bus transportation in New Jersey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Bus transport in New Jersey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose rename Category:Boston-area buses to Category:Bus transport in the Boston area

Category:Boston-area buses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Bus transport in the Boston area ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The categories should all be renamed using "bus transport" for consistency with the parent category, Category:Bus transport. Dr. Submillimeter 12:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• oppose These article are in regards to the United States. The United States does not use 'transport' in this way; it uses 'transportation'. This is an American English vs British English question. American English is used for American articles and categories per WP guidelines. Hmains 14:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Regardless of whether "transport" or "transportation" is used, the category for Boston should be renamed. Also note Category:Bus transport in New York City, which should be renamed using "transportation" if everyone objects to "transport" for these American categories. (I am American, and I have no problems with using "transport".) Dr. Submillimeter 15:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose as presented. This is the correct usage in the US. Vegaswikian 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Category:Boston-area buses to Category:Bus transportation in the Boston area. Vegaswikian 22:44, 8 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 -- Kbdank71 13:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose delete Category:Stalwart US Republicans

Category:Stalwart US Republicans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The Stalwart faction of the Republican party appears to have been defined by only a single issue (civil service reform in the late 19th century), and it appears to have had a limited historical impact. Having a separate category for these people does not seem necessary, as the article on the subject seems more informative and more appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 10:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete before we have categories for every temporary political faction, like (on this side of the pond) the Bruges Group or the Militant tendency. Totnesmartin 10:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not a significant subdivision of the Republican party. jwillbur ^talk 18:04, 8 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 unorthodox category name... you slay me, sir. oh, and rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Orthodox Directory of Churches to Category:Lists of Orthodox parishes in the United States

Category:Orthodox Directory of Churches ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Lists of Orthodox parishes in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The category uses an unorthodox name (pun intended), and the name is written poorly (as the word "Orthodox" appears to be an adjective for "Directory" and not "Churches"). The proposed name follows the convention used in Wikipedia for categories containing lists. Note that I added "in the United States" because all of the articles are about churches in the United States; an alternative Category:Lists of Orthodox parishes, which could include lists of churches outside the United States, may be equally appropriate. Also note that this category nomination has nothing to do with the merits of the articles in the category, but as long as the articles exist, the category should also exist. Dr. Submillimeter 10:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Most WP lists are lists of WP articles. This is only a list of lists, but the latter are not WP articles either. They consist of lists of churches with websites (externally linked) and (in black) churches without websites. The whole business is non encyclopaedic. "Directory" is a correct description, but WP is not the right place for such directories. I suspect the whole lot ought to be nominated for AFD. However, I will leave that to others. Peterkingiron 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Again, this is not a discussion on the merits of the articles within the category. This is a discussion on the category name, which is still very unorthodox. (Again, pun intended.) Dr. Submillimeter 23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom. Johnbod 15:04, 10 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 -- Kbdank71 13:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:People referred to by their middle name ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as non defining, or Listify. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete these names are useful as examples in a discussion of name usage, but they don't jusify a category. Totnesmartin 10:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete next we'll have Category:US Presidents referred to by their middle initial. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete this trivial and excessively inclusive category. Doczilla 02:27, 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 -- Kbdank71 13:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Incompetent Fictional Characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as subjective, or at least Rename to Category:Incompetent fictional characters. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

keep I'm not sure if it is truly subjective. incompetence is written into a character for humorous effect, so it's pretty obvious who is incompetent and who is not. Of course, this leaves open the question of incompetence in serious fiction. Is the DA in Perry Mason incompetent because he always loses? Totnesmartin 10:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, quite a nice idea for a category, but unfortunately also creates POV problems and is rather subjective. I'm also not quite sure what purpose the category achieves. Bob talk 10:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Purpose? well someone (a media or psychology student?) could be doing a project about incompetence. The other purpose is that I had fun populating it, but that's bye the bye. Totnesmartin 11:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - "Incompetent" is not objectively defined, so editors will need to use their own judgment as to whether characters belong in this category. Moreover, determining who qualifies as "incompetent" may lead into original research problems. Dr. Submillimeter 12:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am not even certain that I would consider some of these characters (such as Doctor Zoidberg or Sir Robin) to be "incompetent", or at least incompetent compared to the other characters in the storylines. (Couldn't every character from every Monty Python film be placed in this category?) Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete incompetent in its more common meaning (which is not having been declared incompetent by a court, say) is ambiguous; if we cannot tell who is in and who is not in a category; the entire category is a POV quagmire and ought to go. Carlossuarez46 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete useless and too POV -- Piemanmoo 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, subjective title. VegaDark ( talk) 07:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and it doesn't feel like a completely defining characteristic. Sleep On It 20:40, 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 -- Kbdank71 13:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose delete Category:Family Affairs

Category:Family Affairs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is not needed for this material. Otto4711 03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep, isn't it usual to group television-related articles together under one category? Bob talk 10:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No, the opposite is true. Usually you don't need an eponymous category for a television series since the links are easily navigated from the show's main article. So a lot of categories like this are deleted. Dugwiki 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:46, 8 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 -- Kbdank71 13:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose delete Category:Journeyman Locations

Category:Journeyman Locations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: as a non-defining and trivial characteristic. By precedent, categorising real-world locations by their appearance in some fictional work or video game is disparaged. Can and should be more appropriately handled by mention and links in the video game series' articles. cjllw ʘ TALK 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Listify If all the articles are connected by a single computer game, then a list will do. Totnesmartin 10:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete and do not listify Not a defining characteristic of real places. There should not be a separate list article for these, as they can be covered in the main article, and very likely they already are. Mowsbury 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Perebourne 17:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Mowsbury. Haddiscoe 20:07, 10 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/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merge Category:Hip hop songs by artist into Category:Songs by artist

Category:Hip hop songs by artist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Songs by artist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Merge - this looks to be the only genre-level subdivision of Category:Songs by artist. So the question is whether we want to subdivide that category by genre. Otto4711 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Its sister category was deleted in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_20#Category:Hip_hop_albums_by_artist, so this should undergo a merge per nomination as well.
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Songs by artist is supposed to function as a directory. Subdividing it defeats the entire point of its existence. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:33, 10 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 nomination withdrawn. Resurgent insurgent 08:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

:Propose rename Category:Songs by Bob Weir to Category:Bob Weir songs

Category:Songs by Bob Weir ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Bob Weir songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of Category:Songs by artist. Otto4711 01:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn - the category was miscategorized as a songs by artist cat when it is actually a songs by composer cat. I have recategorized it under the Category:Songs by composer structure. Otto4711 05:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment.This was just renamed the other direction in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_6#Bob Weir songs, so it seems a bit soon to send it back the other way.-- Mike Selinker 04:32, 8 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 -- Kbdank71 13:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose rename Category:Orthodoxy in America to Category:Orthodoxy in North America

Category:Orthodoxy in America ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Category:Orthodoxy in North America ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, This category is apparently used only for North America and should be named to reflect that. Resurgent insurgent 01:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• comment This category is confused. It contains only two articles and even has a redirect to an article, no less. It needs help. Hmains 03:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The category was created by a new user who apparently does not understand Wikipedia's category system. The existing category system is sufficient for these articles; this category really is not needed at this time. If a subdivision of Category:Eastern Orthodoxy for North America is warranted, then it would be better to start over. Dr. Submillimeter 10:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and rename if kept No need per nom & Dr. Sub; also Orthodoxy is not necessarily the Eastern Orthodoxy meant to be captured in this cat; if the cat were intended to categorize Jewish Orthodox and any other "Orthodox" organizations too, it would become an indisciminate collection. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This category appears to be for Orthodox Christianity. Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If kept and so limited, it would need to reflect that. Carlossuarez46 05:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Orthodox Church in America which is where they should have gone in the first place. < No - they are a particular Russian church. I think there is actually a need for this category - there are many American sub-categories that currently only come off the main global categories by Patriarchate etc. So Rename per nom. I think the potential confusion with Jewish Orthodoxy can be dealt with adequately in a definition on the category page. Johnbod 15:09, 10 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 -- Kbdank71 13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose delete Category:Celebrity Deathmatch

Category:Celebrity Deathmatch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is not needed, material is interlinked through the text and navtemplate. Otto4711 00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Why not nominate the sub-categories as well while you're at it? Resurgent insurgent 12:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Because the episodes and characters subcats are part of separate and extensive category structures, Category:Television episodes by series and Category:Television characters by series. Otto4711 13:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, they were not, but they are now! - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• OK, delete then. Everything in this category is linked from the main article. Resurgent insurgent 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & ample precedent Carlossuarez46 17:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unless Mills Lane says he's allow it. Dugwiki 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The sub-cats are not linked through the article or the navtemplate, but only through this category. It's useful to allow e.g. writers of future articles about episodes to find an existing picture in the Images sub-cat. I don't participate enough in CFD to be aware of precedents, but I think that Wikipedia Categories are great for just this sort of cross-linking, which benefits readers as well as editors. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:55, 13 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 -- Kbdank71 13:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose delete Category:Non Rail Towns

Category:Non Rail Towns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A category for British towns without a railway station. Surely this is not a defining characteristic of these towns? Also, there is already a list for this. Resurgent insurgent 00:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as non-defining. Doczilla 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete unencyclopedic. 99% of towns have no station - why make a list of them? Totnesmartin 10:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all of above. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Ripon isn't even a town. Lugnuts 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. There is also the question of when they were without a railway station, as many towns which once had stations have them no more. Perebourne 17:24, 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 -- Kbdank71 13:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose delete Category:JAG (TV series)

Category:JAG (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for the material in it. Otto4711 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Why not nominate the sub-categories as well? Resurgent insurgent 12:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Because the episodes and characters subcats are part of separate and extensive category structures, Category:Television episodes by series and Category:Television characters by series. Otto4711 13:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• OK, delete then. Everything in this category is linked from the main article. Resurgent insurgent 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 8 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.