< November 15	November 17 >

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per discussion of December 30th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While the category itself was originally deleted, the basis for that argument was its lack of entries. It was eventually recreated when there were substantially more German-American entries and had roughly 10-15 articles. However, while a number of articles in that category had been removed, the problem is presently being resolved. MadMax 01:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What does 'resolved' mean? Were the people German-American? Were they mobsters? That makes they fit the category, right? Hmains 03:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mobsters themselves were of German-American ancestry, however a number of the formerly listed articles are presently being cleaned up regarding proper referencing regarding Wikipedia's recent dispute with crime author Jay Robert Nash. MadMax 08:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ethnicity is highly relevant in this field. Piccadilly 05:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, normally, but is there even such a thing as the "German-American mob"? Several of the names in the category did most of their crimes outside of the US or do not seem to identify as "German American."--T. Anthony 07:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is technicly speaking (from a historical perspective at least regarding pre-1900 criminal organizations, street gangs, etc.), although all ethnic related organized crime categories, at least in my opinion, should include both by organization and ethnicity. MadMax 08:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the remaining entries, brother Frank and Peter Gusenberg were top gunmen in Chicago's North Side Gang during Prohibition, Frank "The German" Schweihs was a high ranking member in the Chicago Outfit, Howie Winter was founder and leader of Boston's infamous Winter Hill Gang and, while Adam Worth is well known as a criminal in London's underworld, he had an extensive and well documented criminal career in New York. MadMax 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per prior nomination. - jc37 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Subcategorizing by subnationality seem difficult. It would be better just to delete this category. George J. Bendo 07:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per George. (Radiant) 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With all due respect, as a contributor who regularly works on organized crime related articles I believe that the category serves a useful purpose and, if not keeping from needlessly cluttering up Category:American mobsters, is used in the same capacity as Category:Italian-American mobsters, Category:Irish-American mobsters, Category:Jewish-American mobsters, Category:Polish-American mobsters, etc. MadMax 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (technical comment: Hope it's OK i marked the above message by MadMax as a keep vote because that's apparently its intent and because without that clear entry marker this discussion is chaotic and hard to follow.) --Espoo 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:MadMax's request. This user tirelessly contributes to the organized crime 'section' of Wikipedia and therefore should be awarded jurisdiction over this matter. The reasons for keeping have been made clear. Alexbonaro 04:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "...awarded jusidiction..."? Wow. Where do I sign up for my own jurisdiction? : ) - jc37 12:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles ;) Mairi 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - unless you ofcourse have any objections jc37. It is seemingly fair to say that you have more 'jurisdiction' over Star Wars, comics and Lord of the Rings articles then user:MadMax, correct? "After all, we are not communists" (appropriate Godfather reference) :P Alexbonaro 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread's "humour" was made possible by the letters "J" and "M", and by the use of the phrase "...should be awarded jurisdiction over...", rather than saying "...I defer to his personal expertise in...". (With a respectful nod to Sesame Street : ) - jc37 06:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mad Max. - Darwinek 10:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mad Max. Anthony Hit me up... 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why in the heck do you want to delete this category unless if you’re German American? I’m from Chicago, Illinois/Cook County and I’m interested in learning about the Mafia. Some German American school kid or some German school kid from Germany might want to know about their peoples’ involvement in the American Mafia. They were not all Italian American as stereotyped in Hollywood movies and television. Jewish American mobsters outnumbered other mobster groups like Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel , Moe Dalitz (both of whom created Las Vegas) and the Purple Gang in Detroit that worked with the southside Chicago Outfit. Then the Irish American mobsters come in second. They outnumbered or about equal numbers to the Italian American mobsters, German American mobsters, and Polish American mobsters. If you read Herbert Asbury's books Gangs of Chicago and Gangs of New York, the Italian Immigrant gangs, German Immigrant gangs, Polish Immigrant gangs, and Irish Immigrant gangs in the 19th century use to fight it out with each other like what Mexican gangbangers do with each other in East LA. --Pilot expert 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about deletion of information. One can always make a list of the information. (Which would be preferred in this case, since citations/references would then be possible.) It's that a category is not a good way to list this. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, for more information. - jc37 08:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Dutch, Belgian, and British descent. The names in the category and searches online didn't convince me this was notable. Looking again the only references I found to "German American mobsters" anywhere was in relation to novels, not non-fiction.--T. Anthony 09:55, 21 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bohemian Club members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Membership list appears to be based on single unreliable source - see Bohemian_Club#Selected_club_members. Doesn't seem to be appropriate for a category unless much stronger reference sources can be found Bwithh 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, okay, another editor has now removed the list as per WP:BLP Bwithh 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the archived list:[1] Bwithh 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Brimba 04:27, 17 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 is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete; deletion requested by author as mistake. Mairi 05:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkmen Political parties in Iraq ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Oops, left the capital 'P' in by mistake pls delete 84.9.171.17 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 13:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:E.U.B. Missionaries to Category:Evangelical United Brethren missionaries

• Rename, expand abbreviation and lowercase 'Missionaries'. Mairi 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename per expanded abbreviation, and caps. - jc37 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at American missionaries, is this category needed (i.e. upmerge)...?  David Kernow (talk) 02:12, 21 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 13:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:African American bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:German-American bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hispanic American bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Irish-American bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Japanese American bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Korean-American bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mexican American bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Swiss-American bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Also:
Category:African American Roman Catholic bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:African American United Methodist bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. More bishops by ethnicity & nationality. Same arguments as for below for Canadian-American bishops, I just didn't notice these when I nominated that. The only possibly exception is the African American bishops category, given the existance of African American churches, but even so I don't think it's warranted. The two African American bishop subcategories seem even less of a good idea, as they're an intersection of 4 things (occupation, denomination, ethnicity and nationality). Mairi 22:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DO NOT DELETE just because some think it should be deleted, or is not necessary, is a terrible reason to keep deleting all these categories. Some have worked long and hard to categorize various articles. We should respect their work! Stick to what you are expert at, leaving to others what they are more knowledgable about. Please. Many, many articles are categorized by occupations and ethnicity/nationality. Just leave these alone, please. I can't imagine you have nothing better to do that to keep deleting all these categories!!!! Thanks. Pastorwayne 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality says "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid." However, there appear to be no such articles for any of these categories, I'm not sure that such articles could reasonably exist, nor do their seem to be any other mitigating reason for keeping them (amount of work spent isn't one, as anything that gets deleted has had people work on it). Mairi 23:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please address your comments to the merits of these particular categories; the fact we have a deletion process should suggest that "someone worked on it" is not a reason for keeping something (see also WP:OWN). Explain why these particular intersections of ethnicity and occupation are definitively meaningful, rather than just coincidental trivia. Show that bishops are often subdivided by ethnicity in this manner when discussed. Pointing to studies of those particular relationships would be helpful, e.g., showing that people have written articles on the role of Korean Americans as bishops, or that Swiss Americans are particularly driven to the occupation. Postdlf 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see Category:Swiss-American bishops as any better than Category:German-American mobsters or Category:Scots-Irish American actors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listify at best. Not a categorically significant relationship. Postdlf 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So tell me why Category:Japanese American writers, for example, is not suggested for deletion?!?! Or Category:Mexican American artists, or 100's of other categories identifying people by ethnicity and/or occupation??? Do not all of these arguments apply there, too? Or is there some bias against religious leaders?!?! Pastorwayne 02:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese American writers is enough for an article. As is Mexican American art. Bishops of different ethnicities doesn't provide enough content for an article. Besides, the fact that something as of yet has not been nominated for deletion does not mean it won't be. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not so sure. Canadian-American bishops I voted delete on because there's nothing really distinctive there. However there is the article African American church and Category:Predominantly African American Christian denominations. If you delete the bishop categories there will be, very surprisingly, no category for any important figures in predominately Black churches. I checked this and believe it is so even though I think I have to be wrong somehow. Still it appears that bishops in the African Methodist Episcopal Church would only be in categories like Category:American Methodist bishops if the category is removed as there is no separate category the AME church. There are a few majority Asian denominations as well. For historic and cultural reasons I think this is something real and not a meaningless intersection like "Canadian American" or "Belgian American" would be.--T. Anthony 10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) How does it possibly show a bias to argue that ethnicity does not relate to being a bishop? No one is asserting that categories for bishops should not exist at all, just that it doesn't make sense to link it to their ethnicity. 2) As Amarkov suggested, that those other categories weren't also listed for deletion does not imply any conclusion on the part of the nominator and commentors that those should be kept; no one is going to wait until they've looked for every category on Wikipedia that should be deleted so they can be listed all at once. This is obviously a piecemeal, case-by-case process. 3) Maybe those other categories you pointed out should be deleted as well for being irrelevant intersections. However, they're definitely distinguishable from the ethnicity/bishop categories. Ethnic identity and identity politics generally has been an enormous part of contemporary art (and I presume writing, but I know less about that), such that it is quite common to group and classify artists by their ethnicity, sexuality, etc. It's often presumed (rightfully or wrongfully) that their art is in some way a reflection of or expression about that identity, and artists often expressly capitalize on that, using their background or heritage as a selling point and making their art an explicit comment to that heritage. It is therefore an established, recognized practice to study and classify artists by ethnicity. That is the kind of explanation we've been looking for. Do bishops constantly remind their congregations of their ethnicity, or can you discern different content in the work of a Swiss American bishop as opposed to a Mexican American bishop? Postdlf 06:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • of course ethnicity/nationality plays an important role in Bishops and other clergy. I could list a number of reasons. By your ignorance, you are showing that you are not the right person to nominate these categories for deletion or even to comment on it. You say these other categories (artists, etc.) go without saying -- because obviously the category pages say nothing of what you are suggesting as the reasons they are significant. Therefore that same logic must be applied to Bishops! And all the same reasons you list also apply: ethnic Bishops show the inclusiveness of the Church. The fact that ethnic Bishops have gone from serving only ethnic populations to serving the whole church is another significance of their ethnicity/nationality. And I could go on and on! People who know (such as you seem to about artists) obviously understand these many, many significances. Why don't you worry about what you know and let others worry about what they know. Or perhaps I should go and nominate for deletion all of your contributions out of MY ignorance? Or is it just a bias against religion/religious articles that you show? Pastorwayne 12:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you usually accuse members of your congregation of bias or ignorance when they disagree with you, or only complete strangers? Please read our policies against personal attacks and about assuming good faith. Postdlf 19:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a useful intersection. (Radiant) 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categorizing bishops by ancestry will inhibit navigation among American bishops in general. George J. Bendo 07:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• not at all! Since all American Bishops will/are also categorized as such Category:American bishops, as appropriate, categorizing them by nationality/ethnicity also will in fact enrich one's understanding and appreciation of them, while in NO way inhibiting such navigation. It will broaden one's connections between and among such Bishops. Thanks. Pastorwayne 15:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I still vote for delete. Your plan would generate category clutter on individual pages and would inhibit navigation. People would not use the categories because they would be difficult to read. Please see Hank Aaron as an example. George J. Bendo 15:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you oppose a Category:Clergy of predominantly African American Christian denominations as a subcategory to Category:Predominantly African American Christian denominations?--T. Anthony 10:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see the reasonable argument being made for a researcher looking up a particular American bishop to want a quick way to locate other bishops, if not other clergy in general, of similar background. As such a cat based on the profession and ethnicity would be a boon. I'm leery though of adding the religious intersection, as with the sub-cats of African-American Bishops. That seems to be slicing things a bit to thin.
  As far as voting... Weak Keep for the bulk of the material here and Up Merge for the 2 subcats. — J Greb 19:48, 18 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian-American bishops ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Do we need to categorize bishops by nationality and ethnic/national origin? I don't think so, and I don't see why Canadian-American bishops are an especially interesting category (whereas, say, African American ministers might be merited, given the large number of black church in the US). Mairi 17:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Represents a three way cross of ethnicity / nationality / profession. I don't think we should have a category for hungarian-american barbers, italian-american garbagemen, or swedish-finish computer programmers either. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful to people researching Canadian-American bishops... Just kidding, had a hard time typing that with a straight face. Delete per nom. Postdlf 21:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. AgentPeppermint 04:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a useful intersection. (Radiant) 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categorizing American bishops by ethnicity inhibits navigation. George J. Bendo 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see rebutal above. Thanks. Pastorwayne 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as per the reasoning for the above grouping of cats. One caveat though: "Canadian-American" could wind up being very hard to pin down as Canada has also moved to "hyphenated" ethnicities. This could lead to tripled ethnicities ie Indo-Canadian-American. — J Greb 19:56, 18 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bishops by year of election/consecration ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bishops elected/consecrated in 1852 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Bishops elected/consecrated in 2004 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete unnecessary categorization. We don't appear to have anything similar (ie Category:Monarchs by year of coronation or Category:Prime ministers by year of election or such). Not really a defining characteristic, especially since some bishops get reelected to their post, or serve in multiple posts and be elected multiple times. Mairi 17:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, as category clutter. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—do bishops have "terms" like political offices, such that a bishop who served for twenty years was elected ten times to two year terms or something like that? Postdlf 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. In some denominations (such as Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) yes, in others (such as the Roman Catholic Church), they're appointed indefinitely. Mairi 23:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same applies especially to United Methodist Bishops. They are elected for life, and the year of their election is very significant as it shows they were significant leaders in their denominations (and therefore the larger church) beginning in that year, making greater and greater contributions to religion. Pastorwayne 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could see an argument for categorizing Roman Catholic bishops in this fashion then, as their consecration is a one-time, significant event in their lives, and there may arguably be a relationship of some sort across the bishops that the Church chooses from year to year, such that it would be interesting to compare the entries from one year to another. Just speculating... Postdlf 06:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, that's possible. Although I'd like to see an article making such comparisons (even if it's over a longer period, like a decade) before I'd be willing support such a category. But that seems beside the point for the broader all-denomination categories. Mairi 07:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that would be a different category scheme. Delete these, but I'd consider keeping a system that focused on Roman Catholic bishops only. Postdlf 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the exact same situation exists for United Methodist Bishops!! Are you playing favorites?? Pastorwayne 15:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • So? these categories aren't specific to UMC bishops; they're for bishops of any denomination. Even so, according to this, some UMC bishops are elected bishops for life, but serve 4-year terms in a given area, while other bishops are only considered bishops for the term they're serving. Mairi 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 05:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Organizing people by year like this can be inane. It serves no useful organization/navigation purposes. Who, reading an article about a bishop, thinks, "Hey, this guy was elected/consecrated in 1852. I wonder who else was elected/consecrated in 1852?" George J. Bendo 07:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone who cares about Bishops enough to be reading about them in the first place, that's who. We must admit articles about Bishops have a unique audience to begin with. Nevertheless, just because you may have no interest does not mean we should deny others the helpfulness of various ways of categorizing them -- the ease of navigating between them that such categorizations provides, the interesting connections between and among Bishops, etc.! Thanks!! Pastorwayne 15:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonetheless, this is truly esoteric. In no other profession, in either real life or in Wikipedia, are people organized according to the year that they reached a certain milestone in their profession. In professional astronomy, for example, no one (or almost no one) categorizes people according to whether they received their Ph.D.s in 1910, 1923, 1947, 1956, 1963, or 1972. It may matter if the Ph.D. was received recently (for employment purposes), but that is it. I truly think that Pastorwayne is overcategorizing. (Pastorwayne also needs to address the category clutter problem seen in Wikipedia articles such as Hank Aaron.) George J. Bendo 10:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 09:26, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename, I picked Category:Brady Bunch production crew. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brady Bunch behind the scenes people to Category:Brady Bunch production people

• Rename as with Charlie's Angels cat above - Awkwardly named; my suggestion is only slightly better, but less colloquial and more clear (I hope).. Her Pegship 21:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest crew or staff or personnel instead of people, as below. Otto4711 03:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Brady Bunch production crew. "Crew" seems to be the most inclusive (and common) term. - jc37 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Crew, per Jc. (Radiant) 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This category also contains directors and writers; are they considered "crew"? Just wondering - Her Pegship 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are invited to the post production party for cast and crew. Also various sites only list those types along with producers as crew. The only one of these parties I went to had crew, and a few producers and no cast. Vegaswikian 00:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Brady Bunch production crew or Brady Bunch production personnel per various above. David Kernow (talk) 07:10, 18 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename (I picked Category:Charlie's Angels production crew). --RobertG ♬ talk 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charlie's Angels behind the scenes people to Category:Charlie's Angels production people

• Rename. Awkwardly named; my suggestion is only slightly better, but less colloquial and more clear (I hope). Her Pegship 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What about production staff, production crew or production personnel? Otto4711 01:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Charlie's Angels production crew. "Crew" seems to be the most inclusive (and common) term. - jc37 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Crew, per Jc. (Radiant) 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Charlie's Angels production crew or Charlie's Angels production personnel per above and thread above. David Kernow (talk) 07:12, 18 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename both Category:Troma Movies and Category:Troma films to Category:Troma Entertainment films. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Troma films, convention of Category:Films by studio. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Troma Entertainment films, per Troma Entertainment. - jc37 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per jc37. Postdlf 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per jc37 and November 20th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 22:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spider-Man actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per precedent for "Batman actors"; broadly includes every live action actor and voice actor who ever played any role in any Spider-Man cartoon, television series, or film (and probably video game). Trivial, not career-defining except for (maybe) the lead; better handled by lists. Postdlf 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedent and nom. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A million times keep- Look, the Spider-Man category is the same as the Batman one. You didn't have any problem with this category before Batman appeared, why now? There is absolutely no logical reason why this should be deleted. Both categories are perfectly fine, and I don't see anyone with a good reason yet... User:Cartton Boy. 4:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent and nom, and I haven't seen a good argument for keeping it. Her Pegship 00:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question or maybe Comment or just General Yamering Is there any sort of standard for this sort of actor by series category? Because there are a lot of them (I even created one). It seems like there's very little space for a "happy medium" between people who are credited consistently as principle cast and the inclusion of anyone who had a part on the series ever. I can see arguments for both sides. Otto4711 04:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or listify, according to taste. It definitely isn't a proper category. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This will only be a defining characteristic in a minority of cases, ie it is mostly clutter. Piccadilly 05:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per prior discussions. - jc37 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a lot more of these all-inclusive categories in Category:Actors by series. The television series categories at least make some sense, I mean the actors at least shared in common that they appeared in the same ongoing work. But take a look at Danica McKellar, best known as "Winnie" on The Wonder Years. Because of a couple voice acting jobs she did for video games, she's categorized as a "Fantastic Four actor" and an "X-Men actor," along with everyone who ever did a voice for any of the cartoons (or any of the other video games), and anyone who appeared in any of the films. Completely absurd. Postdlf 07:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I like people who point to other examples when they want to keep a bad category or article on Wikipedia. They think it helps support keeping the articles/categories because of precedent; I think it helps with housekeeping. I found this one when someone wanted to keep Category:Batman actors. I hope people find other "precedents" for such categories. George J. Bendo 07:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be a speedy by now. (Radiant) 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : the corollary of deleting such categories is that Sean Connery and Roger Moore do not belong anywhere in the category tree Category:James Bond... ? Tim! 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not in Category:James Bond directly? They're certainly very important to the topic, and vice versa. A more focused Category:Actors who played James Bond (as that is a career-defining role) would be better than "any actor who played any role in any James Bond film, cartoon, or video game." But the problem with those is that you have crap like Category:Actors who have played Perry White popping up, ad infinitum, for every minor character. Postdlf 18:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there's also Timothy Dalton, Daniel Craig, George Lazenby etc. so why not put them altogether in a subcategory? Tim! 10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:James Bond actors looks problematic. Among other people, Patrick Macnee is listed in the category. Macnee did play a significant part in A View to a Kill, but he is much better known for his role in The Avengers. Does he belong in Category:James Bond actors? The same critical analysis can be applied to many of the other articles in Category:James Bond actors. George J. Bendo 07:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't oppose Macnee's removal from that category as there is only one line in his article about the role so it isn't that important. Tim! 10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I explored the category further. Does Rowan Atkinson belong in the category? Soon-Tek Oh? Heidi Klum? Wayne Newton? Sammy Davis Jr.? Aside from somehow being connected to James Bond movies, do Heidi Klum and Sammy Davis Jr. have anything in common? Do Rowan Atkinson and Wayne Newton have anything in common? Maybe this category should be deleted, or maybe someone needs to maintain the category better. George J. Bendo 14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at it, it seems that the James Bond cat needs to be divvied up into 3 cats: Actors who played Bond, Actresses who played "Bond Girls" (or would Actors be Wiki-appropriate here?, and Actors who played Bond Villains. These three seem to be culturally significant. That wouldn't cover all the actors in the current cat, but then again those removed are people like Macnee (supporting character that is of minor import in the actor's article) and Anthony Ainley (bit role that is of all but no import to the actor's article).
          As a side note, it maybe worthwhile to create an "Actors who played fictional spies" cat. That would allow for a thematic link between actors like Connery, Moore, Macnee, Macgoohan (sp), and so on. — J Greb 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The phrase "fictional spy" is very open to interpretation. Eventually, it would probably be nominated for deletion (along with things Category:Fictional eccentrics and Category:Fictional fathers) simply because "spy" can be interpreted in a broad context. (I bet Wolverine falls into a "fictional spy" category.) Please clean up the James Bond category, or else I will feel compelled to nominate it for deletion. George J. Bendo 15:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. — J Greb 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 11:20, 18 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Forests of Georgia (U.S. state). --RobertG ♬ talk 16:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Forests of Georgia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Unlike other states, Georgia only has one national forest. Since this category will only be populated with one article, I am proposing it for deletion. Tlmclain | Talk 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepRename per below. Part of a series. Vegaswikian 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:National Forests of Georgia (U.S. state), to match Category:Geography of Georgia (U.S. state). Of course we should keep it, it's part of the 50 part series Category:National Forests of the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• After reviewing the comments of Vegaswikian and ProveIt, I realize that my view on National Forests of Georgia was a bit myopic – I did not realize the connection with a 50 part series. Accordingly, I withdraw my nomination for deletion and instead believe that it should be Renamed as suggested by ProveIt. Tlmclain | Talk 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This does not contain forests for the nation of Georgia. 132.205.93.31 03:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support modified Rename. - jc37 06:57, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 16:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English billiards players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Obsolete - everything's been merged into Category:English carom billiards players, Category:English pool players, Category:English snooker players, and Category:English players of English billiards. And the title was fatally ambiguous in the first place because it was impossible to tell if it was intended to mean "English players of billiards-family games of some sort, including snooker and pool", "English players of carom billiards in particular", or "Players (from anywhere) of the very specific game 'English billiards', a form of pocket billiards". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cf. "American reality television participants" down below in the log - it's the same kind of ambiguity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As noted by the nominator, in the UK "billiards" doesn't ever refer to all the cuesports as it does to [some] North Americans, but to English billiards played on a snooker table. The same is true of many other countries.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:05, 18 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 16:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pool billiards ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Obsolete - everything's been merged into Category:Pocket billiards. And the title was nonsensical in the first place, like saying "football soccer". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tlmclain | Talk 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:06, 18 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 16:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Category:Faerie Tale Theatre episodes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete. When I came across this it was a populated but non-existent category: I've created it specifically for this CFD: it seems to me that this tv series may not notable enough for a category. RobertG ♬ talk 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FYI, I placed this category just now as a subcategory of Category:Episodes by television series. That is the obvious parent, if the category is kept. Dugwiki 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (assuming episode articles are kept) This seems like a reasonable category, since it is the only category that makes sense for those episode articles. Note that in general episode articles are typically listed under a corresponding subcategory of Category:Episodes by television series. Since there is only one possible such category per article, there is no danger under this system of having too many categories per article. Now, that does beg the question of whether individual episode articles are needed for Faerie Tale Theatre, but assuming those articles are kept then this category is the natural place for them. Dugwiki 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dugwiki. Her Pegship 00:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dugwiki. - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless the episode articles are listified instead. (Radiant) 09:26, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was RENAME per nom. Postdlf 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Finland-Swedish to Category:Finland Swedish

• Rename, Always spelled without a hyphen (especially when a noun as in the category and article title) by native English speakers who are experts in the field as shown by these reputable sites: [2], [3], [4], [5] (incorrectly spelled only once in the entire scientific paper and that only in the title of a non-native speaker's publication), [6], [7]. The spelling without a hyphen for the noun "Finland Swedish" corresponds to the situation with better known language names in English such as "Quebec French", "Swiss German", "UK English", "US English", and many others, where the hyphen would be considered in violation of standard English spelling rules. For more information, see the previous discussion (which didn't get input from enough people) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1#Category:Finland-Swedish Espoo 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Rename - Espoo really said it all. We should always strive to properly use the English language on the English Wikipedia. Please also see this link from a genuine Language Research Institute. It's in Swedish, but MoRsE paraphrases it pretty nicely in the previous cfd debate:

"...basically it says: "Use 'Finland Swede' about persons, 'Finland-Swedish' as the adjective and 'Finland Swedish' when talking about the language variant."

There should really be no question. →Bobby← 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match Finland Swedish. Mairi 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per reliable sources cited by nom. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per all of the above. Way back, you'd find hyphens basically everywhere, even in "American-English" and "British-English." Way back. Things of changed. JackLumber. 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Hmains 03:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename - the current, hypenated name is simply ungrammatical. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:23, 18 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was DELETE empty category. Postdlf 16:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gauge field theory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Obsolete. Covered by Category:Gauge theories. Ksbrown 15:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Based on "Definitions in this section: gauge group, gauge field, interaction Lagrangian, gauge boson" (from Gauge theory#Classical gauge theory), I wonder if this was to be a sub-category? (It is now empty, so I have no way to know atm.) - jc37 07:55, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overly narrow, only one entry (and a subcat for a book that plays in the French Rev). (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Tim! 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tlmclain | Talk 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While it would make an interesting list, I don't think this should be categorised. - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This would be better covered in a subsection or subpage of the article on the French Revolution. George J. Bendo 07:57, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge. Vegaswikian 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fictional characters by occupation, possibly rename as well. This contains kings, colonels, judges, privates etc; but it was also the source of "fictional misters" since it could be argued that "mister" is a title. Whether an occupation has a specific associated title is irrelevant. (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. Tim! 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but to only include those of "title", (royalty, etc). Merge the rest. - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't we rename this then to "fictional nobility" or such? (Radiant) 14:35, 23 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age hierarchy was deleted, only the supercat and the "centenarians" remain. This one is pointless, at any rate. (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Tim! 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to discourage recreation of the age group categories. Piccadilly 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as unneeded umbrella cat. - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sorting characters by age could be difficult if their ages are not given and confusing if they grow older. George J. Bendo

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Tim! 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reason? It's useful, it's informative, and it's not likely to grow out of control unless Marve decide to do Marvel Oldies. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I left this one out when I nominated the others in the category for a reason, that being that for most centarian characters it is a defining trait. --tjstrf talk 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While it might make an interesting list (though in this case, I'm doubtful), I don't think this should be categorised. Especially since the reasons for the "over 100" vary from just being old, to being mutants, etc. Equates to a vague category. - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As jc37 as stated, this does not group together fictional characters in a useful way, as it includes mostly different types of comic book/fantasy characters that are over 100 for various reasons and it could potentially include "normal" fictional people who simply live past 100. George J. Bendo 08:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -AMK152 13:42, 24 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic; we wouldn't use this for real people either. (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Tim! 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Furthermore, "promiscuous" is a subjective term with no fixed basis for application. To some, it's anyone who has premarital sex; to others, only those who have more than one sexual partner within a certain timeframe; to others, only those whose total number of sexual partners exceeds some number. Postdlf 19:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
• Keep - can define characters who are "the slut" or "the player" or "sex addict" character trope. For any character to keep inclusion, it would have to be universally agreed upon by a range of editors or else be reverted. For example Blanche Deveraux, Don Juan, Captain Hero, Foxxy Love, Glenn Quagmire are without a doubt inclusive. In fact, I can't find a single character who is not universally defined as "promiscuous". If anyone were to add Category:Fictional LGBT characters then obviously it would be reverted. We shouldn't be silly about this, it remains a defining characteristic. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So it's really "fictional characters who are depicted as more sexually active than other characters within the same fiction"? Because Blanche is a Puritan next to Foxxy. The category has no stable meaning, only an in-context comparison; one might as well have Category:Taller fictional characters. Postdlf 21:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, are Elaine, George, and Kramer from Seinfeld really "universally defined as promiscuous"? Kramer is arguable (there was at least a recurring gag about his success with the ladies, probably humorous because it seemed so unlikely), but Elaine and George were just usually unable to keep a boyfriend/girlfriend beyond one episode, which was also true of Jerry, who is absent from the category. Postdlf 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete It was entertaining, but I agree both that the definition for inclusion is not well defined and that this is not a defining characteristic. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Daniel5127 (Talk) 04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too much a matter of interpretation. Piccadilly 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per last time I nominated this. It is useless, POV, and unencyclopedic. Unlike Category:Fictional prostitutes, this is not a defining trait. --tjstrf talk 06:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? We don't even have a category for fictional prostitutes? Then definitely delete. --tjstrf talk 07:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it is located at Category:Fictional courtesans and prostitutes. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Who sets the dividing line? It shouldn't be Wikipedians. - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The term "promiscuous" suffers from POV problems. George J. Bendo 08:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a category worthy of inclusion because promiscuity is a defining characteristic of many important characters. Difficulty in defining a category doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Characters can be discussed for inclusion like many other topics on wikipedia. --Krypton1 17:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So does this category define "promiscuity" by an intra-textual or inter-textual comparison? Postdlf 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These categories should restrict definitions to intra-textual, unless there is alot of published research in psych or Lit circles about it, otherwise it would be original research. 132.205.93.88 03:10, 21 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic either. Nearly every sidekick in fiction has at some point in their career been held hostage by the antagonist. (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Tim! 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; completely idiotic. We might as well have Category:Fictional people who are tied up or Category:Fictional people who are held at gunpoint. Postdlf 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also a common sitcom theme for characters to be held hostage by a random nut, to frustrate the characters' plans, reveal their impatience, or depict their lack of concern; I think it happened on Night Court innumerable times, Three's Company... And how many gunmen have stormed the ER? This is yet another iteration of Category:Fictional characters by what writers have inflicted upon them. Postdlf 22:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nell on the railroad tracks is how classic? - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As indicated above, being a hostage is frequently not a defining characteristic for a character. George J. Bendo 08:31, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia. (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Tim! 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for most of the involved characters it is a minor point. --tjstrf talk 06:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd like citations/references for this one, but I don't think that this would even be useful as a list. - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is simply an arbitrary characteristic. If kept, I would like to see Category:Illiterate fictional characters who like anchovies. George J. Bendo 08:33, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being born out of wedlock is exceedingly common in modern fiction, and thus not a relevant categorization. (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Tim! 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Illiterate fictional characters. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC) I must be illiterate because I misread this category name! Delete per nom! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could always form a Venn diagram out of those categories, to make Category:Illiterate fictional illegitimate children from the intersection. Postdlf 22:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postdlf 22:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd like citations/references for this one as well. - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This one would require original research (and I can just imagine soap opera characters shifting in and out of this category frequently). George J. Bendo 08:35, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator, will consider nominating some subcats. (Radiant) 12:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(and all subcategories except for "by religion" and "by politics") Delete since categorizing by belief is not particularly useful, neither for real nor fictional people. We have sexists here, goths, vegetarians, you name it. (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all this particular one I find useful. Homophobes, racists, conspiracy theorists all relate to common character tropes in modern fiction, ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Zythe. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that categories should be for defining characteristics. However, in a story, sometimes you have characters whose entire point is to be a bigot, or a catholic, or a homophobe. So, sometimes it is a defining characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, some of these may merit individual consideration but I am uncomfortable with a mass deletion of the lot. --tjstrf talk 06:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - COnsidering some good advice I received recently (grin), perhaps this should be re-nominated as separate noms. - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL :) (Radiant) 09:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have to agree with jc37. This is a case where we need to look at the children categories on a case-by-case basis (in which case I will probably vote to delete on a case-by-case basis). (Wasn't Category:Fictional goths up for deletion at some point?) George J. Bendo 11:49, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia. Only two entries, one of which is not a character but a list of powers. (Radiant) 14:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Tim! 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -AMK152 13:42, 24 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be an arbitrary subset of Category:Jews by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am working on discussing the issue of merging the two. Chavatshimshon 17:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rather archaic term, excludes secular Jews, and largely excludes non-Orthodox Jews. - Jmabel | Talk 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?!?! The word "Jewry" excludes secular Jews, and non-Orthodox Jews!? So you are saying Jewry refers to religious Jews?! Chavatshimshon 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually, yes. In some cases circa 1800 in countries where there were both emancipated and unemanciptated Jews I'm pretty sure it would have specifically excluded the emanciptated Jews. "World Jewry" is often used in a way that includes secular Jews, but the "Jewry" of a particular country or region typicall does not. - Jmabel | Talk 22:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a highly superfluous anachronism. Looks to be one of several personal takes on naming from its creator. Dahn 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Jews by country list (a fine piece of work in its own right), most articles follow a non grammatical thread such as 'British Jews', 'American Jews' etc. Due to the bad grammar, I propose World Jewry be adopted to replace it as the category for Jewish Population. The World Jewish Population Survey of 2002 (cited here) talks of "world Jewry", so we can't be too far wrong when using that term in reference to this issue; Jewish Population. In fact it comes up in nearly every survey on Jewish Population. Google it. Chavatshimshon 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If I understand Chavatshimshon's intent correctly, it's supposed to be a category for articles about different countries' jewish populations. That's not an arbitrary subset (actually, right now it's not a subset at all) of Category:Jews by country, which mainly contains articles and subcategories about (groups of) individual people. Whether the name is appropriate is another question on which I abstain. --Huon 22:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Category:Jewish history by country, which I believe covers the exact topic (and includes the said categories without the problem-title). Dahn 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after recategorizing its components to Category:Jewish history by country or other appropriate category. Hmains 03:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Jmabel. Khoikhoi 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepרח"ק | Talk | Contribs 08:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, because this category was created in haste and will only create duplicates and struggles over terminology, which so far has been mostly agreed-upon, and in addition the term "Jewry" is a complex and even controversial (it has been abused by antisemitic crircles widely over the years) and therefore should be avoided as a nomenclature for categories or articles. IZAK 13:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP - "World Jewry" is a well established term in Jewish writing and Jewish historiography. The ignorance expressed herein-above demonstrates a manifest ignorance of published writings on Jews and Judaism. Wikipedia is, as far as I can tell, mostly Internet driven; that is, if a topic is not well covered on the Internet, then it's not well covered in Wikipedia; (and the Internet is mostly alot of junk). Deleting this category further increases the gap between serious Jewish scholarship and Wikipedia.--Lance ^talk 11:34, 19 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic. It lists a bunch of series that happen to have two protagonists, or three characters acting together, etc. (Radiant) 14:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think for some, such as Bert and Ernie, they are significantly defined by their existence in that pair relationship, but I don't care enough about these categories to actually say the word "keep." I mostly just wanted to note the parent category, Category:Multiple people. The surrealists oughtta get a kick out of that title. Postdlf 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look at the category, you'll notice that it holds articles which cover a pair of fictional characters. --tjstrf talk 07:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm aware of that, and I hold that that's not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 09:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This definitely should be a list (or two). - jc37 07:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - none sense Yao Ziyuan 19:00, 20 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedied as user test. (Radiant) 14:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This isn't a category at all, it's list of Australian slang. No objection to keeping as an article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:58, 16 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:1852 religious leaders
• Category:2004 religious leaders

Delete, Somehow this seems like overcategorization to me. See November 14th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. someone ought to talk to the creator of these so we don't get more of the same that end up being trivially deleted. Mairi 16:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do NOT delete. What is the harm in allowing categories that might help people understand and absorb more of the cyclopeadic knowledge presented in Wikipedia? Just because it means nothing to you (who seem so anxious to destroy the work of others), does not mean it is not helpful to others! Thanks. Pastorwayne 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Categories that divide by individual years roles/careers that typically extend over many years won't help people understand or absorb anything. There is a series of lists (such as List of religious leaders in 1851) that is a better way of organizing this, because it won't flood the biography articles with dozens of categories. Postdlf 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While categories such as Category:Bishops elected/consecrated in 1852 might be useful, there are many religious figures who held their positions for decades; I don't believe, for example, that Pope Pius IX should have 33 of these categories added to his article. Besides, the categories for years in religion aren't so heavily populated yet that subcats like this are needed. MisfitToys 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as Category:Lists of religious leaders by year seems to cover this as well oe better.--T. Anthony 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 05:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Categories by year are not a useful way to navigate religious leaders, as typical religious leaders would need multiple categories. George J. Bendo 08:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -AMK152 13:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Impossible to tell what these categories mean—leaders who were alive in 2004? Who did something significant in 2004? --zenohockey 01:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It'd make more sense to start up the Category:Nth century religious leaders first and work from there. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:03, 28 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedied per below. David Kernow (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pocket billiard leagues to Category:Pocket billiards leagues

• Rename, Typo (mine). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename, you're just pluralizing it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Empty, requester was only contrib., so I've speedied this. Alai 16:19, 16 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedied per nom above. David Kernow (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Billiard leagues to Category:Billiards leagues

• Rename, Typo. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename, but it wasn't tagged. I've listed it up above in the speedy section. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Woops, my bad; missed that one. It is tagged now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:31, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep all. the wub "?!" 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Star Fox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Star Fox media ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Star Fox games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Star Fox vehicles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Star Fox voice actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Star Fox (and all member sub-categories) to Category:StarFox (changing member sub-categories as well)

• Rename, StarFox, not Star Fox, is the official spelling (see the game cover images at StarFox, StarFox: Assault, and StarFox Command); official site www.starfox.com also uses the spelling "StarFox", having the META description "Nintendo DS, Nintendo Game Cube, StarFox Command, StarFox Adventures, StarFox Assault". —Lowellian (reply) 11:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Never mind. I'll let those of you who want to fight about spacing have at it. Otto4711 13:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the articles have been moved back (not by me). Please sort it out at the article level first. Tim! 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's always been Star Fox. Just cause the logos have no space, doesn't mean you type it like that. Nintendo also uses Star Fox ([8]) as does practically every game website, like IGN, 1UP, etc. Thunderbrand 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But starfox.com uses no space in descriptions of the game on its site, and all the game logos use no space. If we don't trust the official site and the game logos, then what do we trust? The official site and game logos are more official than third-party game reviewers. —Lowellian (reply) 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category should match the main article Personally, I'm not sure which is correct. However, whichever spelling is correct should be used for both the main article and the category. The spellings should match. Note that currently the link to the main article in the category is broken and leads to a double-redirect, I think. So that too needs to be fixed. Dugwiki 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, as even quick looks at the manufacturer's site and at the external links in the articles show. The spelling at starfox.com is the logo, not the name. Logos are often spelled differently than the name. See [9], [10], [11], [12] etc. --Espoo 06:40, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was RENAME to Category:Billiards computer games, per article title "Billiards" as representing all cue games. Should that be renamed, this category should also be reconsidered. Postdlf 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pool and Snooker computer games to Category:Billiards computer games

• Rename, Orig. name is malformed ("Snooker" should not be capitalized), is excessively wordy, and excludes carom billiards and other non-pool, non-snooker billiards games. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't say I'm wild about this, as the suggested target assumes the US (broad) reading of "billiards". Then again, so does the main article and root cat, unfortunately... Alai 11:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "...so does the main article and root cat" - precisely. They need to be consistent. Trust me, I'm being very careful to treat snooker as an independent sport as well as (technically) a subset of pocket billiards. Don't worry! :-) PS: The broader sense of "billiards" meaning "cue sports as a class" (as opposed to meaning "carom billiards only" which it does to some Europeans or "English billiards in particular" as it does to many of the British) isn't an Americanism; it's simply the original meaning of the word; these were all once the same (pocketless) game a few centuries ago. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize they need to be consistent, which is why that was an unenthusiastic comment, and not an oppose. The question is, consistent at what? The broader sense of billiards is an "Americanism" (as you put it, or "US reading" of the term, as I said); whether it was always thus is neither here nor there: that amounts to "we should use US usage, since US usage is 'correct'". Tell a UK snooker player they're playing "pocket billiards" (or indeed the AWSB or the IBSF that their name is tautological), and they'll look at you funny. If there's no genuinely neutral terminology we may just have to put up with "facts on the ground", though, as in much of Wikipedia... Alai 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted. I think in the long run it's very likely that the main "Billiards" article (and the underlying set of broad catagory names it's consistent with) will become "Cue sports", but this will take a while. In the interim, the consistency would help a lot, and I think that most people can figure out pretty easily that the word "billiards" is being operator overloaded for the time being.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was having thoughts along those lines too. The alternative would be something like "Billiards, snooker and pool", but that gets long in combination, doubtless sounds awkwardly redundant to US ears, and isn't even exhaustive, when read in the Commonwealth sense. Or perhaps "Billiards games", "Billiards family", etc. I'm fairly sure that lots of current links to billiards are missing on the high side... Why the long run, though? Wouldn't it make sense to RM the main article, and work "down" from there? Alai 19:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No consensus yet among the pool/billiards/snooker editors whether to change the highest-level article on the class of topics to "cue sports" instead of "billiards" (though I think, as I said above, we'll get there eventually), or even whether it should be "cuesports" rather than "cue sports". So, I can't really work down at this stage. For the time being I can at least get consistency so that the future change will be comparatively simple. The categoryspace for these articles is WAY more sane right now than it was two days ago (it was a real mess); I'm just tying up the last 4 or 5 loose ends. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NB: All of the pool/bill./snooker video games listed in this category that I have looked into personally are multi-cuesport games (there could be some on the list that are, say, only eight- and nine-ball, or only carom, or only snooker, but I actually doubt it). So we don't need separate "Pool computer games", etc., categories at this stage if ever. So, if (as seems to be the case) the generic term in the WP article and category space for cue sports is "billiards" for now, then the rename I've sought is appropriate; if it changes to "cuesports" or "cue sports" then this cat. would be included in the multi-cat. rename request, of course, along with "Billiards", "Billiards tournaments", etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and rename to Category:Pool and snooker computer games. Snooker is a very popular professional sport in the UK, and pool is a popular recreation, but billiards is little more than a memory. Taking out the common words will be extremely confusing and misleading. Piccadilly 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the entire debate above; you've completely misinterpreted the nature of this category move. "Billiards" in the present context of extant Wikipedia articles on cue sports means "cue sports", in general; it does not mean "Carom billiards" games, the particular game of "English billiards" or any other specific cue sport or class of cue sports. (Cf. the actual Billiards main article, which encompasses Snooker as a subgenre of "cue sports".) The move requested here will simply bring this particular minor category into consistent line with all of the other extant cue sports categories, in preparation of a systemic rename of Billiards in both article- and category-space to either "Cue sports" or "Cuesports" in all probability. I.e. no one is trying to push an anti-British interpretation of terms here, it's just a consistency fix for the short term, until the larger terminology debate comes to a consensus on what to replace the word "billiards" with as the generic term; that change will be made to this video game category as well as to the rest of the "billiards" categories. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:11, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Turkish billiards players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Obsolete/redundant (forked into Category:Turkish carom billiards players, Category:Turkish pool players, and Category:Turkish snooker players (which may not presently all exist, but the articles are properly categorized under them, as apropos). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -AMK152 13:45, 24 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professions to Category:Business professions

• Rename, See Category talk:Professions for my reasons, but in summary, I suggest: Nomination withdrawn. I will likely re-submit as a delete after more review. Deet 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main category: Category:Occupations (non-professions go here or into one of the other sub-categories)

• • Sub category: Category:Construction trades workers (trademen go here, or better yet, rename to Category:Tradesmen)
  • Sub category: Category: Religious leadership roles (all clergy roles go here)
  • Sub category: Category: Business professions (identify business roles and put here)
  • Sub category: Category: Government occupations (identify government roles and put here)
  • Sub category: Category: Education, training, and library occupations (teachers go here)
  • Sub category: Category: Healthcare occupations (dentists and doctors go here)

Deet 08:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds like what you really want to do is just eliminate the category entirely; how would "business professions" differ from Category:Business and financial operations occupations? Postdlf 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I missed that. I guess I would prefer to just delete the category. What should I do now? Withdraw this nomination and repost as a request for delete, or just change this one to delete? Deet 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't actually checked this, but are all of the entries in the "professions" category already in a field-specific occupation category? If so, then you just want to propose deleting outright. If not, then you want to merge the contents of "professions" into the appropriate subcategories of Category:Occupations. What's your specific beef with the category? Postdlf 06:39, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teen Titans animated series characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Same as below, the articles involved are about the comics characters. - jc37 08:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Comic book characters created from television and delete. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:36, 16 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. The vast majority of these won't fit into Category:Comic book characters created from television, it would be just as easy to populate that from scratch. the wub "?!" 12:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:DC animated characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This is just a disparate list of DC Universe characters. The articles involved are about the comics characters. - jc37 08:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Given the number of DC characters that have appeared in animated series, this category is not useful. George J. Bendo 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If I recall, this category (and its Marvel counterpart) have been listed at CfD once before. The logic behind the category is to list characters created in the animated universe (eg Harley Quinn), not those who existed in the comics and were merely given animated form (99% of the characters). If limited to that AND ONLY THAT, the category could provide useful. Perhaps a rename to something else would better reflect the intent of the category? Anthony Hit me up... 18:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from Firestar, it looks like the Marvel characters were just merged to Category:Comic book characters created from television. Still not the best wording, but better than this, so merge there and delete. Postdlf 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. per Post. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:DC animation creations to accomadate characters that have not yet been introduced into the comics yet. --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 15:57, 1 December 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters with alter-egos ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - duplicates Category:Superheroes, and is an indescriminate mixture of characters with other names. - jc37 08:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would be hard-pressed to name a superhero without an alter-ego. George J. Bendo 09:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, however, I don't think Aquaman has one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Arthur Curry : ) - jc37 14:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Postdlf 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and he does. "Arthur Curry". He just doesn't use it often. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I hardly think superheroes are the only characters with alter-egos. Supervillains do as well, as do ordinary heroes (Robin Hood), and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or the character "R. Daneel Olivaw" in the novel "Prelude to Foundation" by Isaac Asimov (with a multitude of alter-egos). 132.205.93.88 03:13, 21 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs by musicwriter to Category:Songs by composer

• Rename; odd nomenclature. Her Pegship 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree: rename. I'm not sure "musicwriter" is a word, and "composer" mirrors more closely the companion Category:Songs by lyricist (not "Songs by wordswriter").--Deaconse 12:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: "Music writer" is used colloquially to mean "composer", especially when combined with a modifier (e.g. "gospel music writer"), but it is used in well-edited texts to mean "writer on music" or "music journalist". The expression is used with this meaning on many edu sites, and only very few edu sites use the colloquial meaning. When spelled "musicwriter" on edu sites, it apparently always refers to software by that name (capitalised). I see that the word is spelled incorrectly and used in the confusing colloquial sense on very many WP pages. The term is not found with either spelling in any dictionaries i own or found at onelook.com. --Espoo 09:18, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was DELETE, empty. Postdlf 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Windows errata ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, poorly-named category. See erratum for reference. I've moved its contents to other categories already. -/- Warren 05:45, 16 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge. Vegaswikian 00:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Hoteliers then Delete. All hotels of any significance are part of a group or owned by a company. The person referred to as the 'owner' is, at best, the founder or a major shareholder and is often actually the chairman not the owner. There is also no effective definition of 'owner'. I have created the category Hoteliers to encompass the people at the top of the hotel trees be they the owner, chairman or chief executive. BlueValour 04:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge but not for reasons given. BlueValour's comments only apply to recent times, and seem to be just as much of an argument for deleting Category:hoteliers. But that is not what he is proposing, and as it is the more flexible term it should be kept. Also keep Category:Hotel owners as a redirect. Piccadilly 05:21, 17 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least rename to Category:Cats Don't Dance characters, convention of Category:Film characters. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:58, 16 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category has existed since February 2006, but contains only one article. I believe it has been therefore demonstrated that this level of categorization is unwarranted at this time. Kurieeto 03:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Tlmclain | Talk 19:22, 16 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:United States Basketball League teams, convention of Category:Basketball teams and to match United States Basketball League. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The acronym needs to be spelled out. George J. Bendo 09:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - All other league/team categories are spelled out. --MJHankel 08:56, 2 December 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as follows

• Category:American reality television participants to Category:Participants in American reality television series
• Category:British reality television participants to Category:Participants in British reality television series
• Category:English reality television participants to Category:Participants in British reality television series

-- the wub "?!" 12:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American reality television participants to Category:Participants in American reality television

• Rename as nom. As discussed on the original talk page, the proposed name clearly indicates that this is a category for American television, not American contestants or both. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Participants in American reality television series (name consistent with TV series categories). The category's intent is to include people who were in an American reality TV series. The current name invites ambiguity to allow an interpretation of an American in a reality TV series, which would not be true for certain people (e.g. Sean Yazbeck). I am also adding:
  • Category:British reality television participants to Category:Participants in British reality television series
  • Category:English reality television participants to Category:Participants in English reality television series
• However, I believe Category:English reality television participants should be merged to the British category as English shows have not been specialized from British shows. Tinlinkin 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all and merge "English" to "British". — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:54, 27 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 17:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Legend Films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Redundant with List of Legend Films releases. Similar category for Criterion Collection releases has been deleted earlier. It's not a good idea to categorize films per DVD release companies. Prolog 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the category is intended to hold a variety of articles related to the company. It's not specifically for films that they have released on DVD. (Ibaranoff24 04:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete per nom. It doesn't hold a variety of articles, its being used to classify films they have released on DVD. JW 13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Dugwiki 20:14, 16 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Blue Underground ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Redundant with List of Blue Underground releases. Similar category for Criterion Collection releases has been deleted earlier. It's not a good idea to categorize films per DVD release companies. Prolog 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the category is intended to hold a variety of articles related to the company. It's not specifically for films that they have released on DVD. (Ibaranoff24 04:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. If you take out the films, there are only two articles; main and the list of releases. If someone creates an article for William Lustig, that makes it three. It can't really be populated more than that. Why films shouldn't be there, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Criterion Collection infoboxes. Prolog 06:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Dugwiki 20:15, 16 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kenyan anti-communists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories 132.205.93.19 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is empty, insignificant and just unnecessary clutter. 23:05, 15 November 2006 user:Hu

• Keep Small categories are fine where they are part of a scheme to subdivide a large category. Piccadilly 05:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Small useless empty categories are still useless cruft, no matter how large the larger category. Hu 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kenya was not blessed with rule of a communist party so this is rather unlikely the primary characteristic of a Kenyan. Pavel Vozenilek 18:57, 18 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Big Love actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as with categories that have been deleted in the past like "Guest stars on The Simpsons" this will be category cruft at the bottom of various articles. I don't feel we should have the category on an actor's article who appeared in just a single episode as the description of the category would suggest. At most, this should be listified. Dismas|^(talk) 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (Radiant) 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, after having slept on this, maybe it should just be amended to be only the principle actors. The description from the category page says "Actors who acted on an episode of Big Love." (emphasis added by me) Just one appearance in one episode seems a rather tenuous connection to a series for mention in the cats of various articles. Dismas|^(talk) 12:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, What makes this different from any actor by drama television series category? Irk_(talk) 13:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but don't include guest stars. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but exclude any articles which do not discuss their roles in the series. Tim! 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See this suggestion to modify all actors by series categories, by adding the word "recurring" to eliminate one-off guest stars. We could apply that rename here, or just keep it for now and apply the change en masse later. Postdlf 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is generally a bad idea to create specific categories for individual tv shows and films. Actors can appear in 50 or 100 or more films and shows, and if they all had their own category you'd have potentially 100+ categories per actor page. Dugwiki 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this category worse than any other acting category? Irk_(talk) 23:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this one as any "worse" necessarily. It's just something that's been in the back of my head for a while and this one just happened to catch my attention when those thoughts were being particularly rowdy. See my comment at the link provided by Postdlf. If an actor is in one episode of a series, then his relationship to that series is barely of note. It really should only garner a mention in their filmography, in my opinion. So, in a way, this cat has become a bit of a test case for the way people feel about the "actors in series X" categories in general. This brings it to a wider audience than just those who happen to be involved in WikiProject Television. Dismas|^(talk) 01:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly rename per ongoing discussion mentioed by Postdlf. As I look through the actors in the category, all have appeared in a significant number of episodes. The fewest I've found are two actors who appeared in only one third of the episodes so far and are likely to continue to appear in future episodes. Most have appeared in all episodes to date. --Siradia 22:02, 26 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Sussex ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Speedy delete Have now replaced this cat (created by me, earlier today) with separate cats for East Sussex and West Sussex, which is more in keeping with Wiki coverage of these English counties. (Should have looked at Cat for Sussex more carefully!) Cat is now empty and unused, and may be deleted. EdJogg 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Delete per above. -AMK152 13:47, 24 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator (mentioned below). A renomination of subsets will be considered. (Radiant) 12:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Includes this category and the following subcategories (single discussion below).

• Delete seems to be OR. Brimba 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This category (and its subcats) would require citations, and we don't categorise by belief, but by organisation. - jc37 08:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, all the categories are tagged. And to clarify, I didn't tag any that clearly said that they were talking about party membership or organisations. As a matter of fact, several of these categories rather clearly point out that they are not for party membership. - jc37 10:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This deletion discussion would need to include the entire category hierarchy headed by Category:People by political orientation, except for those categories for specific political parties. This includes over a hundred different well-populated categories. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I was/am in the process of adding those (adding now, and working on tagging them all. If I miss any, feel free to let me know : ) - also, by removing the headrers, you broke the cfd tag link : ) - jc37 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There could have been some talk on the talk page of Category:People by political orientation before making this nomination to delete all this whole hierarchy. This seems a misuse of the cfd process. Intangible 09:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't cat by opinion. (Radiant) 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I'm going to go ahead and vote keep on the whole shebang, because CFD is almost assuredly not the place to -start- a discussion about a change this sizable. This should be discussed in places like the category talk pages, Wikipedia:Categorization of people, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), because this CFD is essentially proposing a change to the encyclopedia's current guideline, which states, "Wikipedia currently supports categorizing People by educational institution, People by company, and People associated with religion or philosophy, as well as numerous more specific categories." -/- Warren 09:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for the same reasons Warren gave - this is not the place to discuss what is essentially a policy shift. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think these target "people associated with religion or philosophy," so much as "people who have a political philosophy." Postdlf 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see below for the duplication of "politicans" and "people" - if we delete the mere parent-category for "people" and some of its subcategories, we would have perfectly valid material for "politicians" (where some of the subcats are already present). We would then not have to go through the entire subcategories to separate "politicans" and "people", if that may seem to be the case: in fact, all of those included have at least had some political activity, and most of those included had more than some. Please take this into consideration. Dahn 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, I think "politicians" is too narrow, as that would exclude theorists and activists who never held or sought public office. I'm content for now just criticising all of the solutions instead of backing any particular one.  ; ) Postdlf 20:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically, perhaps. But if we broaden the meaning to cover activists and theorists (both of which classes, it would seem, are intrinsically connected with politicians), then the number of people who are not "touched" by at least one definition of the term would approach zero (and even they would become the exceptions that would not contradict the rule). This strikes me like the best solution, and it is most relevant for the casual reader, in perfect compliance with the purpose of a category. Dahn 20:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, strong keep - I have never seen a proposal this absurd. If there could perhaps be some sort of debate about *some* [very few of the] people being included,there is not one single reason why the categories should be deleted. The notion of "we do not categorize by beliefs" is equivalent to "we do not categorize painters by style", "we do not categorize philosophers by school" and "we do not categorize clergy by religion"! Most of the people present in those categories are politicians, and their belonging is centered on explicit self-reference. Dahn 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you misunderstand. If those politicians belong to such a "party", that's one thing. But to base it on "belief" is wholly something else. You're welcome to suggest renaming to "...party members". But at the moment, that's not what these categories are. An excellent example is Category:Republicans. How it is any different than Supporters/Opponents of <issue>, or any other opinion-based category? These categories are just based on a list of issues, grouped under a title. - jc37 10:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think you misunderstand: for the cass where said category groups subcategories by party membership, party ideology is the most objective criteria in umbrella-grouping according to ideology (see for example Category:French communists, which I have neatly subcategorized into parties and memberships); for the rest, problems are only marginal (for example, there were many obviously communist politicians around before there was a communist party). Some subcategories are stupid indeed: for one, the "republicans" one is either as vague as to be irrelevant or an Americano-centric spillage. However, there is nothing wrong with the principle of categorizing politicians, activists, cadres, political soldiers, and theorists according to opinion! Unless you can come up with proof that,for example, the "communists" category and its subcategories are persistently irrelevant and/or are disrupting the process of objective categorizing (ie: they include people who were not in fact communists), you make no point. Let's not mix the issues of categories clumsily created ("Republicans", "Libertarian businessmen") and the clear necessity of helping the casual reader understand self-assumed ideologies and politics (in most cases, as clear-cut a relation as that between baptizing and Christianity). I for one have put a lot of work into objective categorizing in this area, and it is now mixed up in a package-deal fallacy that implies recent and innately American problems in categorizing "conservatives" and "liberals" should have the same relevancy as the smooth and non-problematic categorizing based on ideology in the Old World. If you disagree,please point out what the problem is, not what the problem can be imagined to be. Dahn 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please learn how to do an umbrella nomination. This has 106 subsections, and that's just unweildy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it now occurs to me that the user who proposed all these for debates is tragically confused about the issue. Please note the Category:Politicians by political orientation. I propose that it should replace entirely Category:People by political orientation, and that, of all subcategories of the latter, only those not present in the former should be proposed [again] for deletion, and the tag be removed pronto from all other subcategories and their subcategories etc. You will note that the main criterion for including people in categories such as the "Communists" and "Fascists" ones has been political activity - that is to say, virtually all of them are "politicians" (even if some of them not in the strixctest of senses). If someone is disputing this, let him or her do it from scratch and on a more case-by-case basis, because this is just too confusing and carries the risk of destroying valuable and complex work. Dahn 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - extremely useful category. If there is doubt as to whether an individual belongs in a particular category, then as our policy says, don't include them. Warofdreams talk 18:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Strong Keep If all of the categories by political orientation are going to be deleted is there a reason why these two are also not nominated? Category:Democrats (United States) and Category:Republicans (United States)? This is also a ridiculous CfD and should be kept anyway.

• Keep - very important category for biographical articles on politicians.Bronks 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if necessary depopulate on a case-by-case basis if some individuals' categorization cannot be sourced. --Huon 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think there is a confusion here. I think what's being misunderstood is that we don't categorise people by issue, and claiming to be a conservative (for example) means that we're categorising by a group of issues bundled up. And worse, what the bundle consists of varies by person or at least by nationality. This is further complicated by the fact that some have presumed that the categories have equalled party affiliation (politicians), leading to a rather muddled group of categories. They need renaming at the very least to make party affiliation clear, or they should be deleted due to categorising by issue. However, that said, read below. - jc37 03:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination - Due to requests from User:Radiant! (here); and User:ProveIt (here); and due to the interesting discussion above, I'm withdrawing the nomination, with the intention to re-nominate (likely as separate nominations) at a future time. Any help at that time (106 categories, ack!) would be welcome. - jc37 03:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because "Conservative" and "conservative" are not being properly distinguished. Replace with "People with conservative ideology" and "Members of Conservative parties" instead. 132.205.93.31 03:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Some of these categories are key defining characteristics in some cases, so a blanket nomination will not do. Piccadilly 05:24, 17 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.