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 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Frank Sinatra television specials ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Frank Sinatra television series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete both - performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and ample precedent. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:03, 24 October 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 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Frank Sinatra's children ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with, absent extensive DNA testing of Las Vegas's prostitutional progeny, has no growth potential. Otto4711 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Resigned to delete I created the category, and still haven't laughed at Otto4711's lame joke. Is shagging prozzies better than editing wikipedia? The jury is still out. But I'd rather have a swinging affair than make edits in the wee small hours. Gareth E Kegg 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. If and when dozens people start staking their claims to Sinatra-sired, we can consider a category for them. Meanwhile, this category is small with no potential for growth. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and BHG; also, "children of ..." categories are almost always unnecessary since the separate articles are always adequately interlinked. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & BHG. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Dad. Johnbod 17:59, 25 October 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 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Frank Sinatra's wives ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, no potential to grow. With the possible exception of Henry VIII we don't categorize peoples' spouses. Otto4711 21:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Resigned to delete I created the category, and modelled it after the similar Beatles category, which I now think has been deleted. Gareth E Kegg 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Beatle-based precedent. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Very unlikely to grow unless posthumous evidence of serial bigamy starts tumbling out, and in that unlikely case the category could be recreated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and BHG; also, "wives of ..." categories are unnecessary since the separate articles are always adequately interlinked. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & BHG. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge to their ex, which I hope is what all above meant. No case for deletion has been advanced, as with the nomination above. Johnbod 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, I oppose merging in this case. The articles are certain to be adequately interlinked even without the category, and I don't think 'former spouse' is a defining characteristic of these individuals (or, at least, one on the basis of which we should categorise). The same argument, albeit a bit weaker, applies to the nomination above. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Ace of Base songs. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 15:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Ace of Base singles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Ace of Base songs, per discussion of June 9th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom and per many precedents. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge and listify 132.205.99.122 21:22, 24 October 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. Kbdank71 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:SCUBA to Category:Underwater diving

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Basically its repetitive. Merge (see nomination below) and rename to Underwater diving. « FMF » 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename/merge per nom. Although there is a separate article for Scuba diving, the contents of the categories overlap too much to justify separation. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 16:03, 29 October 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. Kbdank71 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Diving (underwater) to Category:Underwater diving

Nominator's rationale: Rename, See nomination above. « FMF » 21:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to match main article, Underwater diving. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• I should perhaps add that I've just noticed that this category was only recently renamed from "Diving", but the issue of the main article's name was not raised in that discussion, as opposed to creating a parallel with Category:Diving (acrobatics). Bencherlite ^Talk 10:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Take three, I think, but we're getting there, and it's good to have this matching the name of the main article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 13:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per both. Johnbod 14:54, 29 October 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 upmerge to "computing". Kbdank71 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Computer technology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is a subcategory of "Computing". But computing (the noun) is technology and thus most subcategories of "Computing" (the category) are technology categories! Indeed most of the seven or so subcategories of "computer technology" are already subcategories of "computing".

If the category "Comouter technology" were to be fully populated (most of the "Computing" subcategoies would belong here) it would essentially be redundant with "Computing" tooold 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

rather than delete, don't you want upmerge to the parent category whenever necessary? Hmains 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Computing as duplicate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I thought new categories for those pages now in this category was part of the normal deletion process and so didn't mention it in the rationale. Yes, they will be merged or replaced with other categories that best suit those pages. tooold 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Ready for deletion - the references to this category can now be simply deleted. tooold 03:22, 27 October 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. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Controversial works of art ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Controversial" is a POV word that is best avoided in category names. Delete, unless anyone out there can think of a non-POV alternative. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_21#Category:Controversial_books
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Category:Controversial_films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_23#Category:Controversial_Films
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_24#Category:Censored_Singles
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_25#Category:Controversial_songs
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_16#Category:Banned_comics

• Delete per nom, and many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not just POV but non-informative. -- lquilter 21:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and per numerous precedents. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & precedent; subjective. Carlossuarez46 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- the present members of the category are controversial according to their Wikipedia articles. Articles need categorization, and per editing guidelines :

"Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed."

it's indisputable that Piss Christ and Chocolate Jesuses are controversial, their articles are mostly about the controversy. Calling something controversial about which a clear controversy exists is not a POV issue at all. User:Pedant 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (created the category) reply

• I think you misunderstand the nature of the guidelines here: the situation I believe that the guidelines refer to here is where there is dispute about whether something belongs in a category. I don't see any dispute about whether these are works of art — the controversy is about whether they offend religious believers and/or cross boundaries of good taste. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Apart from what others have said the category is hopelessly recentist. Johnbod 18:02, 25 October 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 per nom, article has not been renamed as of yet. Kbdank71 16:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Profiler to Category:Offender profiling

Nominator's rationale: Rename, current name Category:Profiler is confusing and grammatically inconsistent with other category names. Category:Offender profiling matches the name of the main article for the category ( Offender profiling); Category:Psychological profiling is a possible alternative name. Andy Smith ( talk) 20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Psychological profiling even if it means renaming Offender profiling to Psychological profiling. Seems like a more accurate and common name. Psychological profiling is already used in Offender profiling. Vegaswikian 02:52, 26 October 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 all. Kbdank71 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Ospreys to Category:Ospreys (rugby team)

Propose renaming Category:Ospreys players to Category:Ospreys (rugby team) players

Nominator's rationale: to match main article, Ospreys (rugby team) and to avoid possible confusion with Osprey and other "Ospreys" listed at the dab page. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment as category creator - I would support renaming Category:Ospreys to Category:Ospreys (rugby team), to avoid confusion with other "Ospreys" listed at Osprey (disambiguation), but I think Category:Ospreys players can be left where it is for now, as there are no other organisations known as the Ospreys that would count "players" amongst their ranks. - PeeJay 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair point about the players, but we would then have differences in names between a parent category and a sub-category, which (though I may be wrong) I don't think is usual practice. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I guess that makes sense. If that is indeed the case, I support the renaming of both categories to Category:Ospreys (rugby team) and Category:Ospreys (rugby team) players. - PeeJay 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Ospreys RFC and Category:Ospreys RFC players, and rename main article to Ospreys RFC per convention of Category:Welsh rugby union teams. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
  • main article now renamed to Ospreys RFC per convention of Category:Welsh rugby union teams. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I have reverted the renaming of the main article as the club is not known as Ospreys RFC. In fact, the words "Rugby", "Football" and "Club" do not appear anywhere in the club's name. - PeeJay 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
      • If there is consensus for that view, then rename the categories to Category:Ospreys (RFC) and Category:Ospreys (RFC) players. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
        • It seems to be the case that the four main regional Welsh teams ( Cardiff Blues, Ospreys, Llanelli Scarlets and Newport Gwent Dragons) do not use RFC in their names, hence no "RFC" in their articles. In which case, I don't see the need for "(RFC)" in the Osprey categories. If we're trying to disambig the categories, why not just follow the main article and use "(rugby team)"? Bencherlite ^Talk 08:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Regardless, "(RFC)" is a bit ambiguous. Out of context, RFC could stand for anything, which is why "(rugby team)" is a lot better. It's not perfect, though. Myself, I would have the article at Ospreys (rugby union team) to assert the difference between rugby union and rugby league. - PeeJay 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
          • It's important to try standardise disambiguators, particularly in category names. RFC may not be perfect, but it's widely used, and I see no point in creating another variation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
            • "RFC" is not a disambiguator in this case, though. It is part of the names of the organisations in question. However, in the case of the regional sides ( Cardiff Blues, Llanelli Scarlets, Ospreys and Newport Gwent Dragons), the RFC is not present, therefore a disambiguator must be used for Ospreys. - PeeJay 11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per original nomination. "RFC" seems to be used commonly because it is official, not because it is common. If it's not official for this team, then it shouldn't be used, as PeeJay says. — Scouter Sig 16:16, 27 October 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:Telugu-language songs. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Telugu songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Telugu-language songs, convention of Category:Telugu language. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. — Scouter Sig 16:17, 27 October 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/rename per nomination. Kbdank71 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

(1) Propose renaming Category:Professors at Baylor University to Category:Baylor University faculty

(2) Also nominating Category:Par-time professors at Baylor University for merger into Category:Baylor University faculty

Nominator's rationale: (1) Rename per convention of Category:Faculty by university or college in the United States. (2) Misspelt, unnecessary to subdivide faculty by full-time or part-time status. Bencherlite ^Talk 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge both as suggested, per conventions of Faculty by university or college in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge both per nom and per ProveIt. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:14, 23 October 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 15:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Ethnic groups deported by Soviet Union ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, I think a properly referenced article would be better for this kind of thing. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. This important subject is far too complex and nuanced to allow a clear and NPOV binary choice on whether a particular ethnic group was subject to deportation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and BHG. In addition to WP:NPOV, the category also fails WP:NOR: what percentage of the members of an ethnic group must be deported before the group, on the whole, can be considered 'deported'? Unless the entire group was deported, the inclusion criteria for this category are too ambiguous. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl. Pavel Vozenilek 00:59, 25 October 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 15:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Argentines of Ottoman descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, it seems to me this is probably a mistake ... we don't have any other Ottoman descent categories, all the current members should probably just be recategorized or just considered Argentine people. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Some Arab families, some Turkish, but Argentine football fans seem to call all "El Turco" indiscriminately. Johnbod 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Or we might as well categorize Bulgarians, Serbs, et al as Ottomans, Russians as Mongols, Pakistanis as British, etc. SamEV 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Don't Delete Because I'm from Turkey and have Argentina citizenship about my wife. In all over Latin American countries, people call El Turco to any person who is from Ottoman descent, Lebanese, Syrian or even Palestene people. I think it could be stay without delete because of that. Gokhantig 13:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

That they're called "turcos" is a fact, but that doesn't mean they actually are of Turkish ancestry. And Ottoman is too broad and imprecise to apply to the various peoples the empire ruled. Why stop with Arabs? Why not Bulgarians, Romanians, Ukrainians, Bosnians, et al, (and their descendants anywhere) also? SamEV 15:13, 29 October 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. Kbdank71 15:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:ETA murder victims to Category:People killed by ETA

Nominator's rationale: Rename Less POV, and more in keeping with the way we categorise people. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong support renaming, for NPOV reasons. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:People killed by the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna Category:People killed by Basque Homeland and Freedom. There are other groups know as the ETA so not expanding the acronym here is a bad idea. Vegaswikian 00:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom The main article is just ETA, & I suspect the full name would increase rather than reduce the possibility of confusion. Johnbod 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Well, maybe after the change here, ETA also needs to be moved maybe to Basque Homeland and Freedom rather then Euskadi Ta Askatasuna or ETA. In any case, the primary usage of ETA is the acronym for estimated time of arrival. Vegaswikian 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
    • They aren't known as Basque Homeland and Freedom, in English they are known as ETA. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Agree with ONIH that they are best known as ETA; so far as the mainstream news media are concernbed, I don't ever recall seeing them named anything else. If Vegaswikian wants to propose renaming the article ETA, that should be done at Talk:ETA. If the main article is renamed (and it's a bif "if"), the category can be renamed to match. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:46, 28 October 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 relisted on oct 29. Kbdank71 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Bomb victims to Category:People injured in bombings

Nominator's rationale: The category is only for people who survived apparently, yet people killed by bombs keep getting added to it. I'm not averse to deletion entirely if other think people shouldn't be categorised by being injured by a bomb, and neither am I averse to a change of name and/or scope of the category. But as it stands, it's problematic. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I'm reasonably sure that we've deleted other "attempted murder victims"-type categories in the past. In reviewing the articles it does not appear that having been injured by a bomb is significant to the notability of most or any of them. Otto4711 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and per Otto. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Seems defining for most. Where is Adolf Hitler? Johnbod 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename if surviving can be shown to be notable enough. — Scouter Sig 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. We have shooting victims and stabbing victims, this one is just as legitimate. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 22:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a justification for this category. Maybe those two ought to be deleted too. Otto4711 03:56, 28 October 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 all as nominated. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 15:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Italian films by director to Category:Films by Italian directors

Propose renaming Category:Canadian films by director to Category:Films by Canadian directors

Propose renaming Category:French films by director to Category:Films by French directors

Nominator's rationale: Rename all - the nationality of the director is not necessarily the same as the country of origin of the film. In the alternative, upmerge to Category:Films by director as unnecessary overcategorization. Otto4711 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename all, as a grouping of films by Fooian directors rather than Fooian films, but to plural form e.g. Category:Films by Italian directors, as per usual use of plurals in category names. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oops. Nomination corrected to reflect plurals. Teach me to copy and paste. Otto4711 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename all It isn't too uncommon that non-American man helps directing American movies, is it? (Yeah, no they aren't American any of them, just an example.) TheBlazikenMaster 21:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, as it also avoids problems of multi-nationally produced films. (Multinational directors are much easier to place in two categories.) Girolamo Savonarola 01:33, 24 October 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. Kbdank71 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:South Korea's Important Intangible Cultural Properties ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:South Korean culture, or just Delete, seems a little unclear. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• keep and populate. Read the article of the same name that I just added to the category. These are designated intangibles and a notable group. Hmains 02:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Important Intangible Cultural Properties of South Korea, or perhaps Category:Important Intangible Cultural Properties (South Korea), to match Important Intangible Cultural Properties. I would not have expected such an odd name to be a proper noun, but that's what it is. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Important Intangible Cultural Properties of South Korea. The main article at Important Intangible Cultural Properties shows that this is real topic, not a made-up name. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per revised nom. Johnbod 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Important Intangible Cultural Properties. Since the phrase is a title seemingly unique to the ROK, so the "of South Korea" disambiguator seems unnecessary. For instance, we don't have Category:National Register of Historic Places of the United States. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 15:37, 29 October 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 relisted on oct 29. Kbdank71 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Breweries in the United States by state to Category:Beer and breweries in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: Rename, Rename category and 38 subcategories to be consistent with the other regions in the Beer and breweries by region tree. A trivial discussion took place here: [1]. Thetrick 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Also, if this nomination is suitable for speedy renaming please let me know. -- Thetrick 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong Oppose and reverse split. Beers are beverages that fall under the parent Category:Beer which is a child of Category:Fermented beverages. Breweries are either subcats of Category:Companies since this is the company that manufactures the beer or Category:Buildings and structures since this is the building used to make beer. Combining them appears to be counter to the common use of categories. Even the lists for these combined categories have one for beers and another for breweries. Vegaswikian 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I will add one additional possible problem. I think what the family of categories is calling Category:Breweries is in many cases really Category:Brewing companies since there is a further distinction between the companies making the products and the building used to do the work. Vegaswikian 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Can we avoid confusing these companies with Category:Buildings and structures please, as the brewery's buildings or plants are seldom described and are rarely notable. Previous attempts to categorise retailers & companies with the category make for a mess. Thanks. Ephebi 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• I worked on these categories before and it was all very confusing. Category:Brewing companies by state seems a good idea. As far as breweries themselves, they are just buildings by state, maybe not enough for Category:Breweries by state. As far as the beer products/labels, does anyone care that they come from a certain state or another? Maybe these only need to be at the country level like Category:Beers of the United States. Hmains 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Good point about beers by state. Which state brews Bud? Vegaswikian 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• See also this discussion. Vegaswikian 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Tick ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename or Split or something. Most of the contents here are characters from one (in some instances multiple) of several media incarnations of The Tick (comic book, animated series, live-action series). We have shied away from categorizing characters on the basis of their association with other characters. On the other hand, it could be argued that these characters constitute a fictional universe along the lines of the Marvel Universe and perhaps the characters should be sub-categorized. I don't have tremendously strong feelings one way or the other but clarity and consistency are good things generally. Otto4711 16:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• keep these characters are actually related to one thing. -- Buridan 05:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• The characters, as I've said, are actually related to multiple things. Some of the characters are related to all three things, some to only one, a couple to two. Otto4711 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply

and here we find your problem differentiating the thing versus the referent to the thing. the thing is the comic enterprise known was the tick, the referents are the tv show. the category refers to the existent thing, of which, the tv shows are a part. --05:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buridan ( talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The category is no more broad than Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or any number of other categories for multimedia franchises. - Sean Curtin 02:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Tick (comics) to match the character. See also Category:Flash (comics) as precedent. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 03:09, 25 October 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, empty. Kbdank71 14:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Iranian-Canadian film directors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Canadian film directors, only current member is already in Category:Iranian Canadians. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom, overcategorization by multiple intersection. Otto4711 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per the above succinct explanation. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:39, 22 October 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 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:GUS Vehicle user templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nominate category for deletion as these type of userboxes exist in the much larger parent Category:Vehicle user templates. Maybe this cat could have been speedily deleted, wasn't sure. —  MrDolomite •  Talk 04:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete as empty for more than four days - I checked during the initial nomination before relisting, trying to work out what the issue was and whether this was a WP:UCFD matter, and it was empty then and still is. It probably is a UCFD matter, but as it's empty, it hardly seems worth relisting there. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:42, 22 October 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. Kbdank71 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:American squadrons to Category:Squadrons of the United States

Propose renaming Category:British squadrons to Category:Squadrons of the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Canadian squadrons to Category:Squadrons of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename, convention of the grand-children cats of Category:Military units and formations by country. jwillbur 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• rename per nom. — Scouter Sig 16:25, 27 October 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, precedent. Kbdank71 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:UNLV Rebels men's golfers to Category:UNLV Rebels golfers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since UNLV consistently uses "Lady Rebels" as its athletic nickname for women's teams, and everyone in the category is male, there's no need to disambiguate this category with "men's". If there's ever a need to create a women's category, it's a simple matter to put it at "UNLV Lady Rebels golfers" and create a "UNLV golfers" parent category. Dale Arnett ( talk) 15:03, 22 October 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. Kbdank71 14:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Missouri River Shipwrecks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Shipwrecks of the Missouri River, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:58, 26 October 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 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Coaching institutes for IIT-JEE ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article was in the category ( Rubic's Rostrum) which has been moved to Category:Test preparation companies (which should've been a supercategory of this one). The description seems unfounded and slightly advert-y. mitcho/芳貴 08:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:18, 22 October 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. Kbdank71 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose merging Category:Ratnapura into Category:Cities and towns in Sri Lanka

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation. This is an eponymous category for a town of less than 50000 people. It contains only the main article and two articles about towns located near Ratnapura. If no consensus to upmerge, rename to Category:Ratnapura District (see Ratnapura District). – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 02:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge per nom. No need for this category given the current number of articles in it. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:04, 23 October 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, precedent. Kbdank71 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The X Factor contestants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete.overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Participants in British reality television series. The nominator is right that this is overcategorisation, but even if all the articles are currently dual-categorised, upmerger ensures that any articles added before the CfD is closed will not get lost. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - we have in general treated participants in reality television series differently from actors in series. The reasoning behind de-categorizing actors by series is that they tended to include any actor who appeared in a single episode of any given series, leading to massive category clutter on prolific guests. In the case of reality TV series, though, the participant in the vast majority of cases is only going to have appeared in one such series. Otto4711 14:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• I find that persuasive, but can you cite any precedents? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Without getting too deep into the archives, closest I could find was this rename proposal in which the notion of deleting was kicked around a bit. I find that I indicated there that I didn't strongly care whether the categories for the indivudual programs were deleted, and I still don't care that much. I do, however, find myself still strangely intrigued at the notion of popping Tyra in the mush. Otto4711 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment I found Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 7#Category:I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here! which was closed as delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:29, 22 October 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, precedent. Kbdank71 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete.overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 12:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep, many of the people in the cat are known more for appearing in SCD then their pervious claim to fame. -- Philip Stevens 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Why? Cfd isn't a vote count. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)

• Upmerge to Category:Participants in British reality television series. The nominator is right that this is overcategorisation, but even if all the articles are currently dual-categorised, upmerger ensures that any articles added before the CfD is closed will not get lost. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - we have in general treated participants in reality television series differently from actors in series. The reasoning behind de-categorizing actors by series is that they tended to include any actor who appeared in a single episode of any given series, leading to massive category clutter on prolific guests. In the case of reality TV series, though, the participant in the vast majority of cases is only going to have appeared in one such series. Otto4711 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Also, if this is up for deletion, why isn't Category:US Dancing with the Stars participants? Hera1187 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Reply see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If this nom and the related nominations above are passed, we can apply the same principle and delete the remaining reality TV performers categs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:23, 28 October 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, precedent. Kbdank71 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Pop Idol contestants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete.overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Participants in British reality television series. The nominator is right that this is overcategorisation, but even if all the articles are currently dual-categorised, upmerger ensures that any articles added before the CfD is closed will not get lost. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - we have in general treated participants in reality television series differently from actors in series. The reasoning behind de-categorizing actors by series is that they tended to include any actor who appeared in a single episode of any given series, leading to massive category clutter on prolific guests. In the case of reality TV series, though, the participant in the vast majority of cases is only going to have appeared in one such series. Otto4711 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per BrownHairedGirl, noting that this one should also be upmerged to Category:Idol series participants if that's at all possible. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 21:54, 22 October 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, precedent. Kbdank71 14:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Fame Academy participants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete.overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 12:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Participants in British reality television series. ^anemone| _projectors 11:46, 27 October 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, precedent. Kbdank71 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Dancing on Ice participants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete.overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to Category:Participants in British reality television series. (Even if all the articles are currently dual-categorised, upmerger ensures that any added before the CfD is closed will not get lost). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - we have in general treated participants in reality television series differently from actors in series. The reasoning behind de-categorizing actors by series is that they tended to include any actor who appeared in a single episode of any given series, leading to massive category clutter on prolific guests. In the case of reality TV series, though, the participant in the vast majority of cases is only going to have appeared in one such series. Otto4711 14:38, 22 October 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, precedent. Kbdank71 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 12:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge to both Category:Participants in British reality television series and Category:Participants in American reality television series. (Even if all the articles are currently dual-categorised, upmerger ensures that any added before the CfD is closed will not get lost). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - we have in general treated participants in reality television series differently from actors in series. The reasoning behind de-categorizing actors by series is that they tended to include any actor who appeared in a single episode of any given series, leading to massive category clutter on prolific guests. In the case of reality TV series, though, the participant in the vast majority of cases is only going to have appeared in one such series. Otto4711 14:38, 22 October 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, precedent. Kbdank71 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Big Brother UK contestants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete.overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Most of those categorised are notable only for their appearance on the show; with a few exceptions, it is the defining attribute of their notability. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There's already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Participants_in_British_reality_television_series. The category is redundant. Number1spygirl 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:Participants in British reality television series. (Even if all the articles are currently dual-categorised, upmerger ensures that any added before the CfD is closed will not get lost). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - we have in general treated participants in reality television series differently from actors in series. The reasoning behind de-categorizing actors by series is that they tended to include any actor who appeared in a single episode of any given series, leading to massive category clutter on prolific guests. In the case of reality TV series, though, the participant in the vast majority of cases is only going to have appeared in one such series. Otto4711 14:39, 22 October 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 per precedent. Kbdank71 14:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:The Apprentice (UK) candidates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete.overcategorization. performers by performance. Number1spygirl 12:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Most of those categorised are notable only for their appearance on the show; with a few exceptions, it is the defining attribute of their notability. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There's already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Participants_in_British_reality_television_series. Number1spygirl 12:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge to Category:Participants in British reality television series. (Even if all the articles are currently dual-categorised, upmerger ensures that any added before the CfD is closed will not get lost). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - we have in general treated participants in reality television series differently from actors in series. The reasoning behind de-categorizing actors by series is that they tended to include any actor who appeared in a single episode of any given series, leading to massive category clutter on prolific guests. In the case of reality TV series, though, the participant in the vast majority of cases is only going to have appeared in one such series. Otto4711 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename as capitalisation fix -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Candidates for governor of Louisiana to Category:Candidates for Governor of Louisiana

Nominator's rationale: Rename because the position is capitalized. — Markles 10:40, 22 October 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 relisted on oct 29. Kbdank71 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging

• Category:Open flat horse races about 5 furlongs long to Category:Open flat horse races
• Category:Open flat horse races about 6 furlongs long to Category:Open flat horse races
• Category:Open flat horse races about 7 furlongs long to Category:Open flat horse races
• Category:Open flat horse races about 1 1/8 miles long to Category:Open flat horse races
• Category:Open flat horse races about 1 1/4 miles long to Category:Open flat horse races
• Category:Open flat horse races about 1 3/8 miles long to Category:Open flat horse races
• Category:Open flat horse races about 1 1/2 miles long to Category:Open flat horse races
• Category:Open flat horse races about 1 3/4 miles long to Category:Open flat horse races
• Category:Open flat horse races at least 2 miles long to Category:Open flat horse races

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge all as overcategorisation by arbitrary inclusion criteria, as already proposed CfD for flat races for mares and fillies, for the same reasons: this sort of information would be better presented in a list or lists, which could record the actual length of the races, and if done as a sortable list it would be much more useful to readers.
I can't think of any other categories which are sub-divided by closely-grouped numbers. We don't have Category:Towns of about 6,000 people, Category:Towns of about 7,000 people, Category:Towns of about 8,000 people and so on; we don't have Category:Roads of about 60 mile long, Category:Roads of about 70 miles long etc; we don't have Category:buildings about 60m high, Category:buildings about 70 metres high.
Even Category:Mountains has only two by-height categories, both which record relatively small groups of unusually high mountains: Category:Eight-thousanders and Category:Alpine Four-thousanders (although Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom has sprouted a series of dubious by-height categories under Category:Peak bagging in the British Isles, which look to me like candidates for listifying).
Even under Category:Athletics, Category:Running by distance is divided by length of race in broad groups except at the extremes (e.g. we have Category:Short distance running rather than Category:100 metre running, Category:200 metre running etc. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep or lump together into broader groupings. Towns aren't deliberately designed to have set populations, and roads are designed to stretch from points A to points B via the vagaries of rampant geography - not to go for a set distance then stop. Neither are mountains designed to have set heights (unless the great creator has some Grand Plan for them). Horse races, however, are specified to particular lengths. Upmerging them to a smaller number of broader categories (...one mile and under, ...between one and two miles, ...two miles and over) would be acceptable, but one broad category is not, for the same reaon we don't lump marathons in with sprints. As to "other categories which are sub-divided by closely-grouped numbers", check out Category:1950 births, Category:1951 births, Category:1952 births, Category:1953 births... Grutness... wha? 01:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Categorisation by date is not the same as categorisation by measurement (the halfway point between 1951 and and 1952 is not 1951½), and while mountains aren't designed to a set height, buildings are designed that way. The most useful comparator, though, is probably athletics, where events are also designed to particular lengths, and that comparison needs a closer look.
  These horse-racing categories cover a range from 5/8 Furlongs (1000km) to just 2 miles (i.e. 3.2km). Most of the "at least 2 mile" races are actually 3200 metres or less, which is less than two miles, so we have a range-span of less than 4:1 between the shortest and longest races covered by these categories (the exception is about 4 races of over 2 miles). By comparison, a marathon is 420 times as long as a 100metre sprint, which is why we separate out marathons as an exception.
  In athletics, sprint (race) includes races from 60 to 400m, a 7:1 range of lengths. All the horse races fall within the same range as the sprint category. and there is nothing here remotely approaching a "horse marathon". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• These distances include distances run by both sprinters and stayers, the horse-racing equivalents of sprint and middle-distance runners. Horse anatomy being different to human anatomy, the differentiation in racing between short and medium distances varies between the two species. Given the distinct division in horse racing between sprinters and stayers, it would be wrong to group all of these races into on category. The point about the marathon is taken, but only if it is automatically assumed that races of "two miles and over" will only ever include races of "two miles and slightly over". It is the category that would naturally be used for any far longer races. Grutness... wha? 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• I think you are making a good case for a category of "races over 2 miles", which would include the existing articles on races of 2.2 miles or more, but not the many 2mile/3200metre races. It will not at present be a heavily populated category (3 or 4 articles, I think), but if it defines an event of significantly different quality, it's worth having. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge all per nom. Otto4711 17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge all per nom; far too specific groupings into some non-specific categories. What's "about 1 3/8 miles?" 1.374 miles presumably qualifies, but what about 1.44 (which is just a tad nearer 1 1/2 miles, but still "about" both of the numbers for most people's usages); I genuinely question categories based on "about" numbers. Carlossuarez46 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep To casual observers it might seem like one horse race is pretty much the same as any other. But this is not the case and the three basic variables are age, sex and distance. Combining the three to make category titles is not easy, as the present clumsy titles demonstrate. But to merge them and lump together races as diverse as the Flying Five, the Chester Cup and the Prix d'Ispahan would be a huge mistake. -- Zafonic 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Reply As discussed above, two of the same variables in apply in human running races, but we don't try to micro-categorise them; it's hard to see a massive qualitative difference between races of 6 furlongs and those of 7 furlongs, and categories are not well-suited to classifying every attribute of a set of articles. Triple intersection categories are routinely deprecated at CfD, and this strikes me as a task to which sortable lists and navigation templates are very well suited. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:38, 28 October 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. Kbdank71 14:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Bayfield class attack transport to Category:Bayfield class attack transports

Nominator's rationale: Merge, This cat is misnamed in the singular. All other shipping class cats are named in the plural, see the other subcats in Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States for example. Gatoclass 06:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy merge per convention of parent category and speedy criteria 3 (singular --> plural). Bencherlite ^Talk 00:46, 24 October 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 overtaken by events: speedily renamed to Category:Kotoko songs and deleted. Renamed category has been listed for discussion here. Procedural close by non-admin. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:KOTOKO songs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Per precedent linked to from Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performances by performer, categorization of the type (performer) (performance) is generally frowned upon, as it is not a useful trait and is better served by a list in the performer's article. — TangentCube, Dialogues 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Kotoko songs per conventions of Category:Songs by artist and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) -- Prove It ^(talk) 06:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, no rename - I understand the point of the MoS but in a case where the correct name of the group is all caps then our categories should reflect that. We would not suggest renaming Category: ABBA to Category:Abba, at least I hope we wouldn't. This is no different. Otto4711 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - the category was speedily renamed while this discussion was open. Bad form. Otto4711 12:27, 24 October 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. Kbdank71 14:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Templates of buildings and structures to Category:Buildings and structures templates

Nominator's rationale: Current name seems cumbersome and perhaps is meant to be "Templates for buildings and structures". "Buildings and structures templates" may be preferable. Hope I've done this correctly. Sardanaphalus 02:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. And yes, you done it just fine :) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. The current title sounds like a category for designs for modular buildings. Grutness... wha? 01:21, 23 October 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. Kbdank71 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Otep albums to Category:OTEP albums

Nominator's rationale: Speedy Rename The name of the band is OTEP (with capitals). Thanks in advance! Zouavman Le Zouave 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a procedural nomination based on an objection to a speedy rename request.

• Oppose MOS:TRADE states "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment" and WP:NAME confirms that this extends to page titles as well. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 00:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

  Comment I would've thought that it fit the speedy renaming criterion for capitalization errors. Just as harry Potter is changed to Harry Potter, Otep must be changed to OTEP since that is the way the name of the band is written. Zouavman Le Zouave 05:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename - see Category:UNKLE albums too. Lugnuts 07:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename - I understand the point of the MoS but in a case where the correct name of the group is all caps then our categories should reflect that. We would not suggest renaming Category: ABBA to Category:Abba, at least I hope we wouldn't. This is no different. Otto4711 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Otep is a name (after lead singer Otep Shamaya, not an acronym like ABBA. See also Kiss (band) for a band that always capitalizes its name but we don't, as it's only an affectation. The article title should change too.-- Mike Selinker 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• The notion that we should change the names of articles to suit ourselves when the way we think it ought to be is different from the way it is strikes me as bizarre and more than a little bit arrogant. If the band calls itself OTEP, we should not substitute our judgment in deciding that their name is an invalid article name. Otto4711 04:00, 28 October 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 discussion already relisted. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Historical medical landmarks by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Due to bot tagging delay, discussion has been relocated to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 24#Category:Historical medical landmarks by country. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:00, 24 October 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.