The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: TTC stands for the Toronto Transit Commission, so the first Toronto is redundant and the full description should be used. --YUL89YYZ 23:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Please. -- Usgnus 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Please. -- raraa --raraa 10:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nominator. jareha 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Deet 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely rename; I've often meant to put this one up for CFR myself and forgotten. Bearcat 05:27, 20 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: British Asian is the term used in the UK. Chicheley 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename both as above. Chicheley 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both -- within British "Asian" are various actual Asian nationalities, like Philipino. These broad categories are redundant. And nobody should be classified as "Asian" unless all parents are asian, and the person verifiably considers themselves "Asian". (Ben Kinsley, that's nonsense.) --William Allen Simpson 07:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. They are not redundant to narrower categories because the term is widely used in the UK, whether or not Americans approve of it. However, if anyone wants to nominate all UK ethnic categories, then I will vote delete. Osomec 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Athenaeum 21:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to correct term. --Musicpvm 02:41, 19 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn - TexasAndroid 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overly limiting, limiting to one type of character from Digimon. Also the category name is much more obscure than it needs to be. Rename to the much simpler and more easily recognized "Digimon characters". - TexasAndroid 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support a rename, but to include all Digimon characters wouldn't be very helpful. There are many categories for different types of Digimon and Digimon elements (see WikiProject Digimon Systems Update#Categories). I believe the point of the category is to list only this type of character, usually the "main characters". So maybe Category:Digimon main characters or Category:Digimon main human characters. -- Ned Scott 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Given the description on the cat, and the fact that it was the only on in Category:Manga and anime characters, I assumed that this was for all major characters. This appears now to not be the case. Looking up at the main Category:Digimon cat, I see there are quite a few other categories of types of Digimon characters. I'll leave this up for now, and support your alternate rename, but I still think a Category:Digimon characters would be useful. Not as a replacement for Category:DigiDestined, but as a new parent for it and the other character categories. Updating the proposal. - TexasAndroid 21:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might actually be a good change to clean up some Digimon related cats. I noticed a few that could be merged or re-sorted. -- Ned Scott 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose that new name defines a distinct scope (including characters like Yukio Oikawa€,but excluding others like Alice or Ai and Mako, who are not "main characters" by any definition of the term). Circeus 23:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request that this be put on hold for now, and allow WikiProject Digimon Systems Update to take some time to look at all their categories and where this change would fit. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 18 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was relist Tim! 08:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took me three attempts to find this. It doesn't match up with category:American culture. Chicheley 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as nom. Chicheley 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Was nominated in December: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 22#Category:United States media to Category:American_media. -- Usgnus 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Create redirect from whichever category not kept to the other. David Kernow 23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to either Category:American media or Category:Media of the United States, per grammar. :) Luna Santin 11:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per DK. 'American' is not cool as an encyclopediac entry, just as a coloquialism. Mexicans, Columbians, etc. have a claim too. International scope of wikipedia really requires the more professional and correct US flavor. Dukes 03:58, 21 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only entry is the subcat Category:American manga and anime characters, which is already well categorized in the parent Category:Manga and anime characters. Overcategorization. - TexasAndroid 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There are enough potential subcategories for the cat to be legitimate. Circeus 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would just point out that if you are able to identify a few more examples and populate the category before the end of this discussion, your argument will be greatly strengthened. Road Wizard 23:27, 15 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 04:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page named wrong - recreated proparly (June 15 2006)

User:Reedy Boy created and wants to delete this. As it was on PROD, and PROD does not and should not handle cats, I moved it here. 132.205.45.148 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE 132.205.45.148 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Eligible for speedy (CSD C1), tagged. BoojiBoy 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted per C1.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:30, 15 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80% of the actors in this category:80% of the Brady Bunch characters listed are jokes and do not appear in the TV show or movie. The category is also unnecessary because the cast of both the TV show & movie are already documented in those articles.

The Category:Brady Bunch actors should be deleted for the same reasons.

• Delete characters category, simply because there are no actual BBunch characters in there. Keep actors category, but clear it down to the regular cast, removing joke entries or one-shot guest stars. - TexasAndroid 20:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both categoriesGhosts&empties 07:23, 16 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete and rename, respectively. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "by number" category should go based on a previous decision to eliminate category:Albums by number. The "First films" should change to "debut films" to eliminate the concept of numbers in these categories. (Or be deleted. I don't care which.)--Mike Selinker 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Films by number before it grows. I have no strong feelings about Category:First films, but would not object to its deletion either. Any rename, though, should reflect that the category is intended for directors (maybe Directorial debut films). ×Meegs 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that. I changed the nomination accordingly.--Mike Selinker 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Films by number and rename Category:First films to Category:Directorial debut films per above or Category:Directors' first films per below. David Kernow 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC), updated 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Films by number and rename Category:First films to Category:Directorial debut films per above. Osomec 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Films by number and rename Category:First films to Category:Directorial debut films per above. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This category was so named to reflect a worldwide point of view. Its usage is common internationally, indicated by awards such as The "Luigi De Laurentiis" Award for Best First Film at the Venice International Film Festival, the César Award for Best First Film, and the Camera d'Or, given at the Cannes Film Festival for best first film). Directorial debut is an expression that suggests entre into a film profession, which may not be a reality in societies that lack an established filmmaking tradition. If renamed, it should be renamed Category:First films by a director. However, delete Category:Films by number. Jonathan F 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ...an expression that suggests entre into a film profession, which may not be a reality in societies that lack an established filmmaking tradition.

If "first film" implies "first significant film" or "first professional film" or the like, I'm not sure how that differs from it being a "directorial debut"... Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. As an alternative, I think I'd prefer Category:Directors' first films rather than Category:First films by a director, as the latter suggests each director made a cluster of first films. Regards, David Kernow 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting on the possibly problematic wording. "First film" means nothing more than first feature film yet the distinction alone has significance not just in the world of film prizes (the Independent Spirit Awards being another example) but in evaluating a director's oeuvre. Since no special recognition is given to first features in the Academy Awards or the Golden Globes, the highest profile film trophies in the world, I can forgive the term's lack of meaning (even the category's lack of value) to the average English reader. As I notice from a casual Internet search that the usage of "directorial debut" is common even in what appear to be fledgling film cultures, I rescind my prior recommendation and instead vote that the category be renamed Category:Directorial debut films. Jonathan F 22:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A category for first films/debut films/whatever you wanna call 'em is reasonable enough; we don't need categories for second or third or fifteenth films. Delete Category:Films by number; keep the first films category at whatever wording this debate deems the most appropriate. Bearcat 05:35, 20 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 04:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category is actually a triplicate of Category:Boston Bruins fans. At any rate, it's empty. BoojiBoy 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per CSD C3 (populated by deleted template). ~~ N (t/c) 16:58, 15 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian New England Patriots fans. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. BoojiBoy 16:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per Mike Selinker below. Merge and delete -- Usgnus 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC) --Usgnus 19:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to category:Wikipedian New England Patriots fans to follow new guidelines on user categories. Category:National Football League supporters and all subcategories should be similarly changed.--Mike Selinker 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to category:Wikipedian New England Patriots fans Athenaeum 21:24, 17 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian Boston Bruins fans. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. BoojiBoy 16:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both to Category:Wikipedian Boston Bruins fans per Mike Selinker in NE Pats category. Merge and delete -- Usgnus 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) --Usgnus 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, rename Category:National Hockey League supporters and all subcategories to category:Wikipedian (X) fans.--Mike Selinker 21:26, 15 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename all. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as well as all subcategories-only Wikipedians are in it.--Lkjhgfdsa 12:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, except Category:Red Sox Fans, which is an improperly capitalized duplication of Category:Boston Red Sox fans and should be merged/deleted. BoojiBoy 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Osomec 15:15, 15 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has already moved Montenegrin clubs out of this category, so it's time it was renamed. Conscious 10:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename. At a glance, we can see this would be consistent with other categories in Category:Football (soccer) clubs. Luna Santin 11:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 15:15, 15 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from mistaken TfD. --William Allen Simpson 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Pearl Harbor films. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Local use is "harbor." Luna Santin 09:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. "Pearl Harbor" is a proper name. BoojiBoy 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename.Pearl Harbor is in the USA, where they spell harbor with no u. Hawaii is not British. MPS 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Films featuring Pearl Harbor...?  David Kernow 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, David; it looks like it's supposed to contain articles about the bombing of Pearl Harbor, not just anything filmed there or about the place. Category:Films about the bombing of Pearl Harbor?? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps that might be too specific a category... I don't know of any (notable) films featuring Pearl Harbor that aren't about its bombing in 1941, but guess I wouldn't mind if there were any listed alongside Pearl Harbor, Tora! Tora! Tora!, etc. Having said that, many WWII films might "feature" Pearl Harbor inasmuch as it makes a (brief) post-1941 appearance, so perhaps Category:Films about Pearl Harbor is more suitable. Regards, David 14:12, 17 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Wikipedia navigation templates and Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories Tim! 08:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another user category tree. Currently, there's no particular reason to have the same templates and categories as Commons. Badly designed with cyclical self-references. Certainly this isn't the best way to go about coordinating them. Appears to have recently done the same at:

• Commons:Category:Fabartus user page

• Delete all --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom - a confusing group of self-references. - EurekaLott 17:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• PIFFLE -- I believe Mr. Simpson is acting out because I spoke sharply to him on his talk about an unneccessary edit. I should have enough spare time to be spiteful, and I admit I let my pique get out of hand. But see his (ahem) measured response to put these nominations in their proper perspective! I also note, I've emailed an apology to him as well, but all in all, he's attacking a useful tool to the detriment of wiki-sister projects at the expense of our time with quetionable personal motivations. That alone should be enough to aim your vote in the proper direction.

On my personal page category— which is modeled on one's I've seen used by others: Maybe you should try having your brain wired AD/HD and covering half the ground I cover in Wiki. I need the notes, and the interconnection for improved productivity; I've only recently gone to this, and like it a lot. I know about where things are, but the exact page syntax sometimes gets difficult when editing to create or fix up, or as in the last two items, cross-reference in multiple pages at a time. For that reason alone, as the most active wikipedian on the cross-commons categories project, the second two occur as sub-categories of the first—it helps me get around and reference what I need to look at with minimal effort. Whether the organization is of use to others really matters not—that it helps my wiki contributions should suffice on grounds of mutual respect-- never mind the Americans with Disabilities act <g> (Even my two teens get extra-test time on that basis, so extrapolate the need, please.). An extra category page that prevents me from needing a new user or user talk page is a cost trade-off that anyone should understand to the benefit of the foundations coffers. Finding the 'currently' recyclable page or note I need is all to wikiP's benefit. 'Nuff said.

Of the later two, both are administrative project management categories. Navigation is admittedly badly named (currently) due to that same short term memory thing mentioned above... it was actually a 'Miss' of the near-name 'navigational templates' category I created here thinking I was on the commons duplicating the category here. Once I realized it, I adapted the purpose to something useful as one 'need' as one that plans on porting a fair number of navigation type templates to the commons. The focus there will henceforth be on cross-links on the heirarchial tree-nodes (Categories listing media) so one can browse easier to find suitable material. Note this has multi-lingual encyclopedia as well as impact on other sister projects such as wiki-books and wiki-source.

At most, it needs RENAMED as discussed in the link, and it's contents won't begin growing until I get back from a well-deserved wikibreak for RL needs. The point is that many mult-part templates will not necessarily need be ported as being useless in the needs of the commons, which is much more category oriented with respect to navigation needs. The cross-connects we're building there and to here and vice versa, will be of great benefit to all of us eventually who work at article expansion. In sum, the category is useful to porting templates to the commons, where they normally need some modification to work within categories. At the least, it gives an inventory of those on either sister project which are available in some form on the other. Category:Navigational templates does not make that distiction, nor cross correlate the multiple sisterprojects. By refering to said category, the Japan or French or German commons or encyclopedia people have a ready list of what needs translation for their own front ends and languages.

As we work through to equalize commons categories to this, the major source wiki-encylopedia by article count, we need the last of these nominated to see where more work is necessary. There is a commons template which indicates in a seperate category when the fixups (both) here and there have begun, and the apropo selection of the template there and then here then allows us a completed list for side by side comparison. Eventually this last category will become moot at which time I'll be nominating it for deletion myself, it's job being done, as is mentioned in the usage notes on the various (See usage notes: {{commonscat2}}) but in the meantime it is useful indeed. // FrankB 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all and let him have his space. At least he's putting it to good use. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 2 notoriously stubborn and blunt (and productive) editors. Cue fireworks. ;)

  As long as they get cleaned up in the nearish future, keep all.

  It's generally not a good idea to mix user-space with article-space in any way. However, as Frank says it is temporary, and to help in the very complex task of merging interwiki template usage, I'd imagine it's ok for now. In the future, it'd be best to keep self-organizational lists within your userspace though, and not to fudge categories into doing that job.

  A potentially less cumbersome method of tracking one's own user subpages, is with prefix search: user:fabartus (ie, no manual adding of category tags needed. Put the link on your user page for easy access.)

  Hope that helps. -Quiddity 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grumble- at least someone noticed the productivity! And I'll cop to stubborn at times, but notorious? Must be a legend in your own mind!) (Ahem!) The category is a late add trying to improve the same, the other methods you suggest sounds like what I've been doing which have resulted in time wasted missing a lot of missed page titles, and other frustrations liek loosing track of what the actual edit is while hunting for something. It can and will be eliminated in the other two once I get their names down pat. If it's against some policy I'm unaware of the first can go too with my blessings. I've just seen others with such. It's the later two organizing the interwiki effort that concern me most. Nice trick on the link you gave! Best to all // FrankB 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all, or at least last two, don't know about the first 'user pages' one or the policy on same. The other two seem pretty useful. Dukes 03:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: recruited by User:Fabartus --William Allen Simpson 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• IMHO the user subpage cat should be deleted, there are better ways to keep track of user subpages, bookmark Special:Prefixindex/User:Fabartus and Special:Prefixindex/User talk:Fabartus for example or just maintain a "index" subpage. The temporary project cats however should be kept untill his project is wrapped up. Though consider the merits of simply making a list on a user subpage to track multiple pages in the future. A bit more work, but people are prone to remove "strange" categories they don't understand from pages, wich might cause you to "loose" some pages anyway. --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: recruited by User:Fabartus --William Allen Simpson 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Navigation templates and Category:WikiP equalized with Commons Cats. As for the other one, listify or delete per Sherool. JYolkowski // talk 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: recruited by User:Fabartus --William Allen Simpson 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- this is not a "vote" -- these categories do not meet any of the policy set forth in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for some Wikipedia-related categories or the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline -- any "votes" to the contrary are simply invalid. --William Allen Simpson 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Comment — Then the proper action is to nominate the 'offending' category be renamed appropriately with your superior knowledge, not to throw a monkey wrench into tools others are trying to be productive by using in good faith, as some others suggested here on your parallel action. Some of us are far more interested in doing editing rather than tearing down what others are doing and squalling ad infinitum because you don't document as thouroghly as I do or like. Calling in a few others that know my work and work ethic is only sensible when one sees such a unmeasured and concerted set of attacks.

I (repeat) I took up the badly named second ahead of your nomination on the 13th (Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#NOTICE:_New_Interwiki_Navigation_Templates) asking for more appropriate names when I announced it and the templates, and have since finding three categories marked {{db-catempty}} (despite busily echoing their commons contents precisely as they should here on en.wikipedia though showing zero pages in category herein, as they now should, and just as many other 'Map' cats here will eventually also as the project progresses and things get relocated) and then subsequently speedy deleted (and restored). That's rather counter-productive to the top-down design of the Map categories, and hard on editors here trying to find or add maps properly, so something will need adjustment to prevent those references disappearing.

Since you're such a rules mechanic why not suggest how to keep THAT kind of step backwards from happening and contribute to all the wikipedias in a constructive way. Good design paradigms sometime necessitate having categories in advance of contents, which is particularly true if we get those things which should be on the commons off these pages and onto the commons where they belong. I've since suggested the two month old commons map re-categorization project I stumbled onto wanting to properly park some maps (and immediately began to help with) formalize itself as a project, which it has not as yet, and at which time, I suppose if a better name is needed, we'll adopt one per the guidlines. Some of us don't have the time to fool ourselves with airs of self-importance by trying to keep up with every simple minded suggestion which shows up or is adopted as proposed guidelines. Sorry, not going to happen when things need done— but gas away all you like. Enough of us usually know such trivial minutia to get things fixed up collaboratively, but bring them up in a far less hostile and unproductive manner. I'll take my actions over yours any day of the week, at least I'm trying to add content or organize it better.

Status Changes—While writing the above, I applied {{db-author}} to the first (Fabartus user page) category, with link here, and deleted the category reference to same in the two project categories. Best regards, // FrankB 04:29, 24 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden scope to include non-gradutes and bring in line with its peers in Category:Alumni by university in the United States. ×Meegs 08:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per nominator. jareha 08:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- Usgnus 14:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:42, 15 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy deletion G4 recreated content by CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Needs renaming as "Britishs" is not a word. (I'm also not sure if this should be hyphenated) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Recreation of deleted content, tagged as speedy. BoojiBoy 13:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up it's a recreation of what deleted content? There's nothing inthe history to indicate it was deleted before. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recreation of deleted content (May 30). Contrary to consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 19#British "ethnic" categories - again, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 11#Category:British Cypriots, and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 29#British people by ethnic or national origin. Also, words reversed. Also, users don't belong in encyclopedic categories. Per the last time it was recreated, thanks to William Allen Simpson. BoojiBoy 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. British was also spelt correctly the last time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:06, 15 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ethnic and nationality nedd two cat. There is Category:Serbian diaspora too. Matt86hk talk 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. It would be great if I knew whether Serb or Serbian were more correct, though. I believe Serbian, but I hear Serb so frequently I'm not sure. Luna Santin 09:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be wrong, but IIRC it's like "Scot" and "Scottish" - Serbs are people of Serbian decent. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:People of Serbian descent per nom. David Kernow 13:12, 21 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename all. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The large majority of categories within Category:American university presidents are titled "[University] presidents". The few listed below don't follow this convention and should be renamed for consistency.

• Category:Presidents of the College of William and Mary to Category:College of William and Mary presidents
• Category:Presidents of United Methodist Colleges and Universities to Category:United Methodist college and university presidents (capitalization/plurality fix as well)
• Category:Presidents of United Methodist Seminaries to Category:United Methodist seminary presidents (capitalization/plurality fix here as well)
• Category:Presidents of The University of Texas at Austin to Category:University of Texas at Austin presidents
• Category:Presidents of Yale University to Category:Yale University presidents

jareha 08:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops. Totally missed that there was a second page of those when I nominated the last batch. Rename.--Mike Selinker 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I've just noticed two more batches: Category:Canadian university and college chancellors and Category:Canadian university and college chief executives. I say we rename these as well. jareha 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps these examples indicate that the "Institution presidents" format works less well overall than "Presidents of Institution"...?  The "Presidents of Institution" format also places the subject of the category first. Regards, David Kernow 13:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistency. --Musicpvm 21:20, 21 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are British people with Chinese descent, not Chinese people with British descent. It may confuse with British people lived/working in Hong Kong. And British people live in China is incresing too. Matt86hk talk 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is the form used in British English. Possible alternative rename Category:British Chinese people. Deletion would be fine too. Osomec 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- over-categorization duplicated by Category:British Asians on this page --William Allen Simpson 06:06, 23 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete (empty). Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are French people with Armenian descent, not Armenian with French descent. Matt86hk talk 05:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty category, no rename (and the rename would be improper) --William Allen Simpson 04:23, 23 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete (empty). Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the only one article of this cat José Clayton to Category:Brazilian-Tunisians, because he is Tunisian with Brazilian descent, NOT Brazilian with Tunisian descent. Matt86hk talk 04:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 21:21, 21 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category is not the best place for a set of rumours as there's no way to source them in it; this could probably be listified, however. Related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 10#Category:People alledged to be gay. Ziggurat 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete AdamBiswanger1 03:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no different than Category:People alledged to be gay, currently being debated here. ×Meegs 07:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator. jareha 08:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tabloid type category. Osomec 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 132.241.246.111 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator; don't listify, as there was previously a list of this type which got AFD'd some months back. Bearcat 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete libel liability (as discussed at Neil Patrick Harris) Turly-burly 10:51, 20 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was merely going to send this to speedy for recapitalization, but similar categories use "Muslim". Sumahoy 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as nom. Sumahoy 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename fine by me AdamBiswanger1 03:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nominator. jareha 08:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- Usgnus 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- overcategorization contrary to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) -- we already categorize by nationality and occupation (combined for efficiency), and sometimes by religion (when notable, see Wikipedia:Categorization of people). There's no reason for a 3rd category intersecting religion and occupation. We certainly don't want to go down the road of categorizing every possible double, triple, quadruple intersection. --William Allen Simpson 19:12, 21 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:People by occupation. Sumahoy 01:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Usgnus 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Clubmarx 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. There's no xtian or jews by occupation.--D-Boy 07:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all -- overcategorization contrary to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) -- we already categorize by nationality and occupation (combined for efficiency), and sometimes by religion (when notable, see Wikipedia:Categorization of people). There's no reason for a 3rd category intersecting religion and occupation. We certainly don't want to go down the road of categorizing every possible double, triple, quadruple intersection. --William Allen Simpson 19:11, 21 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Boston Reds players to Category:Boston Reds (PL) players (technically, there's no majority, but important information was found by Meegs). Conscious 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These ought to be merged, no preference as to how -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed AdamBiswanger1 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• After brief investigation, it appears there may have been a short-lived team by this name in three different leagues:

• the Union Association in 1884
• the Players League in 1890
• the American Association in 1891

Our article Union Association doesn't mention a team named the Reds, nor does our article Boston Reds mention an 1884 team by that name, however it does seem that the team existed (Baseball reference, Hall of Fame). I will update those articles once I've had a chance to do more research. As for the categories, we actually seem to have one for each instance right now:

• Category:Boston Reds (UA) players
• Category:Boston Reds players (for the 1890 Players League team)
• Category:Boston Reds (AA) players

I suppose we should rename Category:Boston Reds players to Category:Boston Reds (PA) players, and leave it at that. ×Meegs 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Category:Boston Reds (PL) players (c.f. New York Giants (PL)). Is PA the normal abbreviation? SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be Category:Boston Reds (PL) players. Thanks for catching my mistake. ×Meegs 23:57, 16 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only two items, both of which will shortly be removed per a recent unanimous decision on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs regarding superfluous categories. Category was created by User:Elmo12456, who did not consult the team members, and only added the category to four pages (out of 800 genera). The group's decision is that such a category was arbitrary because diet of dinosaurs is speculative in many instances.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and Category:Herbivorous dinosaurs should probably go too); the relevant discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive3#Category:Carnivorous dinosaurs, and I agree that it is based on circumstantial evidence and a false dichotomy. Could be listified, which would allow for proper context and discussion of the utility of such terms in Paleozoology. Ziggurat 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Zig. I should have included the link, but I didn't even think of it. --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:46, 15 June 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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page:

This is category creep. Eventually, the majority of templates will either incorporate at least a couple parser functions or become obselete. — Jun. 9, '06 [14:50] <freak|>

Hi Freak. I created this out of fear we'd have a hard time finding the PF using templates. But I agree with your sentiment. If that PF stuff is stable enough (as it seems so), there isn't much reason for this cat here anymore. I wouldn't have a problem if you nominate this for deletion. --Ligulem 14:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional concerns I have about this category:

1. I would estimate that it is less than 50% complete anyway.
2. It doesn't include templates that call a sub-template using parser functions, due to <noinclude>.
3. If the subtemplate is substed into the first template, the parser function is forever present and the categorization is forever lost.
4. It's impossible to maintain.

— Jun. 15, '06 [00:35] <freak|>

I agree with freak's concerns, especially with the No. 1 and 4. That cat had some merits in the early stages of M:PF. But now it is rather ballast. If there aren't any concerns found about that proposed deletion, let's delete it per freak. --Ligulem 08:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If need be, I expect someone with enough access would be able to find all the templates with parser functions. -- Usgnus 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify?  David Kernow 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ##you_have_got_to_be_kidding. A list would be even more difficult to maintain. — Jun. 15, '06 [23:48] <freak|>
    • Okeydokey!  Regards, David 12:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if there was a decision that parser functions are here to stay I missed it. If there was no such decision this category will help to find the right decision. After that the category can be deprecated. -- Omniplex 03:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've done a regex search over the dump of 2006-05-18 (see User:Ligulem/PFtemplates): 1107 hits. The cat currently has 990 entries. You can use AWB/MWB to cycle through both kind of lists. I can update the dump search for you whenever you want (drop me a message, can send the result per email). Or do it yourself using Martin's dump searcher (recently integrated in AWB). The time to download the dump for me is about 40 minutes. Scanning the dump took less than 5 minutes. --Ligulem 13:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting, thanks. So its's apparently possible to find them without category (I didn't check any details). About 900:1100 is also interesting, I'd have guessed that most authors won't bother to add their templates to this category. Changing my opinion to "weak keep"... ;-) -- Omniplex 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  A little warning: the dump search is from 2006-05-18, so a bit aged. Will do an update when I do a new download. --Ligulem 14:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You realize this still doesn't address the categorization of templates which indirectly use parser functions, right?. — Jun. 17, '06 [13:52] <freak|>

  Indirect use is a different problem, for some cases it would be simple to switch them back to if-templates. Not for #expr:-essions, and there we have various math categories. If what you want includes "math is expr and therefore two cats to say so are overkill" I'd second it. -- Omniplex 02:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't really see this as any reason to delete. The nom has failed to assert any compelling reason to remove the category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this category was ceated to replace/moveelements from Category:Esoteric templates. Circeus 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Esoteric has nothing to do with PF. I've created that cat because PF's were announced to be enabled on an "trial" basis. I've never heard we (Tim)-officially left that state, but I don't think anybody still has doubts about it. --Ligulem 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've used this cat. many times to locate pages using these functions in order to reference the pages for my own use. It is quite helpful, and is fine as it is. There is no upkeep required. → JARED ^(t)  20:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — even incomplete, to those going up YADWLC (yet another damn Wiki Learning Curve) or those that need a little reminder now and again since we don't have eidetic memory for trivia (names syntax) can use the reference. // FrankB 14:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, makes a good xref list. Dukes 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I find it useful. --kingboyk 10:22, 21 June 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 page.