The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 (but if someone wants to split this into two, have at it) --Kbdank71 16:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military districts of Russia and the Soviet Union to Category:Military Districts and Groups of Forces of Russia and the Soviet Union

• Rename, This category should be renamed so that all the MDs and Groups of Forces, very similar formations, can be grouped in the same category. Buckshot06 23:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can you explain the two terms and also show why they are similar? - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sentence-case if renamed (i.e. Military districts and Groups of forces of Russia and the Soviet Union; not sure, though, if "Groups of forces" is cased correctly...?)  David Kernow (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC), struck in favo/ur of the below 19:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is there a particular reason why military districts and groups of forces should be bundled into one cat in the first place? Unless I am missing something, splitting this cat into two would be a better solution. So, am I missing something?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's occurred to me that military districts are areas whereas "groups of forces" seem to be army personnel (so far as I can determine), i.e. the category is mixing two different kinds of things...?  Furthermore, are the "groups of forces" purely Soviet constructs...?  If either/both these conditions the case, suggest:
    Split into Military districts of Russia and Groups of (F/f)orces of the Soviet Union / Groups of (F/f)orces of Russia and the Soviet Union. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2006 (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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:AN CAFE songs, or perhaps Category:Antic Cafe songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:29, 28 October 2006 (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 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 --Kbdank71 15:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irgun and Lehi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Delete Possibly should exist but as seperate categories. two differnet groups shouldn't be sorted together in one category named like this, not conventional. Amoruso 23:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - two groups often considered together. Lehi split off from Irgun, so this is a category about Irgun, including anything that split off from it (i.e. Lehi). Indeed, a number of individuals were members of Irgun and then Lehi, so if there were two cats many articles would be in both. It's much simpler to consider the two together. —Ashley Y 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Delete —Ashley Y 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I don't see who will be in both - no one... anyone is identified with either one of them. They also had different ideology and system altogether. Christianity split off from Judaism, so let's make a category Category:Judaism and Christianity and include anything that split off from Judaism. Indeed, Jesus himself would fit both, as well as myriads of others. Amoruso 02:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as these were two distinct entities, and this is in any event an unnecessary subcat of Category:Militant Zionist groups. Tewfik^Talk 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Serves no useful purpose; different organizations, different actions, rarely useful, if at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You know, it would have been enormously helpful if you folks had commented beforehand. But if no-one else votes Keep, I'll go ahead and create two new categories to replace this one. —Ashley Y 20:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 days on one talk page are not "more than enough" IMO. Cheers. Amoruso 21:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that the category has been emptied out while the matter is still under discussion. Isn't that a no-no? (In any case, splitting them up is fine with me.) - Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did this. I would have preferred discussion of this category, either before or after I created it, but I am assuming no-one will object. —Ashley Y 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Militant_Zionist_groups and its subgroups. This category is awkardly named anyways. I also encourage contributors to get along rather than fight. Patience and a little give and take goes a long way. --Deodar 02:10, 2 November 2006 (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 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 --Kbdank71 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State-specific Interstate highway articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is redundant to Category:Interstate Highways by state. NE2 22:20, 28 October 2006 (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 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 09:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lay Philosophers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete for espousing a patronising campus-centric point of view. "Philosopher" is not a job title. Hawkestone 22:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete inappropriate POV-laden category (which also shouldn't have a capital P). Doczilla 23:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is not campus-centric, as you'll note all of the people labeled lay philosopher were in fact lay philosophers in their biographies, and occasionally on their own wiki-pages. Lay Philosopher has 748 hits in google general, 34 in google scholar, and 104 in google books. There have been famous lay philosophers, but I think you'll find that the category is fairly narrow and is only applied as appropriate. Actually, philosopher is a job title :0, we at least for the German and U.S. governments, anyway, i created the category. --Buridan 03:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: inclusion of Fyodor Dostoevsky doesn't suggest the category is serious and maintainable. Pavel Vozenilek
• Delete per nom. Also note that those google hit numbers are pathetic, even "Professor of Neurosurgery" gets 117,000. Honbicot 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inherently subjective LaszloWalrus 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This category could easily be broadly interepreted to include most people. It is not useful. George J. Bendo 10:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 13:12, 1 November 2006 (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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly to Category:Parliament of the Australian Capital Territory
• Category:Members of Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly by term to Category:Members of Australian Capital Territory Parliaments by term
• Rename to comply with the naming convention for similar articles for other Australian state/territory parliaments. See the list at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics/Parliaments#Progress Table Gimboid13 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment examination of website shows that the name given to the ACT legislature is Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

  That's true, but the NT legislature styles itself as the 'Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory' [1] but the category for the NT follows the naming convention for the states (Category: Parliament of the Northern Territory). Interesting to note that the NT Assembly website is part of the NT Government's domain name, but that's a different issue. Wikipedia already refers to the 'Parliament of the Australian Capital Territory' in the article Parliaments of the Australian states and territories. Gimboid13 10:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Well, then the question is: What's the most commonly known name; and, what do they call themselves? - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (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 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 --Kbdank71 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Fox River Eight ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Redundant category, needlessly over-categorizing in light of Category:Prisoners of Prison Break. Otto4711 20:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the category in question, and I agree it is redundent. I don't oppose deletion. Keep whichever one sounds better or whatever (I personally think Fox River 8 sounds better) :) Siyavash 02:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If they are actually called the Fox River eight, then this cat should be kept and the other deleted. If they are not, then this one should be deleted. I also note that "prisoners of" isn't alphabetised by last name : ) - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is an article on another prisoner, Charles Westmoreland, who isn't one of the escapees. Otto4711 18:12, 3 November 2006 (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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted (db-author). David Kernow (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dialects of Italy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I created this category but see that the work is already being done under Category:Languages of Italy. My mistake. Please delete.

• Delete per nom. ReeseM 13:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - db-author - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eridanus cluster to Category:Eridanus Group

• Rename- Most searches for "Eridanus Cluster" do not lead to any scientific references except for one popular science page. The "Eridanus Cluster" cannot be found in a search at the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, and no articles on the "Eridanus Cluster" can be found at the ADS Abstract Service. The SIMBAD Astronomical Database does list an object named the "Eridanus Cluster", but it also lists "Eridanus Group" as another name for this object. Both the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database and the ADS Abstract Service contain articles on the "Eridanus Group", and the galaxies in this category can be identified as belonging to that group in scientific references. It can be concluded that "Eridanus Group" is the more commonly-used name for this object. Therefore, the category should be renamed "Eridanus Group". George J. Bendo 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename- Makes sense to me. Fournax 20:23, 29 October 2006 (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 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 --Kbdank71 15:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional justice vigilantes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Undefined category with only one member (Spider-Man). I guess it means "vigilantes who act morally" or something but that's purely subjective. Child cat of Category:Fictional vigilantes. --HKMarks(T/C) 18:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given Category:Fictional vigilantes, this looks redundant. George J. Bendo 19:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is a "justice vigilante?" Is it any different from a regular vigilante? Without this deffinition, there is no point to this category. Stephen Day 19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete underpopulated, undefined, redundant category that makes no sense. Doczilla 23:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Fictional vigilantes. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge to Category:Fictional vigilantes. - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge to Category:Fictional vigilantes. Hoylake 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Doczilla & Stephen Day. ~CS 18:39, 5 November 2006 (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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serbian theatre into Category:Theatre in Serbia

• Merge, clearly redundant categories. The standard in Category:Theatre by country is "Theater in country X". Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Piccadilly 11:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and leave redirect/deletedcategory. David Kernow (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2006 (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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian Christian people to Category:Belgian Christians

• Rename, to match its siblings. Piccadilly 15:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it should be clear from the title that the category is intended for clerics, saints, etc, not as a dump for almost every Belgian. Pavel Vozenilek 20:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Pavel Vozenilek misunderstands the usage of these categories as many people of all kinds are classified by religion. Hawkestone 22:21, 28 October 2006 (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 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 {{category redirect}}. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Hanover, spelling counts. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and keep as redirect as Hannover is the German spelling, making regular recreation almost inevitable if it is simply deleted each time it pops up. Calsicol 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, by all means, there should be a redirect. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and leave redirect/deletedcategory per above. David Kernow (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2006 (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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Goldsmiths College to Category:Goldsmiths College, University of London
• Category:People associated with Goldsmiths College to Category:People associated with Goldsmiths College, University of London
• Category:Academics of Goldsmiths College to Category:Academics of Goldsmiths College, University of London
• Category:Alumni of Goldsmiths College to Category:Alumni of Goldsmiths College, University of London

• Rename, the main article is now at Goldsmiths College, University of London (the institution's current brand [2]). Timrollpickering 15:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --Mathlabster 15:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:People associated with Goldsmiths College and make the 'Academics' and 'Alumni' Categories into subcategories of Category:Goldsmiths College, University of London Filceolaire 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That messes up the hierarchy for both Category:People associated with the University of London and Category:People by university in England (and most other UK universities are arranged in this form). Also the "People associated with..." university categories include the likes of founders, instituional heads ("Wardens" in this case), architects and the like who don't fit into the academic and alumni categories. Timrollpickering 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 17:38, 4 November 2006 (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 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 --Kbdank71 15:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current governors of the United States to Category:Current state governors of the United States

• Rename to match category:State governors of the United States because the United States has a president, not a governor. Piccadilly 14:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Calsicol 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Better covered by {{USGovernors}}. If deleted, just add this template to Category:State governors of the United States. The template is already included in the intro for Category:Current governors of the United States. It's easier and quicker to update a single article. Vegaswikian 00:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wrt Vegaswikian's point, templates and categories serve different purposes. I don't want to see categories cluttered up with templates that mean I have to scroll down a page to find any of the articles in the category. Honbicot 11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said the current cat already has the template and so will the renamed one. We are in fact double listing every governor in this category, once by state and then by name. I have also seen a few other categories that have nav templates included. Don't know if this is a trend or not. Vegaswikian 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and do not add template to the category. If it is a trend it should be nipped in the bud. When one clicks on a category, one should see the contents of a category, not what amounts to a statement along the lines of, "You thought you wanted a category? Pretty dumb aren't you. What you should want is a template."ReeseM 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Vegaswikian. Also, templates are not uncommon, and this one is useful. - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is similar to Category:Current national leaders and category:reigning monarchs. Hoylake 23:46, 4 November 2006 (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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, to match Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as with almost all abbreviations. Calsicol 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Nokhodi 01:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2006 (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 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 --Kbdank71 15:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like original research to me, also difficult to verify. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Calsicol 17:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - It looks like a bad joke. George J. Bendo 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing from Haiti? Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unpopulated nonsense category, even though reading the title gave me a chuckle. Doczilla 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all reasons above. --taestell 07:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: How many zombies constitutes a problem? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on their ability to create more of themselves by biting the living and their exponential growth possibilities by doing so, I would estimate that just one zombie constitutes a "problem". --Hemlock Martinis 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - distinction between Undead and Zombies in category description hard to verify too, as both groups have the same pr team and union. Badbilltucker 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Doczilla even though he voted Delete. It sounds like a pretty great category. Buffy's town is hereby included. Category not empty :) . Amoruso 18:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Sunnydale even have zombies? I know there's vampires, werewolves, demons, and witches, but I haven't been watching regularly. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • indeed it does. While I agree the natural category should be Category:Towns with Vampire Problems there's no doubt the article will also fit the zombie category. As the buffy's wikipedia article notes: "Buffy and her companions fight a wide variety of demons, as well as ghosts, werewolves, zombies, and ethically unsound humans". In fact, I believe Buffy's own mother was once reincarnated as a zombie, thankfully it was stopped at the last minute. Amoruso 00:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally useless as a real world category, and not really worth having as a fictional world category. ReeseM 13:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This would be like: Fictional towns with rock bands. Categorising towns by citizenry doesn't sound like a good idea. If kept, it needs a rename (fictional towns, for example). - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DESTROY - i hate that kind! - UnknownMan 00:40, 3 November 2006 (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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Computer and video game characters, duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --musicpvm 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 20:29, 31 October 2006 (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 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 "?!" 15:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Clones of other computer games to Category:Computer and video game clones

• Rename, along the standards for CVG categories; also it encompasses more than just "computer games". Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2006 (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 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 all with Category:Leo Triplet. David Kernow (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M66 group into Category:Leo Triplet
Category:M66 subgroup into Category:Leo Triplet
Category:Leo Triplett into Category:Leo Triplet

• Merge - These three categories all refer to the Leo Triplet. The three categories should be merged together under the name that corresponds to the name of the main Wikipedia article (with correct English spelling). Also, it is not entirely clear as to whether the Leo Triplet is part of the M96 Group, so categories for the "M96 Subgroup" and "M66 Subgroup" are inappropriate and should be merged/removed.George J. Bendo 09:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (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 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 all with Category:M96 Group. David Kernow (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:M96 group into Category:M96 Group
Category:Leo I group into Category:M96 Group
Category:M96 subgroup into Category:M96 Group

• Merge - These three categories all refer to the M96 Group. The three categories should be merged together under the name that corresponds to the name of the main Wikipedia article. Also, it is not entirely clear as to whether the M66 Group (i.e. the Leo Triplet) is part of the M96 Group, so categories for the "M96 Subgroup" and "M66 Subgroup" are inappropriate and should be merged/removed. George J. Bendo 09:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (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 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/listify. List of current membership created at List of fictional characters created by Grant Morrison. David Kernow (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters created by Grant Morrison ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete and listify overspecialized category. There is no Category:Fictional characters created by William Shakespeare, Category:Fictional characters created by Charles Dickens, or Category:Fictional characters created by Stephen King. A list can be properly annotated. Doczilla 05:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify per Doczilla. - Lex 08:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment isn't there a Category:Fictional characters created by Chris Claremont, too? And a severely underpopulated Category:Fictional characters created by Stan Lee? Are any of these needed? --HKMarks(T/C) 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply. Thanks for mentioning them. I'll nominate them too. Doczilla 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify per above. David Kernow (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2006 (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 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. David Kernow (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Upper St. Clair High School alumni, convention of Category:People by educational institution in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Filceolaire 21:48, 30 October 2006 (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 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) 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Red haired kings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete This is not a meaningful connection. Merchbow 00:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete amazing ... what a strange combination. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - However, only because I don't think we should categorise by hair colour. I do think that this is important information, and would make a great list (even if the category is under-populated at the moment). This is another piece of information that some may call trivia, and others call historical data. (It should also be hyphenated: Red-haired.) - jc37 01:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless the red hair had some symbolical meaning, like long hair of kings of Franks, it would be better not to generate lists only because it is possible, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Symbolic meaning, as well as, archaeological information. It's rather amazing how much biological science and genetic research is being used in archaeology these days. : ) - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Severe Delete This is so lame. UnknownMan 01:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete like all the other overspecialized hair-based categories. Doczilla 05:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I'm uncertain it's even being used according to its own premise. Erik the Red's position was not precisely analogous to a king and Set (mythology) was an Egyptian god or something.--T. Anthony 08:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - This debate already begs for invocation of WP: SNOW. George J. Bendo 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Destroy - Worthless. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:46, 30 October 2006 (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 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 --Kbdank71 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Christian prophets to category:New Testament prophets. This suggestion came out of a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 22#Category:Jewish Prophets. - jc37 00:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. - jc37 00:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Did you read the category entries? Isaiah and others revered as prophets by Christianity come from the Old Testament. Doczilla 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you check the above associated link? : ) - jc37 05:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was not involved in the original discussion about the Jewish prophets category, but I see a serious problem with renaming that one to "Biblical prophets" and renaming this one to "New Testament prophets". To a Christian, "Biblical Prophets" would naturally include Jesus and arguably Paul, whereas to a Jew, they would not fit into that category. If we categorised in "Jewish prophets" and "Christian prophets", it would mitigate the issue of the fact that Jews and Christians share some of the same canon that therefore the meaning of "Biblical" is ambiguous as to whether it implies Jewish or Christian POV. Thus, I say keep this one and return Category:Jewish prophets to use. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - As said in that nom, there are more Jewish prophets than those in the bible, and not all prophets in the bible are Jewish. I would not be opposed to this category being a subcategory of biblical prophets. - jc37 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The term "Bible" is ambiguous in meaning. It could be read as the Christian Bible (i.e. the Old and New Testaments) or as the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim) depending on the reader and therefore the classification is lacking. My proposal is thus to take, for example, Moses, and put him in both the "Jewish prophets" and the "Christian prophets" categories (as well as the "Bahai prophets", "Druze prophets", "Muslim prophets", etc. categories if they exist). Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "It could be read as the Christian Bible (i.e. the Old and New Testaments) or as the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim)" - That's exactly the point. The category shouldn't distinguish between the OT and the Tanakh. And if "New Testament" is a sub-cat, with an explanation introduction to "biblical prophets", I don't see this as a problem, but as a solution. - jc37 20:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you're categorising in such a fashion that the categorisation is controversial depending on which religious POV a person is looking from. No one will dispute that Isaiah is considered a prophet in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but what makes a prophet 'Biblical'? A Christian would surely claim that Jesus fits into this category, as would a Muslim, but a Jew would claim otherwise. Essentially, this categorisation method makes WP:NPOV impossible to achieve as it creates controversial ambiguity where it can be avoided. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing extra-biblical Jewish prophets as "Jewish prophets" is not problematic in any way I can garner from the above discussion...The problem I see, is categorizing Jesus or John as "Jewish prophets", something some Christian is sure to come along and do. Perhaps it would be best to stick to Category:Prophets in the Tanakh, Category:Prophets in the New Testament, Category:Prophets in the Qur'an, Category:Prophets in Jewish Apocrypha, Category:Prophets in the Hadiths (if such a thing exists), Category:Extra-biblical prophets in Mormonism, etc. ... ? Tomer^talk 00:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to rename Category:Jewish prophets to Category:Biblical prophets was incredibly ill-considered. I highly recommend that it be undone. Tomer^talk 00:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The system currently used for Category:Biblical people should work here too. I think most Jews (myself, for instance) would grant that prophets in the New Testament are "Biblical" prophets, since they appear in the Bible. On the other hand, Jewish prophets are also "Biblical," appearing in the Old Testament/Tanakh/Hebrew Bible (I know of none outside the Bible, by the way). If necessary, there could also be Category:Christian prophets, including Category:Biblical prophets, as well as Category:Jewish prophets, including Category:Old Testament prophets (or Category:Tanakh prophets). --Eliyak T·C 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully support the idea of following the current standard at category:Biblical people. - jc37 03:07, 2 November 2006 (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.