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. the wub "?!" 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Mafia movies to Category:Mafia films

• Rename per existing naming conventions. GregorB 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. The Rambling Man 16:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Davidbober 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Are these films made by mafia, or films about the mafia (ok, so it's the latter, I knew that). Should we make this clearer in the name, e.g. Films about the mafia? >Radiant< 12:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename Per nom, use films. As to Radiant's question, I wouldn't be opposed to "Films about the mafia" either, although I'm pretty sure most people understand what the phrase "Mafia films" is intended to mean. Dugwiki 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Malla nox 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I heard that organized crime families in India regularly finance Bollywood films. I'm just saying. Recury 15:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename — Comment--considering one of the sub-categories is Mafia drama series the better choice would be Films about the Mafia. It has the virtue of being clear. // Fra nkB 05:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Disaster movies to Category:Disaster films

• Rename per existing naming conventions. GregorB 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Abstain, since I'm not sure now if this is a good idea or not. GregorB 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Xiner has voted twice. Osomec 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Davidbober 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Didn't this survive a previous CfD since this was the common name for this class of films? As I recall this the naming convention was for articles and not the categories. Vegaswikian 09:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Are these films about disasters, or films that were somehow disastrous e.g. in press reaction or weird events around the premiere (ok, so it's the former, I knew that). Should we make this clearer in the name, e.g. Films about disasters? >Radiant< 12:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It is highly unlikely that any native English speaker over the age of about eight would be confused and we shouldn't avoid standard English phrases just because non-native speakers might misunderstand them. Osomec 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Besides, it would be "Disastrous movies" if you were talking about the latter. I think the phrase "Disaster movies" is only ambiguous if you use poor grammar. Dugwiki 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose "Disaster movie" is the standard term, even in the UK. ("Disaster movie" gets nearly five times as many google hits as "disaster film" on UK sites). Osomec 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • A valid point. Although the main article is currently titled Disaster film, it wasn't always this way. GregorB 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, disaster movie is more likely to convey what it is. Disaster film isn't a well-used term. Malla nox 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom & Osomec. Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose and move the article back to disaster movie. Pinoakcourt 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Incidentally, the last round of this was for Monster movie which resulted in a keep but (even though this is personal experience) I've never heard people refer to "disaster films" as "disaster movies" preferentially. I'm much more likely to hear people reference "disaster flicks." I note that "Horror movie" is pretty common but we have both the article and the category located at "Horror film" (where they belong IMHO). Otto4711 20:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom & Osomec. I'd keep this title though with a {{ category redirect}} to steer people straight. this is a encyclopedia, so the more erudite terms are welcome to those of us who try and teach proper English to eight year olds. Agree Films about disasters is better yet. // Fra nkB 05:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose "Disaster film" is ambiguous because it isn't a familiar phrase. Nathanian 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per naming conventions and consistency issues. -- Ixfd64 08:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose to ensure consistency with English as she is spoke. Annandale 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom; the naming conventions exist to help standardize these things. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 04:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Oppose for all of the reasons provided in the past. This is a specific genre and the common name. Can someone point to the naming convention that covers this? I'm not looking for the article naming convention for films. The article probably needs to be reconsidered for a move also. Vegaswikian 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose There is a policy that says wikipedia should use the most common term somewhere. Wimstead 22:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - generally it's disaster movie, even here in the UK. thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Historic districts of Ontario into Category:Districts of Upper Canada

• Merge, Ontario was formerly called Upper Canada. Historic districts of Ontario were all districts of Upper Canada. Nfitz 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Historic districts of Ontario were all districts of Upper Canada, but the boundaries were not contiguous, so historic districts of Upper Canada were all districts of Ontaio. Keep them separtae for historical accuracy. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Sorry about the above, I was talking rubbish (didn't type what I meant to type, and my geography was a bit messed up); merger makes good sense. As penance, I will now go and beat myself with a big stick. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 18:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose They're not the same. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I think there is a misunderstanding. All 9 districts listed in the Historic Districts of Ontario category ceased to exist by 1849, two decades before Ontario was created. None of the districts listed in this category were ever districts of Ontario! Nfitz 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • You're right. Changing my vote to Strong merge. Xiner ( talk, email) 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Davidbober 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. // Fra nkB 05:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Annandale 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 all as "Xish aviation accidents and incidents". David Kernow (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename categories for standardization purposes. -- GCarty 18:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:French air disasters to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in France

Propose renaming Category:German air disasters to Category:Aviation accidents and inc7idents in Germany

Propose renaming Category:Aviation incidents in India to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in India

Propose renaming Category:Accidents and incidents in the Japanese aviation sector to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Japan

Propose renaming Category:Aviation incidents in Nepal to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Nepal

Propose renaming Category:Norwegian air disasters to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Norway

Propose renaming Category:Aviation incidents in Pakistan to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Pakistan

Propose renaming Category:Aviation incidents in Peru to Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Peru

• Rename all per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. - Darwinek 23:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all Classifying these very mobile disasters by the country where the plane fell out of the sky makes little sense. If a French plane crashes in Italy and kills three hundred French people it it needs to be classified as a French disaster. Category:French air disasters covers that, but Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in France doesn't. So alternative rename all to Category:Fooish air disasters or Category:Fooish aviation accidents and incidents. Hoylake 00:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Remember the American plane that was bombed over Scotland? Both make sense, I think. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. Hoylake, there is a case for adding a separate classification by national origin of the flight, but air acidents can also be usefully identified by the place they occurred: that's where the rescue (if any) will take place, and an investigation will happen there. Just scanning my rusty memory for the accidents I recall, I find that I remember where they happened in most cases, but not always the nationality of the plane involved. If we abolish this category, then we have some real hindrances to navigation, such as the Pan Am Flight 103 crash at Lockerbie not being categorised under Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in the United Kingdom. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Using the place where the incident happened is reasonable. It covers both ground and air incidents. One question. What category is used for those that don't occur in a country? Say in the middle of the Atlantic? Vegaswikian 09:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Hoylake. Rename all to Category:Fooish aviation accidents and incidents. That way one set of categories will cover everything, for example Lockerbie would be in both the British and American categories and an accident at sea would be classified by the country of origin of the plane or the country of nationality of the majority of the passsengers, or by both if different. This should be explained in the header to each article. Osomec 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• 'Comment if you change the word "in" to the word "of" as ie) Aviation accidents and incidents of France, then incidents that occur in France, involving a French airline, a flight that originated in or was destined for France, and that involved French-built aircraft would be covered. 70.51.9.11 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment Will their be a category for this? Not all incidents occur over land. Category:Aviation accidents and incidents at sea -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per Osomec's suggestion — there's no reason not to list the same incident under multiple national categories if this is merited.

Xdamr ^talk 12:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per Osomec's suggestion — there's no reason not to list the same incident under multiple national categories if this is merited. Annandale 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Category:WikiProject Star Wars articles. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't think merging into a WP category is necessary. TonyTheTiger 18:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The category is used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars, it's just misnamed. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• merge because all of one will naturally fall under the other. Chris 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge because if WP Star Wars is worth its salt then all articles in WP will be part of the project. The Rambling Man 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Shouldn't the merge be the other way around? Xiner ( talk, email) 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment this category is populated by the WikiProject template {{ StarWarsProject}}, which is placed on talk pages, and as such should be named so it's clear that it's a wikiproject category. The normal category for articles relating to Star Wars is Category:Star Wars. Mairi 22:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The template can be renamed to "Template:WikiProjectStarWars". Xiner ( talk, email) 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Question Is it necessary to create a category? WikiProject Buffyverse doesn't seem to require one, although other projects do add a tag to the discussion page. Xiner ( talk, email) 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Usually its preparation for assessment, however sometimes it's just to build an index cat. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge either way, and Xiner has a good point that it may be unneeded entirely. >Radiant< 12:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:WikiProject Star Wars articles. Deletion would also be acceptable. Osomec 15:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. David Kernow (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, we normally categorize schools by state and type, not county. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per ProveIt. The Rambling Man 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom or at least merge into Kentucky's. Xiner ( talk, email) 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, show me the policy that says schools can only be catagorized by state or type. Why not county? And don't give me your opinions, show me the Wikipedia policy please. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• There's no policy against it, categorizing by counties is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It's just that Category:Schools in the United States has it's own conventions, and it doesn't go by counties. It goes by state and type ... so we have Category:High schools in Kentucky, Category:Middle schools in Kentucky and Category:Elementary schools in Kentucky. The category doesn't hurt anything by being there, but it doesn't really help with navigation in any way either. -- Prove It ^(talk) 04:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Well, if it doesn't hurt anything by being there, and there isn't a policy against it, then I guess it should be left alone. I'm planning on adding every grade, middle, and high school in Boone County, Ky eventually. When done, this will be an informative and extensive list of schools and a qualified reference. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It's possible to place parameters in a category, so I'm not convinced this isn't overcategorization. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I agree that there are already too many catagories for a great may subjects. But if one look at the number of schools in Boone County, or any county in a populous area of any state, then the catagory can only help someone find a school. Let's use an example. Say a mother uses Wikipedia to find schools for her two kids to attend, ages 10 and 15, namely schools in Boone County where they just relocated. Instead of only having a category of the entire state (hundreds of schools lumped together), she can look at the Boone County Category, and find schools in her area. This, for another example, might lead her to Goodridge Elementary for her 10 year old, and Conner Middle School for her oldest. These two schools are on the same campus, and a house in this area of the county would serve her family's interest wonderfully. So you see, this category provides a reference not available in the larger state category. I think the examples I've used and my argument are sound in this case. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NOT a directory. Xiner ( talk, email) 02:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Okay, I'll give you that. But your point in and of itself isn't an end all argument to delete this category. So far no one has made a good argument to delete, be it here or on my talk page. Again, I vote to keep. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. >Radiant< 12:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, you really don't see the advantages of having conventions for these sorts of things? Someone could see your category and decide to create 50 more like it and then we'd be right back here again, trying to get Category:High schools in Kentucky deleted for the same reasons. Recury 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Make a list of schools in the county, and it can be a sub-page of the article and would be more likely to be found. Most customers probably don't know enough about the category system to even begin thinking of using it in the way you posit. Whereas a list of schools will get google hits. // Fra nkB 05:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Go ahead an delete, I've created a Boone County Schools article, and added the Wiki link to each See also section of every school page. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Mongolian people, gendered category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom & BHG. The Rambling Man 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge - Half of all mongols are women. Baka man 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Davidbober 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Pinoakcourt 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge - nationality & gender is not an intersection of interest. -- lquilter 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Category:Rappers from South Memphis
• Category:Rappers from North Memphis

Merge both into Category:Memphis rap artists. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

support merge per nom. Chris 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. One cat has 6 pages, the other has 9 pages. Mathmo ^Talk 16:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Davidbober 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• merge per nom Barcode 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Rugrats episodes, convention of Category:Episodes by television series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Davidbober 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 (except for Heralds of Galactus), which I personally don't understand - if you're going to have articles on comic book superheroes, why the hell not categorize them according to their teams. I don't get it, but whatever. And no, I'm not going to listify these. Undoing the work of the editors who categorized these articles is plenty work enough for me, thank you very much, somebody who knows and cares what the lists should contain can do that. Herostratus 06:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

N.B.: I did not delete Category:Ultraforce members because it was tacked on at the last minute and not debated; and I did not delete Category:Weapon Plus and Category:Weapon X because they were added while the debate was in progress and it is not clear to me that these are of the same type as the nominated category, being programs rather than teams, and this was not addressed in the debate. Herostratus 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Acolytes members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Brotherhood of Mutants members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Dark Riders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Femizon members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Frightful Four members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Gene Nation members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Hellfire Club members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Heralds of Galactus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Howling Commandos members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Category:Marauders members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Masters of Evil members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Morlocks members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Mutant Liberation Front members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:New Warriors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Serpent Society members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Sinister Six members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete and Listify, As per previous precedent with teams of comic book superheroes and/or supervillains. — J Greb 15:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and tack Category:Psi-Force members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) onto that. Deletion from December 8 nomination never got finished. – Unint 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment, while some of those categories have only a handful of pages others have several dozen pages. Perhaps we could find somebody more knowledgeable about Marvel (sorry, mine is rather sketchy) to suggest an alternative categorization? We could ask at an appropriate wikiproject? Mathmo ^Talk 16:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment, I have a big problem voting on these as a whole. Some of the categories do deal groups so minor that they should be deleted, Howling Commandos members being an example of this. The WWII team members are better placed in the already existing Category:S.H.I.E.L.D. ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The problem is that there are also categories dealing groups that have a huge history and should remain. For the latter I'm thinking Heralds of Galactus and Masters of Evil. Nominate each individually then have a proper vote. Having them as a massive group is too messy. Stephen Day 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • To be honest, I put them up as a batch based on past histories of CfDs. Both to do it in one go and to avoid the "Why nominate this, but not this?" comments. If preferable I can withdraw the batch and re submit them individually in the current CfD page. I don't think that should be an issue though. And "huge history" shouldn either, IIRC we had the JLA, JSA, Avengers, and so on dropped and they have similar bulk to MoE.
    The Heralds may have a special circumstance as it is a title more than a super-team. With that though it would be better served with an article and attached list. — J Greb 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If there is already a precedent then my vote would be Delete, with Heralds of Galactus being a huge exception. As you stated its a title more than a group and as such it deseves its own category. Stephen Day 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and tack

Category:Weapon Plus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Weapon X ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
.

RIANZ 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, we've discussed this before. >Radiant< 12:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify Listing members of superhero teams in an article is fine, but for category purposes it becomes problematic because there are so many different teams and individual characters often move between rosters or do cross-team work. Moreover, anybody interested in knowing who is or was on a particular team's roster can easily get that information by visiting that team's main article, making putting this information in a category unnecessary. It's probably best to simply not have any of these categories at all and stick to list articles. Dugwiki 18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify. We've discussed this before. We cut many super-team categories and just forgot to include these less well known ones at the time. Doczilla 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• No comment, except Keep category:Heralds of Galactus. That's a very different categorization scheme, because the rest are teams and this one is basically an occupation (its parallel might be "Daily Planet reporters").-- Mike Selinker 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, Exactly, plus Category:Marvel Comics cosmic entities ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) amd Category:Marvel Comics aliens ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are both categories that could potentially become overpopulated. Having a sub-category for Galactus' Heralds is a logical way to eliviate this. Deleting this category is pointless due to the fact that will potentially need to be recreated at some point in the future anyway. Stephen Day 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete all and listify except for Heralds of Galactus. Otto4711 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Tack Category:Ultraforce members and still with my current position of delete.

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

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Prisons in New Zealand, convention of Category:Prisons by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. -- Xdamr ^talk 15:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. I'm a NZer too, there is nothing here in NZ giving any good reason why it should be any different! Mathmo ^Talk 16:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Davidbober 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Isnt a prison is one type of "correctional facility", different from a penitentiary, a jail, or a juvenile facility that may not have bars or even locked doors.
• Merge "Prison" is the most common overall term. Terms such as penitentiary, a jail, or a juvenile facility have meanings that overlap, are hard to define or vary from place to place. Wimstead 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete It is empty and its author requests deletion. Rintrah 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Davidbober 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete as categorization by subjective inclusion criterion, POV. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a notable feature of modern music and is not inherently POV. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Tend to agree with point raised. Davidbober 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, it is POV in that it is not immediately obvious which songs do, or do not, have "social content" (I'm sure there are a few obvious cases either way, but the cutoff point is far from obvious). Also, this is probably overly broad, as any song about e.g. work, relationships or drugs could be said to have social content. >Radiant< 12:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too vague (and not specifically a feature of modern music). Osomec 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too subjective a criteria. How much "social content" is necessary for a song to be in this category? One or two lines of a song that imply some current societal problem? Lots of songs involve characters with drinking or domestic problems, so should all of those be included since they are effectively commenting on the nature of these issues? Dugwiki 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per above. Recury 15:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Much to broad. It covers nearly all folk and country music, ['[The Marriage of Figaro]], and much else besides. Hawkestone 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Mobile phone companies of El Salvador, convention of Category:Mobile phone companies by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment, El Salvador is a tiny country. I'm sure it couldn't have too many mobile phone companies? Perhaps better for it not to have it's own category but should instead be upmerged so something else? Mathmo ^Talk 16:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename No opinion on deletion. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Davidbober 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename essential subcategorisation of the parent. Hawkestone 04:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Royal Family of Cambodia to Category:Cambodian royalty

• Rename, per convention of category:Royalty. Pinoakcourt 14:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename for consistency. -- MChew 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Davidbober 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Kohary to Category:Kohary family

• Rename, "Kohary" could be almost anything; my proposed name is clearer. Pinoakcourt 13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Lucky ☆ Star to Category:Lucky Star (manga)

• Rename, a consensus has been reached for renaming the main article from Lucky ☆ Star to Lucky Star (manga) (and it has since been moved), the category should also follow. Also see the main article renaming discussion at Talk:Lucky_Star_(manga)#Requested_move. Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK· CONTRIBS} 12:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. As per article renaming, best to to avoid the use of non-Latin alphabets in category names. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 13:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Tim! 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename Simple housekeeping -- MChew 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, as counterpart to main article rename (although I'd want to remove the non-latin character as a matter of principle). -- Xdamr ^talk 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support rename -- tjstrf talk 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename - as the person who moved the article Lucky ☆ Star (and at least one related article), I agree that the category title should agree with the article titles. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Lists of terrestrial volcanoes into Category:Lists of volcanoes

• Merge, 99,9% of articles about volcanoes in Wikipedia are about volcanoes on Earth. This category is redundant and can be merged into "Lists of volcanoes" without breaking the consistency. Darwinek 11:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Dawrinek. The Rambling Man 12:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Darwinek. hike395 18:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment and Question Why merge? The Category:Lists of volcanoes already subdivides it into earth and non-earth volcanoes. Essentially what you're proposing is that List of volcanoes should NOT be subdivided into volcanoes on earth and volcanoes off earth. Since this is a primary subdivision I have to ask why? This is how the science of volcanology is primarily divided, those who study earth's volcanoes versus those who study et volcanoes. So, this merge is essentially a quest to remove an established higher-order subdivision of a list. Why? KP Botany 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Main (list) articles should be merged, too. "List of volcanoes" should contain all links related to lists of volcanoes on Earth. List of ET volcanoes should be added to "see also" section. There are only a few articles about volcanoes on Mars, and that's all. It's 1:100 in favour of Earth volcanoes. Compare to situation with mountains. Mountains of Mars are subcategorized in "Extraterrestrial mountains" category but our Earth mountains aren't placed in some "Terrestrial mountains" category. That's all. It's just redundant. - Darwinek 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support for KP Botany. It seems to me that what's needed is to make "terrestrial" & "extraterrestrial" subcategories within Category:Lists of volcanoes. Pete Tillman 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC), Consulting Geologist reply
• Merge per nom. Davidbober 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge - Most people would naturally be referring to terrestrial volcanoes when they refer to volcanoes. Hence, terrestrial volcanoes should be in the main directory. A separate subcategory for list of extraterrestrial volcanoes would be warranted if more than one list had been written. This would treat extraterrestiral and terrestiral volcanoes inconsistently, but the inconsistency would make the pages easier for the average person to use. Dr. Submillimeter 23:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge, overcategorization. Recury 15:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Nathanian 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Marvel Comics - New Universe characters to Category:New Universe characters

• Rename - This was nominated and resulted in rename here but apparently got overlooked when the other nominated category got renamed. Also, Category:Psi-Force members was to be deleted. This doesn't fit speedy rename and I'm not sure if there's some other process for picking up these missed changes, if so point me toward it and I'll repost this there. Otto4711 11:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename. I agree with that RIANZ 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. the wub "?!" 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Towns in California into Category:Cities in California

• Merge, The State of California makes no distinctions on the size of their cities like many Northeast US states do. The one relatively minor difference are those that are general law cities, and those that are charter cities. Category:Towns in California seems to be an odd mix of incorporated cities, unincorporated communities, and ghost towns. There is already the semi-overlapping category:Census-designated places in California and category:Unincorporated communities in California. Communities that fit into those categories should be moved. Incorporated cities should be moved into Category:Cities in California, and then Category:Towns in California should be deleted. ^{Blank Verse} 10:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Los Altos Hills, California, calls itself a town on it's own website. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If you can provide a reference, I'd be happy to change my vote. If we do this we should also update the list of townless states in Category:Towns in the United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 05:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It's right in the Wikipedia's California#Cities, towns and counties article (unless you want a better reference):

      "The state recognizes two kinds of cities--charter and general law. General law cities owe their existence to state law and consequentially governed by it; charter cities are governed by their own city charters. Cities incorporated in the 19th century tend to be charter cities. All of the state's ten most populous cities are charter cities."

    • Here's a reference from the League of California Cities to back up the first sentence: [1]
    • Here's another quote from a Wikipedia article ( Town#United States):

      "In California, the words "town" and "city" are synonymous by law (see Cal. Govt. Code Secs. 34500-34504)."

    • Each city can call themselves anything that they want, but there is no legal distinction between towns and cities in the State of California. ^{Blank Verse} 10:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge, per nom. California has 478 cities; 108 of those are charter cities. No towns. As a long-time California resident, I have to say this comes as a surprise. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom -- Davidbober 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• merge each article into its correct catgegory based on the facts: Category:Census-designated places in California, Category:Unincorporated communities in California and Category:Cities in California. Category:Ghost towns in California should be left as the only entity within Category:Towns in California. The texts of various articles also need to be changed as they often refer to these entities as 'towns'. Hmains 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  I think that the best thing to do is make Category:Ghost towns in California a subcategory of Category:Cities in California, and completely delete Category:Towns in California. The text in the various articles does NOT need to be changed because many California cities have chosen to call themselves either a town or city (or even vacillated over the issue—see the discussion for California at Town#United States). There probably does need to be some way of noting that the description does not have any legal distinction in the state of California for those readers used to the distinctions made in other US states (although I don't look forward to annotating or footnoting 478 California city articles). ^{Blank Verse} 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  • An idea ... there are many countries which also don't make any distinction between cities and towns, in which case we just use a general category for both, as in Category:Cities and towns in Italy. Why not merge both into Category:Cities and towns in California? -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This is a very good suggestion. If a Bot will do the merge, I'll manually go through and remove those articles that are unincorporated communities and/or census-designated places, plus the oddball entries such as ghost towns. ^{Blank Verse} 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I think it is best to keep the 50 states' sets of article to follow the same pattern, keeping variations as small as possible to account for any unique differences--even keeping almost empty categories if only to have a single obvious place to say why it is empty. I think this is easier to maintain and easier on readers who can develop an expectation of 'what they will find where' if they are reading though a series of states' categories and articles. Hmains 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with that 'solution' is that people who don't know, for example, that California makes no legal distinctions on whether a municipal corporation is a city or town will just look at the city's website and then place it in the city or town category without ever looking at the category's page that would have any explanations. That forces the various WikiProjects and conscientious editors to do more maintaince work. ^{Blank Verse} 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I would not think it to be helpful to put entities that are all 'cities' in a category named 'cities and towns' when there are no towns to put in the category. See Iowa categories for a similar situation which I think should be used as the model for California. Hmains 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Associate's degree holders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This seems like such a non-notable achievement that it is not worth using it as a criteria to categorize people. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Do we have Category:Degree holders or similar? roundhouse 11:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • We do have a Category:People by educational degree. Most of the other subcategories seem reasonable, but they may still require scrutiny nonetheless. Dr. Submillimeter 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom before it gets out of control. The Rambling Man 12:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. This appears to be a sort of branding/marketing exercise by some universities and colleges rather than a substantive type of qualification. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 12:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. That said, I even doubt if there is a need for a category bachelor degree holders if there is one. For for Brownhairgirl's latter complaint, I doubt it. It have zero effect as I see it. -- Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK· CONTRIBS} 14:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Hoylake 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Dr.S -- MChew 11:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per Dr. Submillimeter, non-categorisable attribute. -- Xdamr ^talk 15:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment Hmmm... we have Category:High school dropouts, why not then keep Category:Associate's degree holders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? I'm kind of very vaguely leaning towards the idea of keeping it. Mathmo ^Talk 16:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment "So-and-so became enormously successful despite dropping out of high school" is an interesting biographical detail that would likely be highlighted in a description of that person's career. "So-and-so was enormously successful, and by the way he has an associates degree" isn't quite as interesting or notable. In fact, I wonder what is implied... are these people successful as a result of their higher education, or despite their lack of a 4-year degree. We could theoretically have separate categories for people who dropped out in the 9th grade of high-school, as opposed to the 10th grade, etc. But often the completion of high-school (rightly or wrongly) is regarded as the dividing line between "educated," and "uneducated." zadignose 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- Davidbober 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. the wub "?!" 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Translators by source material ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Currently, this category contains only Category:Bible translators (which should be kept). The category was intended to be used for the translators of other materials as well. The category also once contained Category:Translators of hymns, but in a 2007 Jan 5 discussion, it was decided to delete this subcategory and not to use this type of categorization scheme. Among other things, it was stated that searches for people based on the type of material that they translated was esoteric and that the classification scheme was a bad idea because translators often work on a wide variety of source materials. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per previous cfd and above case. roundhouse 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per well-reasoned nom and previous CFD. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 12:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete it makes more sense to categorize translators by nationality and languages. We already do both. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per Dr.S. -- MChew 11:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- Davidbober 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 deleted. the wub "?!" 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Moskva class aircraft carriers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: replaced by more precise Category:Moskva class helicopter carriers — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per N328KF. The Rambling Man 12:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Seems like straightforward housekeeping. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 12:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- Davidbober 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. the wub "?!" 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Hindu Fundamentalism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, A POV attempt by User:Kathanar as a response to consistent edit-warring against consensus regarding the CfD of Category:Religious supremacists. A category on Hindu Nationalism already exists so redundant ( Category:Hindutva) Rumpelstiltskin223 04:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete' per nom . Shyamsunder 17:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}}} reply

Rumpelstiltskin223 I see again the same users involved here, its seems you been "canvassing" for votes again. No I think this category can stand on its own, Hindu nationalism is not a good definition (nationalism denotes more of a nationality or ethnicity), as there is no category for muslim nationalism, etc., this is a much better term for what it categorizes and makes it more standard.-- Kathanar 04:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

What a charming kettle of accusations. The first statement is rather funny considering that I have not contacted or canvassed anybody whereas you clearly have [2] [3]. Second statement is beautiful original research and has no real basis in truth or fact. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Here's the thing. The term "Hindu Fundamentalism" is a nonentity as there are no "Fundamentals" in Hinduism. "Fundamentalism" means literal adherence to normative scripture. Christianity and Islam have such scripture (Bible and Quran respectively) but Hinduism does not. If you argue the Vedas are normative then you are saying that Hindutvawadis adhere to the literal truth of the Vedas. This is laughable as a majority of Hindutvawadis probably haven't even read the Vedas. Hindutva or "Hindu Nationalism" is a political movement, not a religious one and so no fundamentalism is involved. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hindu_extremism for similar arguments from another AfD. Rumpelstiltskin223 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete'-- D-Boy 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No need to feed. Baka man 06:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per reasoned argument in nom. The Rambling Man 12:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete' per nom. POV category. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Too POV -- MChew 11:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Rumpelsiltskin's arguement regarding whether "fundamentalism" exists in Hinduism is persuasive. zadignose 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Rumpelsiltskin. Nobleeagle ^{[TALK]  [C]} 04:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 no consensus. the wub "?!" 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:"History of" templates into Category:Historical Period Templates

• Merge, better fitting category, no need for duplication. Chris 04:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Not sure re merge – there may be a sufficient number of "History of..." templates to merit their own category – but, having read the description on its page, suggest target category renamed to History-related templates or at least speedy-renamed to Historical period templates. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: I don't really understand what is said below, but there are only two subcats in this category. If someone understands what's going on, however, and feel that the nomination is significantly flawed, feel free to ignore my vote, which is only one of three anyway. Xiner ( talk, email) 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Merge--Need more time on better name considering purpose to track templates used on BOTH sisters.--this is a sub-cat now incorrectly (although true in spirit) under Category:Interwiki category linking templates, which was a renamed result here. However, this cat was SOLELY created to track navigation templates used on both the commons and here, albeit, with a possible modification or three to bridge between differing needs between the sisters.
     Templates in Category:"History of" templates does not bridge the same inter-sister linking or usage criteria (I just test both), so is contrary to the use of the Historical Period Templates category (admittedly, it needs a better explanation. I'll do that!) On the commons, the parent categories are
  See also commons Categories:

      Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories , History , History by period , Historical eras , History of Europe , and Wikipedia navigation templates which links pretty well with our

the missing 'Wikipedia' Fixed seems to be because of inconsistancies with our own naming conventions on categories--that being an old name-- or there has been a change here in the last six months. I'm sure the commons name originated here and was installed on the commons, they didn't have a nav templates category back then. Category:Navigational templates is also a parent of Category:Interwiki category linking templates, which makes the little disjuncture somewhat reasonable. All that is easily managed, but combining these two is out for my part.

renaming issues

1. Support : Category:"History of" templates into Category:History-related templates.
2. Mild oppose -- Name change on Historical Period Templates, unless we have a means of also making the commons name lowercase. We do, renaming on the commons uses {{ category redirect}} so tag both sisters with that, and speedy recat the contents. We underutilize Category redirect here. It's good for these small issues of naming in particular. No one's going to want to fight over name capitalizations. // Fra nkB 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Have no idea what much of the above means, but the rename from Category:"History of" templates into History-related templates sounds maybe a closer match. Chris 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge Category:Types of museum into Category:Museums by type

• One has most of the articles, and the other has most of the cats, and there's no reason that I can see for it. -- lquilter 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I think it makes more sense to Merge Category:Types of museum into Category:Museums -- Samuel Wantman 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  I think it's better to keep one of the "museum types" categories and keep the museums cat -- which is after all a fairly major cat -- clean. Otherwise all the articles and subcats -- 55 cats, 24 pages -- get lumped in at the top. Someone obviously cleaned up the main museums cat by moving all the cats into a subcat, and I think it's good because it helps the other categories in museums be visible (Museum occupations, Museum organizations, Museum events, and so on). I just think they went a little overboard in making two categories with a difficult-to-understand distinction. (It's also parallel to Museums by city, Museums by country.)-- lquilter 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge Category:Museums by type. Not sure a further upmerge of both into Museums is necessary. TonyTheTiger 18:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per proposal into Category:Museums by type. KP Botany 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. One category is for the type of museums and the other is for museums that are grouped based on what type they are. The current structure allows a reader to find out about the types and then find the museums that are included in that type. Combining does not seem to help the readers much. Maybe a better job in the intro for the categories is all that is needed. If you really feel the need to do something, then Samuel Wantman's suggestion is a better alternative to what is being suggested in the nom. Vegaswikian 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment But it's hard to tell this, because when you go to Category:Types of museum it's missing quite a few types of museums, so it seems to be just an ill-thought-out second of the Category:Museums by type, and shouldn't, anyhow, all the Museums by type, be types of Museum, so if you want a Museum by Type, you find it in the Category of museums by type? KP Botany 21:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We just had a very similar discussion about series of books -- see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 6#Category:Series of fantasy books and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 6#Category:Series of fantasy novels for related points. -- lquilter 21:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom -- Davidbober 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep as argued by Vegaswikian above. There is also the sub-category Category:Types of art museums and galleries to consider. Definitely don't merge back to the Category:Museums category in any case. — Jonathan Bowen 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Of course, art museums & galleries shouldn't be upmerged to museums; that's a type of museum! It's fine with me to use the Types of museum name instead of MBT to maintain consistency with subcat TOAMAG, but TOM and MBT should be merged together under one or the other name. -- lquilter 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 reverse merge. David Kernow (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Military units and formations of South Korea into Category:Military units and formations of the Republic of Korea

• Merge, The Mil Units and formations of S Korea duplicates an existing category that uses the official name of the South Korean Army. Buckshot06 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge Common name is South Korea, which is where the country's page resides. Xiner ( talk, email) 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge per Xiner; the country categories generally use the common name of the country (i.e. the one where the article is placed), not the formal one. Kirill Lokshin 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge per Xiner and Kirill. SnowFire 16:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge per Xiner. -- Xdamr ^talk 15:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge per Xiner. -- Davidbober 19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge per Xiner and write a sentence or two identifying South Korea and the Republic of Korea as one and the same. -- _MerkurIX ^{(이야기하세요!)} _(투고) 14:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• 'Reverse merge per Xiner and Kirill and Keep a redirect Nathanian 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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. the wub "?!" 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Delete - we recently deleted fictional hereoes and fictional heroines categories. All the same rationales for deleting those categories apply here. Otto4711 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. What we really need is Category:Fictional categories that is kept perpetually empty. ;-) Samuel Wantman 02:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's a shame because there ARE heroes and villains. Xiner ( talk, email) 02:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reluctant delete for consistency and because, in many cases, it invokes POV which is inappropriate for a category. While we're at it, though, I must point out that supervillain is different from just villain because supervillain can generally be more objectively defined. Doczilla 08:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete this and all of its subcategories - I have wanted to nominate this category myself for a while for two reasons. First, whether or not someone is a villian may require a subjective judgment. In some cases, characters clearly behave as villians, while in others, characters have more complex characteristics that make the designation ambiguous. Second, characters switch between being heroes and villians frequents. Magneto and Darth Vader are good examples, although I also see that Silver Potato is now listed as a villian (despite being a long-standing hero). Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Dr. S. The Rambling Man 12:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. >Radiant< 12:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV issues. How do you handle fictional protagonists who also display reprehensible behavior, such as Tony Soprano or The Shield's Vic Mackey? They break the law and even kill people, but are clearly the characters viewers sympathize with to a degree. And what about characters who used to be villains but reformed, such as The White Queen Emma Frost or vampire Spike (Buffyverse)? Dugwiki 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete villains & heroes & transient personal attribute categories. -- lquilter 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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