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

The result of the debate was already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Sailor Moon characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. I created these along with the WikiProject itself. It has never been used and, in retrospect, doesn't look like it ever will be/should be. Masamage 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per CSD G7 and C1. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Sailor Moon actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. I created these along with the WikiProject itself. It has never been used and, in retrospect, doesn't look like it ever will be/should be. Masamage 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per CSD G7 and C1. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Sailor Moon episodes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. I created these along with the WikiProject itself. It has never been used and, in retrospect, doesn't look like it ever will be/should be. Masamage 22:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per CSD G7 and C1. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People who carry swords ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, this category seems hardly necessary. Currently, it's populated only by fictional characters and either way, it seems like by the time it's filled up, nearly every single character in all of fiction will be included. Axem Titanium 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the category is empty now, and i agree with the above - Trysha ^(talk) 22:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The category is not particularly well-formed or useful, as it doesn't describe the type of person carrying the sword - historical, fictional, science-fictional - all of them? It also sets a dangerous precedent as if this exists then why not a category for people who carry guns? That would be so large as to be useless. (aeropagitica) 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Once upon a time every "gentleman" in Europe carried a sword. Calsicol 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And (what fun), how does one define a sword? (knife, dagger, saber, epee, katana, wakizashi, gladius, drusus, cutlas, scimitar, Khopesh, jambiya, pig-sticker, etc. : ) - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this ambiguous and unnecessary category. Doczilla 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another ambiguity about this category is that it specifies that they must "carry" a sword. Not that they actually use it. Would people who have picked up a sword once, walked around the room with it, then set it down go in this category? They did, after all, carry a sword. --tjstrf 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a tremendously bad idea that should be noted somewhere in the annals of really bad categories. tjstrf is incorrect, howevber. This applies to people who carry a sword, not people who once carried a sword, however briefly. The contents must be updated on a picking up and putting down of said sword by said person, and thus it violates the original research policy and could lead maintainers open to claims of stalking. Which I wouldn't make, since we don't allow legal threats. Hiding Talk 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- but I can see a use for a Category:Fictional swordsmen. Is there a gender-neutral term for "swordsman?" --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Entertainers who performed for troops during the Vietnam War ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This is not a defining characteristic and can be perfectly well covered by a list. Edton 22:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. --Masamage 02:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Legitimate category. A list implies a complete or comprehensive information, which is impossible in this instance. A category is a more useful organization of this information. —Xanderer 16:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very trivial. A list only implies what is stated on the list so Xanderer's concern is a non-issue. Calsicol 18:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But who is to decide what is trivial? To me, categories such as Pokémon characters and Category:Nintendo villains are unencyclopedic. But I am able to understand there are users who feel differently. —Xanderer 20:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Significant enough when compared to other well-established cats. 70.174.137.186 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems as legit as others when I look at Category:Entertainers. How is this any less trivial than other sub-categories listed there? For example: Category:Professional wrestling performers or Category:Popular Hasidic Entertainers or Category:Drag queens??? Sounds like a matter of opinion. Slurpeeman 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want any of them deleted then nominate them. It is the nature of Wikipedia that it is full of rubbish. The fact that it can't all be removed at once should not be used as a reason for never doing any cleaning. Piccadilly 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not my point. I'm trying to illustrate how a category that seems trivial in one user's opinion can be quite significant to another. (If you are a drag queen, I would assume Category:Drag queens is extremely significant to you.) The decision to delete should rely on more than just opinions about what is or isn't "rubbish". There are plenty of good reasons to delete an article, but this doesn't strike me as one of them. Slurpeeman 20:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Speedy Rename to Category:Entertainers who performed for the U.S. troops during the Vietnam War (Note: "the U.S." - per category description). - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per jc37. Dismas|^(talk) 21:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename per Jc37. Some day we should have articles on people who entertained the NVA. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename. Per Jc37 70.174.137.186 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 70.174.137.186. Pepperjack 23:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as no less relevant than the aforementioned cats. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 02:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as category clutter. Sure, it's "legitimate", but it isn't a defining characteristic of any but a few members like Bob Hope. And categorizing him without categorizing him similarly for all conflicts from WWII to the Gulf War should show the unwisdom of this cat. This is easily handled as a list, which can define how they performed, where, under whose auspices. --Dhartung | Talk 12:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This I don't understand either. Just because categories for the other conflicts haven't been compiled yet doesn't mean this one should be deleted. Slurpeeman 20:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dhartung. Recury 13:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clutter. Of dubious usefulness. Gamaliel 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. David Kernow (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Good category. 130.49.5.152 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting information. 129.2.195.178 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cruft. Attempt to turn WP into an online database. Pavel Vozenilek 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clutter. Can be covered in a list, but even that would be trivia. Piccadilly 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a bad idea, Hiding Talk 21:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An incident, not an occupation. Hoylake 20:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this have to do with anything? The sinking of the Titanic was an "incident". Do we nominate Category:Titanic's crew and passengers for deletion? Being a Nobel Prize-winner is not an "occupation". Should we nomitinate Category:Nobel laureates for deletion. Me thinks "incident versus occupation" doesn't hold up as a criteria for categorization 70.174.137.186 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the Titanic's crew and passengers were notable for little else. For those that were otherwise notable, they generally died in the wreck, and death is more important episode in a life than a foreign gig. Wilchett 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is randomness. Just add a paragraph to some article. Wilchett 01:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metthurst 14:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although it might be salvageable under something like Cat:Notable USO performers . I'm not convinced of its salvageability though. Nuke it. --Storkk 02:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Nepal, convention of Category:Non-profit organizations by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Mereda 08:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wryspy 04:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Computer and video board games, Category:Computer and video card games, and Category:Tile-based computer and video games, respectively, to match the naming conventions for computer and video games. -Sean Curtin 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, and you may also wish to rename the subcategories Category:Computer chess and Category:Computer mahjong to Category:Computer and video chess games and Category:Computer and video mahjong games as well. I wish there was a better way to distinguish a tile-based game on a computer and a computer tile-based game though. Marasmusine 20:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but... consider some different name as well? "Computer Board" game sounds like an oxymoron. I realize what is meant but it sounds kind of weird. >Radiant< 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think of a tidy way. 'Computer and video games that emulate board games'?, 'Computer and video board game simulators'? Marasmusine 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, and perhaps think about merging? Something like 'Computer and video game implementations of tabletop games'? Percy Snoodle 10:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for now, but I agree a better name would be useful. - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and may I suggest Category:Tabletop game software? These are simluations of tabletop games, not games intrinsic to computers, so the word is odd. Additionally, most of the articles are not about the games per se but the software that lets you play the game.--Dhartung | Talk 12:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Tabletop game software, per Dhartung. - jc37 01:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advise against that. Tabletop games also imply role-playing games, wargames and miniture games, which would also mean merging in Category:Computer wargames and the whole thing becomes a mess.
  • Also, some of these games (Itadaki Street, for example) are board-game-like, but not actual simulations of existing games. Er, not sure if that will be a factor in peoples decisions but just thought I would mention it. Marasmusine 08:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also oppose "Category:Tabletop game software" - that would describe software which aided in the playing of tabletop games - such as RPtools or OpenRPG - rather than software which implemented tabletop games.
• Rename per nom and Marasmusine. I'm not happy with the names, but they're much better than anything else suggested, and I'm not coming up with anything better. --Rindis 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secret Service ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete Empty/redundant. New, more specific category, Category:United States Secret Service, created. Paul 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I imagine this is intended to be a maintenance category, but it is both unneeded and POV to call the content of the articles "rants". Problems relating to content should be sorted out on the relevant discussion page, not through this category. I originally speeded this but User:Countersubject didn't like that, so I've listed here. —Xezbeth 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Category's annotation as well as name suggests POV to me... David Kernow (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Xezbeth. >Radiant< 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are two key issues here: whether the category title is intrinsically biased; and whether it is an appropriate use of the category mechanism.

The title isn't intrinsically biased. It has a specific meaning, as given on the category page in a link to Wiktionary: A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation.. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can attract such edits, especially in articles and discussion pages about race, religion and programming languages. We may disagree with the application of the term to individual passages, but that's a matter for debate in those cases.

As to whether it's an appropriate use of the category mechanism, I'm open to discussion. Given that it's not a biased term, and that such passages exist, there seemed to me to be a case for categorisation. It may also be appropriate to create a template, to indicate that a page has been nominated for inclusion.

The matter has been complicated by an innacuracy in Xezbeth's post above, which looks like an Aunt Sally, but which I think arises from a genuine misunderstanding that led to the original summary deletion without discussion or notification. The category doesn't call the content of the articles "rants". It says that the articles contain one or more rants. These are two very different propositions. The former would be sweeping, and in danger of becoming an insulting generalisation. The latter is more specific, and is intended to encourage discussion of particular passages. Countersubject 00:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is it or is it not covered by Category:Articles which may be biased, Category:NPOV disputes, Category:Accuracy disputes, and Category:Wikipedia cleanup? --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Rants should be removed, not categorized. Goldfritha 01:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this was intended for use on talk pages, I might understand keeping it, but no article should contain tagged rants. Just delete them, or the entire article if the article is a rant. --tjstrf 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and invoking POV re "rants". Wryspy 04:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Goldfritha. -/- Warren 00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Nothing in there, and besides, very POV. bibliomaniac15 00:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a bad idea. Hiding Talk 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:People known by single-name pseudonyms --Kbdank71 13:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, might possibly have some merit. Meybe not. What do you think? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/merge as this might be sufficiently covered by Category:People known by pseudonyms, or it might make a good subcategory of that. But the name seems a bit awkward. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A random connection and not a defining characteristic. Edton 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to category:People known by single-name psuedonyms, sub-cat of Category:People known by pseudonyms, per above. - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (modified to match DK's suggestion below) - jc37 01:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename to Category:People known by single-name pseudonyms. David Kernow (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It would appear that the cat has been deleted, when concensus would appear to be rename to category:People known by single-name psuedonyms, sub-cat of Category:People known by pseudonyms? (per HKM; jc37; and DK; with only Edton opposing) - jc37 20:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Lady Sovereign albums? Not too sure about this one, suggestions welcome. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with merge. >Radiant< 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Metalcore musical groups, or reverse merge, Category:Musical groups by genre is inconsistant. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge —Xanderer 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:North East Independent School District, for those of us who do not live in San Antonio, Texas. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Denver, Colorado neighborhoods, convention of Category:Neighborhoods in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Denver neighborhoods. State name disambiguation is not necessary. - EurekaLott 17:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought of that too, but it turns out there are nine towns named Denver. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but the largest of them has a population of under 4,000. There's a reason Denver redirects to Denver, Colorado. People will not mistake it for another city. - EurekaLott 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what about Category:Neighborhoods of Massachusetts? Vegaswikian 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also Category:Neighborhoods in California. The category's starting to become a slightly confusing mix of categories by state and by city. - EurekaLott 19:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Denver, Colorado neighborhoods" is the kind of result that persuades me to favo/ur the "Neighborhoods of" format... "Xs of" also follows pattern used by articles on country subdivisions. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be perfectly happy with a Neighborhoods in Foo convention, and would support a mass rename, if someone was to put one together. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it needs to be of since they are not always in the city. But I'll support whatever consensus says. Vegaswikian 03:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have any examples of neighborhoods that are outside of a municipality? - EurekaLott 00:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll propose the mass rename if the present category renamed. Regards, David (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Neighborhoods of <name>" sounds good to me, too. - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Neighborhoods of Denver, Colorado. - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Indianapolis neighborhoods, convention of Category:Neighborhoods in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Denver discussion above. - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: oppose the rename? or oppose the current name? Not quite sure what you mean here, though I realize it's a totally honest and reasonable mistake. Cheers --Storkk 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Upon further reflection, i believe that you are saying "keep," based on your comments in the Denver discussion. I'm still not that sure though, since it isn't totally clear. --Storkk 02:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, unless a mass rename is performed. - EurekaLott 00:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per preceeding nom / subsequent mass rename proposal. David Kernow (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (the articles I checked did in fact have a DOB listed; nothing to speculate about) --Kbdank71 13:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rename to Category:Date of birth disputed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename per nom.
  Merge per folks below. David Kernow (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC), updated 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we have too many "foo disputed" systems as it is, and the more we have the less chance they actually get the attention they require. >Radiant< 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Date of birth unknown --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per HelenKMarks. --Masamage 02:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Date of birth unknown, per HKMarks, above. Also, I think Category:Date of birth unknown needs to have the deceased historical people (those of who there is no way to ever discover the information), split into it's own sub-category. - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete altogether per WP:NOT. This is not the place for speculation. Wryspy 04:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lightgun games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This category is a dupe of Category:Laser tag. The phrase 'Laser tag' is more commonly used. I've been in the laser tag / laser game industry for 17 years on three continents and I've never heard 'Lightgun', so I think maybe it's a name only used in some particular region. DougBurbidge 12:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Also, Category:Laser gun games already exists seperately as a category for video games. -Sean Curtin 19:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Isn't Laser/Lazer Tag a brand name? Also, I presume that there is a difference between the games in which you run around "zapping" each other, and video/computer games which use a light gun (or even light pen, for that matter) as an input device? - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment jc: You're right, "Lazer tag" was the name of a product from Worlds of Wonder. But "laser tag" is the industry generic term. Sean: of course, now you point it out, I have heard the term light gun games, but out of context I didn't make the connection. But that only means that Category:Lightgun games is a dupe of Category:Light gun games (as you say), except that its description is wrong and everything filed in it is wrong, too. DougBurbidge 07:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars of Japanese history into Category:Historians of Japan

• Merge, in accordance with example of Cats "Historians of Asia", "Historians of Korea", "Historians of antiquity" etc. Also, since Category:Historians of Japan already exists, but with different member articles. LordAmeth 09:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Edton 13:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warfare by period to Category:Warfare by era

• Rename for consistency with its child categories (Category:Battles by era, Category:Military units and formations by era), and because the blocks in question are generally referred to as "eras" of military history. The issue has been discussed by WP:MILHIST, with no objections to the new name. Kirill Lokshin 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Rindis 17:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom/WP:MILHIST. David Kernow (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too broad supercategory. While some terms are used this will end up in absurd overclassification disregarding complexities of the history. For example I see a lot of unrelated articles put under medieval warfare. Pavel Vozenilek 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of Ohio State University people to Category:Ohio State University people

• Not a list. Rename to fix this misunderstanding of category nomenclature. - EurekaLott 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• On regarding to Category:List of Ohio State University people, I have a different opinion. Since we already have Category:Lists of people by university in the United States, it is common sense that its subcategories have to be Category:List of Ohio State University people and so on. Unless we get rid of this Category:Lists of people by university in the United States. Wiki also has Category:People by university in the United States. This creates some confusion about where should people put list of people by univesity. I suggest that we cannot have two categories: Category:People by university in the United States and Category:List of Ohio State University people at the same time. We have to choose one of them. Please also notice that at this moment, there are 97 items under Category:Lists of people by university in the United States. And items under this top-catergory cannot be expanded because it was listed as under a catergory.

On the other hand, there are only 13 subcategories in Category:People by university in the United States. Although under this category, its subcategories can be expanded. --Ohho 06:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Ohio State University people. Per WP:NCCAT categories that begin "Lists of..." should only contain lists or categories of lists; this does not. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't that be "alumni"? >Radiant< 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think so, because it also contains faculty and some other people. Alumni is a subcat of this. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per After Midnight. Though I have to admit, the whole thing appears confusing. If "alumni" has a sub-cat, so too, should "faculty and staff". - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh... it's already a subcategory. - EurekaLott 00:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, now I know I was confused : )

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters played by more than one actor ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Overcategorization, non-encyclopedic. Could include every character in every movie that was ever re-made + every time someone changed in a season/episode of a TV series + stage productions? This is just too much (and it doesn't even contain Derwood!). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Thank you for nominating this category. A moment ago, I was just complaining about this as an example during a discussion about superfluous categories. Once you figure in flashbacks, voiceovers, stunt doubles, and multiple media, I doubt you can come up with any famous character who hasn't been played by more than one actor. Doczilla 04:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcat. And I didn't even think of the stage! --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categorisation for the sake of it. Edton 13:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. As soon as I saw this category, I knew it wouldn't last long! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It has been my experience that the majority of fictional characters are played by only one actor, so this category is not going to cover a majority of fictional characters. However, I do not think voiceovers and stunt doubles should count as a character being played by a separate actor. Q0 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Probably not a majority, but it is likely a plethora. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Fictional characters played by multiple actors in the same work so that it would include characters from a television show or movie series played by multiple actors from within the same television series, or within the same movie series, but would not include characters of works for which multiple versions of the work are made. Q0 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The category is not noteworthy. Goldfritha 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. stage, radio, voice actors, parodies, movies, television... and once you factor in the body doubles, stuntmen, youthful flashbacks, and other production technique replacements, there's almost no character who won't get onto the list, and most will be unverifiable. Further, there will be numerous reverts from those asserting that different media don't count the same way, etc., etc. ThuranX 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above terrifying implications. --Masamage 03:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or if more accpetable, create a category for fictional character who have only ever been played by one actor. i belive that would be more concies and usefull.(Animedude)
• Delete horrible category. Where next - actors who have played more than one fictional role? I think they are called actors! Rgds, - Trident13 13:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every stage character and almost every character from classic novels would qualify. Indeed how many notable films are there that haven't been remade? Calsicol 18:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Clarify, Rename. I don't see any harm if the category is renamed to be more specific. Perhaps "Film characters played by multiple actors." I think fictional is implied, isn't it? And this would eliminate voice, television and stage actors. —Xanderer 20:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment': I think the creator of the category was thinking of soap opera characters at the time of creation, rather than thinking about films or anything else. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If in doubt, let's have a chat about Darth Vader, or the more common roles from the works of Shakespeare : ) - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an obvious dud. Piccadilly 20:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a bad idea. Hiding Talk 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African American football players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - I don't see the value in having a category for this, unless we want to have Category:Irish American football players, Category:German American football players, etc. as well. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- outside the United States, American football is a noun. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "African-American football players" is what they were going for I think (and by "football" they are referring to American football. Also the parent category Category:African American sportspeople and its parent category Category:African Americans have many more categories like this, so just deleting this one won't help, I don't think. Recury 18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes, the category is for American football players. There's a separate category of African American soccer players; remember that the sport called "football" in most of the world is generally known as "soccer" in the US. — Dale Arnett 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Speedy Rename to Category:African-American football players (note hyphen), per discussion above. And someone should put the rest of the African-American players up for speedy rename as well. - jc37 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Shouldn't the category actually be Category:African-American American football players? I know it looks and sounds ridiculous but, strictly speaking, isn't that's what we really mean? —Xanderer 16:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per this, specifically the part about a main article being able to be written about the category. Recury 03:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until also other similar categories are nominated. - Darwinek 14:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Question - What difference does it make whether or not other similar categories have been nominated? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is just less credible. Same situation as with always nominating only "Jewish-Americans" for deletion and not nominating others ("German-Americans","Turkish-Americans" etc.). - Darwinek 16:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you Assume good faith here - this particular category was brought up on the talk page of the NFL WikiProject, which is why I nominated it. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PC game covers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, The CVG project emptied this image category out because it is not supposed to be used. Now that it is empty, we can delete it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I confess to curiousity as to why it shouldn't be used. Hiding Talk 21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it would be Category:Images of PC game covers...?  David Kernow (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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