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: convert to list. Since it's a leading award we should cover it, but a list is far more comprehensive in covering this than a category is. The keep-commenters object to the removal of information, but removal of information is not being proposed here. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Dove Award winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listify and delete as overcategorization by award. Otto4711 22:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep These awards appear to be the leading awards in the field. Cloachland 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. Doczilla 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Cloachland. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners. -- Xdamr ^talk 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Cloachland. Dominictimms 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Black Nova Scotians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:OCAT, this is an irrelevant intersection between race and province. Picaroon 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom ( WP:OCAT) TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as overcategorisation. -- Xdamr ^talk 16:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location and Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom ( WP:OCAT). -- Seattle Skier (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - while I would usually oppose this kind of category, NS blacks are almost all descended from Loyalists and their slaves who came to Canada during the American revolution, as opposed to Toronto's black community which is mostly West Indian in origin, and came only in the last 40 years. It's really a separate community with a separate identity. Really you could see the title "Black NSians" as the name of a specific group, rather than a category for all black-skinned people who happen to live in NS. But, then again... Kevlar67 06:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The Black-Canadian community in Nova Scotia has a relevance that goes beyond simply being Black in Nova Scotia, as explained by Kevlar67. ... discospinster _talk 16:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Tribes of Arabia, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Category:Tribes of Arabia. While they aren't complete duplicates, there's no need to categorize Arabian tribes by the reasonably minor difference of whether they're Saudi or Yemeni or Omani or Emirati; they're Arabian tribes, and that's what counts. Picaroon 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, not much point in a single member category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete vaguely named, almost unpopulated cat per above. Doczilla 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 17:27, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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: do not rename. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Restaurants in Los Angeles to Category:Restaurants based in Los Angeles

Nominator's Rationale: Rename and allow for future Speedy Renames. After doing some category cleanup, a user pointed out that the names seem to allow this series of categories to be used for any restaurant in a location. However, the category introductions say they are for restaurants originating in that location. The proposed renaming would make this point clear. The name of a category should always clearly indicate its intended purpose. The current name might be OK for a travel wiki, but not for this one. Some editors are using these categories to list every location for chains. If this proposal passes, it should be made a standard for speedy renaming since there are a ton of these (Restaurants in place) categories that will need to be changed and there is no need for a detailed discussion on each one. Vegaswikian 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose for consistency with Category:Restaurants_by_city. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 20:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Please review the nomination. If this approved, all of the similar categories would be renamed so this is not a one of and everything will follow one form in the end. This would not be an exception to the rule, but the new guideline. Vegaswikian 22:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Only individual restaurants should be in these categories. Chains should be in Category:Restaurant chains, or a subcategory of that if more appropriate. But if there are any notable individual branches of chain restaurants, they should be in the category for the city where they are physically located, not the category for the city where the corporate head office is. Olborne 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • OK so what do we do with the case where a restaurant starts in 'city a' and then opens a second one in 'city b'? Now it is a chain so it can no longer be listed in these categories? Maybe some of your objections are based on the proposed name. Is there a name that would better fit with this concept? Right now, the names don't match the scope of the categories, so some type of renaming would be appropriate. Vegaswikian 22:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Mixed. Certainly the name and the intent should match. In this case, which is right isn't clear to me. On the one hand, a list of restaurants that are headquartered in a particular city doesn't seem very interesting. On the other hand, including all locations of chains won't scale and, as Vegaswikian says, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the right place for lists of restaurants in a particular city. I guess those comments would combine to have me either opposing this proposal (and clarifying the intent to be to include all restaurants actually present in the city) or supporting deleting these categories. Note also that a category that lists only one-off restaurants and chain headquarters is arguably POV, presenting chain locations as a kind of second-class citizen. Jordan Brown 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Having clicked on a few articles, all of which were about individual restaurants, I don't see what the problem is. Cloachland 13:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Look at an article like Australian Homemade. While this one is several levels higher, you can see where this can go. Do we list a chain in every country where it does business? Vegaswikian 19:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per above. Doczilla 21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:The Rifles Singles to Category:The Rifles songs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:The Rifles songs, by convention of Category:Songs by artist and discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:25, 21 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Toast Hawaii releases to Category:Toast Hawaii albums. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Toast Hawaii albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Nathanian 23:13, 25 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Indian sportspeople, or Rename to Category:Sportspeople from Assam. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Considering that Category:People from Assam has subdivisions for writers and musicians and politicians, I see no reason not to rename to Category:Sportspeople from Assam. — coel acan — 19:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Prefer rename to Category:Sportspeople from Assam. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Assamese sportspeople in line with Category:Tamil sportspeople, Category:Bengali cricketers, etc. Baka man 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Sportspeople from Assam. utcursch | talk 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom -- Ragib 17:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Stemonitis under author request and empty. matt br 11:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Unused cat, too high in taxa to properly use. Nashville Monkey 17:50, 21 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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: keep, although there is something to be said for rethinking the "defunct" tree. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Defunct NASCAR teams to Category:NASCAR teams

• Merge, per consensus reached here. Plenty of other established precedent for this as well. Categories should not distinguish between current and former things, for reasons involving upkeep and sourcing. Recury 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a reasonable subcategory of Category:Defunct_sport_organisations which itself is a subcat of Category:Defunct organizations. While we do not categorize individuals by current and former status we do categorize organizations that way. If we want to discuss the entire defunct organizations category tree I'm up for it. Otto4711 17:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Otto4711. Abberley2 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Otto4711. Jheald 08:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep As noted above by Otto, we currently do distinguish between current and defunct organizations. So as long as that scheme remains in place, this category fits. Of course, if down the line "defunct organizations" is merged into "current organizations" to remove the distinction, then it follows that all the subcategories likewise would be merged. Dugwiki 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Merging these categories could give the impression that these teams are still active. Factual inaccuracy is against the mission of Wikipedia. -- D-Day 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, single member category, fight sciences is unsourced and also up for deletion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Even if the prod is removed, this term is not used in any widespread manner. It would be inappropriate for us to start filling it with martial arts. — coel acan — 19:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete verges on a WP:NEO. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Doczilla 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. The term is not a neo, but only a single ref in the article; the term gets only 132 non-wikipedia ghits, most of them trivial. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It will be empty soon anyway. One of the articles was previously deleted via AfD and reposted, and the other is up for AfD for the same reasons as the category. ... discospinster _talk 16:47, 25 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Cities of Antiquity into Category:Ancient cities. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Ancient cities, convention of Category:Ancient history. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Doczilla 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Olborne 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- Xdamr ^talk 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. AshbyJnr 01:27, 25 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Educational institutions established in the 1890s, for missing dates in the 1890s. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Doczilla 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Dominictimms 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional pyromaniacs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - absent a clinical diagnosis including characters in this category is highly subjective. Otto4711 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment I'm going to disagree with the assertion that this would be "highly subjective". Does the story indicate a character possesses the ability to start fires with their mind? That seems like a pretty straight-forward question in the great majority of cases. Dugwiki 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's a fictional category, a defining characteristic, and well enough defined imo. Haddiscoe 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

*Another comment I do have a couple of slight problems with this category. "Fiction characters with mental illness" as a parent category just doesn't seem to apply and should probably be removed. Also, wasn't there a huge umbrella cfd recently for all the "Fiction characters with X superpower"? I think all or almost all of them were converted to lists. Is there a reason this one isn't a list too? Dugwiki 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• You're thinking of pyrokinesis instead of pyromania. — coel acan — 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Wow, I am not awake today! :( Duh. Striking out my totally irrelevant comments (blush) Dugwiki 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Highly subjective, POV, of a limited scope and questionable value. Arkyan 15:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• BURN BABY BURN! (Delete) - Whether or not someone likes to start fires requires making a subjective judgment about the character, which is not a feasible way to categorize characters. Dr. Submillimeter 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per narcissist/psychopath/sociopath/eating disorder precedent.~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep asa defining major plot characteristic (usually) for the relevant stories. And as a precedent for other such. DGG 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Most people who set fires in fiction are not shown to be clinically diagnosable as pyromaniacs. Because few readers will realize that, this cat is not maintainable. Doczilla 21:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Per logic offered above. Vegaswikian 04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional sworn virgins ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non defining characteristic, limited scope, POV/citation required in deciding inclusion. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - We do not need to categorize characters this way, and the characters' status may change over time. Dr. Submillimeter 16:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete unnecessary, limited, inconsistent trivia. Doczilla 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete only have 1 person listed so it doesn't seem too important. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Question - What about its supercategory, Category:Sworn virgins? -- Masamage 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Reply, that should be deleted too. It requires citation (category impossibility), is non-defining and the category essentially just lists fictional sworn virgins and the article " sworn virgin". What happens when a sworn virgin finally gives it up? Do they get removed? What about Morrissey, who was a "sworn virgin" by some accounts till way after he was 40, but he isn't now, and inclusion could be POV as Morrissey was identified by some as asexual. Fictional or real, "sworn virgins" doesn't work as a category.~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • That makes sense. Would a list be possible? Then it could include citations and qualifications. -- Masamage 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• keep the supercategory, for it means, or ought to ean, people or characters where is was a significant pat of their bio or the plot. DGG 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not needed and inconsistent/POV. Also delete Category:Sworn virgins too, while definitely keeping its subcat Category:Vestal Virgins. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Formerly Japan exclusive video games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trivial, not a defining characteristic. Combination 13:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not very notable, considering many games are formerly Japan exclusive. RobJ1981 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete trivia. Doczilla 21:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unnecessary. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:54, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:People from Assam is a more appropiate calssification, rather than Category:Assamese people. - Bikram98 11:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - both categories exist. What are you suggesting be done? Delete one or the other? Merge them together? What is your basis for saying that one is more "appropriate" than the other? Otto4711 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This could be a nomination to delete Category:Assamese people. The template does not automatically generate the word "delete" in the nomination. (I add *'''Delete''' at the beginnings of all my nominations.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I'm not sure what to do with this. The category history is confusing. Bakasuprman has opposed a category redirect, citing this discussion which I'm not sure is relevant. — coel acan — 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep: Since I've seen Bakasuprman's notes about the issue during the discussion, I can explain this. People from Assam is for categorizing people who are from the state/region of Assam. That's a category like, say, people of Kolkata. Assam is a multi-ethnic society (with Bengalis and Assamese being two major groups), and so, not all people from Assam are Assamese. A person can both be Bengali (by ethnicity), and also a person "from Assam" (regional category). So, there is no problem here, and vote for keep. -- Ragib 04:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep - In India, ethnicity is more or less based on language, a Bengali speaker who settles down in Tamil Nadu, a few generations later, his descendants will be only considered Tamil. While jati cuts across ethnic boundaries, ethnicities in the Indian subcontinent are based on language. In Assam, we have many groups and I have created categories for many ethnic groups. There are Category:Bodo people, Category:Mizo people, Category:Bengali people, etc which would all live in Assam. That does not make them "Assamese". The issue is that Chaipau has stifled all efforts to make ethnic based categorization in the NE pages (effectively violating WP:OWN), and has not created an Assamese people along the lines of Bodo people, Bengali people, etc. To show an example of Ragib's logic, Jyoti Prasad Agarwala is an ethnic Marwari (state of Rajasthan) who happened to live in Assam. His native language still wasn't Assamese, though he invented Assamese cinema. Baka man 18:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Assamese people is an ethno-linguistic group. People from Assam are people associated with the state of Assam. For eg. Seema Biswas is a Bengali person from Assam. utcursch | talk 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and try to be consistent wiki-wide. There's a consensus from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) that Heritage and Residence categories can happily co-exist, with careful restraint about ethnic labelling. The guideline there says "people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage. Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors." Any wider use of ethnic labelling needs wider discussion. Mereda 07:27, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:bengali people is a racist category. Would you like to categorise famous personalities as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian etc? - Bikram98 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep in the absence of a valid deletion reason. Otto4711 12:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. You just say it's racist, so I'll just say it's not racist, and we'll leave it at that. — coel acan — 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per precedent, at WP we happily categorize people by race/ethnicity/what-have-you. Whether that's appropriate is for another day's discussion. Carlossuarez46 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment: This is analogous to Assamese people, etc., and carries same inherent problematic. It should be mentioned that this category does relax some issues related to how to classify literary and historical figures in pre- partition Bengal. My suggestion is to bring all ethnicity based categories (not only south asian ones) into a centralized discussion and establish some sort of consensual guideline. -- Soman 08:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Soman, I didn't understand your point ... are you saying there is a problem with categorizing a person as Bengali? Because, Bengalis are a well established ethnic group (and a big one too, with 250+ million people). -- Ragib 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep: What on earth is the problem here? Wikipedia has ethnic group categories for all major ethnic groups. -- Ragib 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep - Bengali people, Category:Bengali people, there. Bikram, I was unaware that Bengalis were a separate race like Blacks, Whites, Yellows, Reds, Greens. I'm pretty sure Bengali doesnt have any sort of color connotation in Bengali or English. Baka man 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per Otto4711. Gnanapiti 18:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep. Sarvagnya 19:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Bengali people is an ethno-linguistic group (and not a racial group). utcursch | talk 03:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Same as with Assamese people and others, it's a valid category where living people self-identify as members of the group. It's also handy for handling historical figures against the problem of later boundary changes. Any wider use would need discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Mereda 07:42, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:English documentation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Almost empty, poor name, better categories exist. Gareth Aus 10:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete nearly empty, vaguely named category. Doczilla 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Baffling. Olborne 21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. What is this category for? Serves no purpose. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 17:40, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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: move to talk page and rename. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Missing middle or first names ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arguably trivial and pointless. KarlBunker 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, totally trivial categorization. Arkyan 15:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete If they're missing how can you put them in a category? :P Name is way too general, I didn't know names could be missing anyway. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions
• Weak Keep I imagine to those who look to do cleanup this is useful page. It is not much different from most categories WP:NPP patrollers end up adding to pages when tagging them. My only problem is what about people like Harry S. Truman who have no middle name. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This is a variant of the categorization of unrelated subjects with shared names, a form of overcategorization. The people in this category have nothing else in common except for their "missing" names, so grouping them together is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Articles that need first or middle names for individuals - This is apparently being used as a maintenance category. However, it should have a title that indicates that it is a maintenance category. Given the current title, someone may use the category to list people who actually do not have middle names. Dr. Submillimeter 09:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Abberley2 01:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep This is a cleanup category not a navigation category. It is designed to let people know more research has to be done to find the missing middle name. It was designed as part of the disambiguation project and originally contained over 500 names that has been whittled down to whatever is in it now. The remaining ones are more difficult. People are only added where someone needs a middle name researched for disambiguation or for completeness. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete "Cleanup categories" don't belong on article pages as they spoil the reader experience. If these proliferate the key categories could get swamped. Cloachland 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Repurpose to categorise article talk pages Cloachland's point is well made, these maintenance categories risk overwhelming encyclopaedic categorisation. Fundamentally these categories are un-encyclopaedic, they ought not to be present on encyclopaedia articles. On the other hand I can definitely see some merit to this, and other similar categories (eg the recent 'categorisation-by-source' debates).

It is well-established practice that WikiProjects tag articles which come within their scope, placing a template on the article talk page. It is also fairly well established that this template will often include the tagged article, and other similarly tagged articles, within internal Wikiproject categories. (eg Category:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals articles/WikiProject categorisation by article rating eg Category:A-Class biography articles/etc). These internal, administrative categories do not impinge upon the main article, they apply only to the article talk page.

Could we not try something along these lines with this, and similar, categories?

Xdamr ^talk 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• 'good idea WikiProjectify. DGG 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete or at least move to the talk pages. Osomec 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Repurpose to categorise article talk pages. I agree that the category serves a valid purpose, but belongs on the talk pages instead of the articles. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Remove from article pages, either by deleting the category, or by moving the tags to the talk pages. Choalbaton 01:20, 24 March 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: surprisingly, rename. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Vulcanologists to Category:Volcanologists

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The spelling "volcanologist' is in much more common use in the English language than "vulcanologist". The corresponding article about this branch of geology is titled volcanology, while vulcanology is a redirect to it. Also, the overwhleming majority of articles using the term throughout WP prefer the spelling "volcanologist" instead of "vulcanologist", see Special:Whatlinkshere/Volcanology for verification. Seattle Skier (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename - I agree, vulcanologist is outdated and gets confused with Star Trek references. Eve 10:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per above, nothing more to add really. Arkyan 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support rename. To my surprise, volcanologist gets over three times as many Google hits as vulcanologist. Doczilla

• Rename My preference is for Vulcanologist, but the category really ought to follow the name of the main article. -- Xdamr ^talk 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was eventually deleted. My mistake, wasn't added to the WP:CFD/W subpage right away after the earlier debate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The NHL on NBC ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category was accidentally missed in previous nominations on network broadcasts of NHL games. Like the other categories (which were deleted by clear consensus), this category inappropriate lists announcers by performance (which is not feasible, as announcers work for many networks and announce for many leagues during their careers) and games by network (which also seems inappropriate, given that the games are not the property of the networks). The category, like the others, should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 11:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I thought these were all gone... -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:29, 21 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Based on the Meyers Konversations-Lexikon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Another by-source category for deletion as clutter per recent precedents. CalJW 03:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete this clutter. Doczilla 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:25, 24 March 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 page's talk page, if any, 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: speedy merge.-- Mike Selinker 14:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:San Francisco 49ers players, convention of Category:National Football League players by team. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Dictionary writers into Category:Lexicographers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Dictionary writers to Category:Lexicographers

• Merge, to correctly named and far larger established category. CalJW 02:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge as per nom. -- rimshots ^talk 10:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Lexicographer is the correct term. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 17:14, 23 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Politicians who oppose abortion rights ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Politicians who support abortion rights ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:U.S. politicians who oppose abortion rights ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:U.S. politicians who support abortion rights ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Freshly created categories. We shouldn't categorize politicians by issue stance, in general. Among the many reasons: Politicians change their minds. [2] And what about politicians who are generally anti-choice but are pro-choice when the mother's life is in danger? What about politicians who aren't anti-choice but believe that the laws should be decided by subnational jurisdictions ("states' rights")? Etc. This isn't so simple as to be categorizable. Delete. — coel acan — 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as People by opinion. If kept, rename to match Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Otto4711 01:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia should not place additional emphasis on issues just because they are controversial (in the United States). CalJW 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep These categories are valid. If they're not, why is it that pap categories such as "Distinguished Eagle Scouts" and "(Name TV show) cast" are valid? Plus, it would be inappropriate to label politicians as "activists". Treybien 20:06 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Lots of people don't think those categories are valid. In particular great efforts have been made to get rid of the cast categories, and this work is ongoing. Please help out with it. But in any case, "other crap exists" is never a valid reason for keeping anything. CalJW 03:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Treybien, it's true that there are a lot of low-quality categories. We are trying to get rid of them, though. These four categories are potentially useful, however, I'm afraid they make a very gray area into a binary, black or white issue. It may be better to explain politicians stances (and past stances) on their articles, in detail, than to categorize them, which necessarily must be done rather rigidly. It's important information but I'm afraid the necessary subtlety is lost by categorization. — coel acan — 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• This has come up many times before, and some object to the term Abortion rights, finding it inherently biased ... If they are kept, they should be called Pro-choice politicians or Pro-life politicians. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

COMMENT "Pro-life" is a prpblem too, as it is POV. I'm as much in favor of life as the next guy, but I support choice. Tvoz | talk 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per every past discussion on this. It is an inherently biased and inflammatory topic. Doczilla 05:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - These categories are named in a way that assumes that abortion is a black-or-white issue, whereas it is possible to find generally pro-life or generally pro-choice politicians who support exceptions to their general stances (such as pro-life politicians who would make exceptions for rape victims or pro-choice politicians who want to ban specific procedures). The inclusion or exclusion of specific people from these categories could lead to severe debates over POV issues. Dr. Submillimeter 14:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV name, unnecessary categories. Haddiscoe 15:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV problems both in the names of the categories and in that there are varying degrees of support and opposition to various aspects of the abortion issue. Is a candidate who supports a right for adults to have abortion but wants to severely restrict access to abortion for minors pro-choice or pro-life? What about a candidate who generally supports abortion for adults and minors equally but is opposed to certain forms of abortion or wants to restrict certain types of abortion based on the stage of pregnancy? These aren't black and white issues and stances. Dugwiki 15:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete primarily due to POV concerns as well as the propensity of politicians to change their minds. The issue is too muddled in gray tones anyway. Arkyan 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per pretty much every delete argument above, POV names, politicians changing stances, not black-and-white, don't categorize politicians by stance in general, inflammatory issue, etc.-- Littleman_ TAMU ^(talk) 01:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Littleman. Abberley2 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete no category of politicians by issue it becomes cumbersome and it's fraught with POV, just look at those in the UK's house of commons who voted for a fully elected House of Lords, some did it because that's what they want, others did it because the ensuing confusion would leave the status quo, I'm sure there are sufficiently fine lines that can be drawn in the abortion debate (parental notification, late term abortions, Plan B, abortion to save the life of the mother, etc.). Carlossuarez46 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't object to having more categories as some here have said, but this is a more nuanced issue than such categorization allows, and it doesn't take into account that probably every politician has a position on the subject but it may not be reflected in his or her Wikipedia article, so the categories will by definition be incomplete and therefore misleading. Tvoz | talk 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per all the arguments above. Personal opinion is a tricky thing, more often than not being one of many shades of grey rather than simple black and white. Categorisation by opinion, as has been established here before, does not admit reflection of these nuances.

Xdamr ^talk 12:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as recreation of previously CfD'd categories. Otherwise, rename to something more neutral (such as "pro-choice" and "pro-life"), as the current selections frame the abortion debate in terms of support or opposition to a single concept, "abortion rights," and thus slant it in favour of one side (an equally problematic scheme would be "Politicians who support the sanctity of life" and "Politicians who oppose the sanctity of life"). - Severa ( !!!) 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete this should be discussed in the article. -- Peta 06:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Anton Chekhov ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only one page belongs to this category, so I don't think it meets the "certain very notable cases" standard for a category based on the person's name (as per Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people). Also, the category itself is the only subcategory of a great many other categories, which complicates those category listing pages. -- Narsil 00:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [For the record--recommending Delete. -- Narsil 17:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)] reply

• Delete - eponymous categories should be reserved for people who have substantial material that is not easily interlinked through the main subject article. In this instance with just a single article there is no need for the category. Otto4711 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous_categories_for_people. Doczilla 05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Too few directly relevant articles/sub-categories to merit an eponymous category. -- Xdamr ^talk 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge, should have been speedied. >Radiant< 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Labial consonant to Category:Labial consonants

• Merge, "Labial consonants" should be the main category name, per the other subcats of Category:Consonants. "Labial consonants" only contains 2 articles, however "Labial conostant" is in the correct location of the category tree. Andrew c 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom, and per standard rules for category names. Might even be speedy material. Xtifr _tälk 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply