Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 8

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:WikiProject Television Stations cleanup. the wub "?!" 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television stations in need of cleanup to Category:Television station cleanup

• Rename, I redesigned the template to fit the generic cleanup-date. I want to move this category to a new location, outlined above. News 92.3 TTV/620 TTV/860 TTV 23:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:WikiProject Television Stations cleanup or the like per WikiProject category norms (cue ProveIt please!)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:09, 10 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. the wub "?!" 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles with example Octave code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is empty. If there's a demand for Matlab example code, this cat should be re-created at Category:Articles with example Matlab code and re-populated appropriately; but at the moment I don't see many articles that would benefit from examples in Matlab (as opposed to a non-array-based language such as Pascal). This deletion is part of this proposal for cleanup of the example code categories. --Quuxplusone 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:10, 10 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 No consensus to rename Tim! 12:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disused railway stations in Scotland to Category:Disused stations in Scotland

• Rename, I know this is probably minor but one of the stations in this category is the only abandoned station on what is now the Glasgow Subway so that makes it not exactly a railway station. Simply south 00:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak oppose in current form. Some renaming possibly is needed - perhaps to Category:Disused rail stations in Scotland or similar - but the proposal opens it up to radio stations, sheep stations, bus stations, service stations... Grutness...wha? 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would be simpler to change the category on this one article then rather than embark on a substantial re-organisation of the categories, since this cat is a sub-cat of Disused railway stations in the UK. PatGallacher 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Glasgow Subway is a railway. Chicheley 16:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Curent name is clear, proposed renaming would be ambiguous per Grutness. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (sort of): See additional comments at the talk page. Simply south 13:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Proposal would be too ambiguous: there are other types of stations that would be irrelevant (petrol, bus, coach etc.). The fact that the Subway is entirely underground doesn't prevent it from being a railway.FrFintonStack 15:35, 15 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. the wub "?!" 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable publications in evolutionary biology to Category:Evolutionary biology literature

• Rename, though I'm open to alternative naming suggestions—"evolutionary biological literature" didn't sound right, but the main article didn't provide an adjectival form. The category is comparable in scope to its siblings in Category:Biological literature, and it should not be necessary to identify its constitutents as notable. choster 18:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no problem at all with the current title. .V. 21:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to remove the word "notable", too subjective. Tim! 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "notable" like "famous", "celebrity" and so on should never be included in category names. Hawkestone 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename As above, the word "notable" is unnecessary. All Wikipedia articles should be about notable subjects. If it's not about something notable, the article should presumably be deleted. Dugwiki 19:54, 11 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 Tim! 12:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment of this category is almost entirely a matter of point of view, and would seem likely to lead to edit wars. Mwanner | Talk 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I like the way you think m8. .V. 18:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. this cat is non-useful POV and thoroughly counter-productive. Doc Tropics 20:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wimstead 04:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contentious and not useful. Wilchett 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if "category:Terrorism" can exist (with higher POV contents) without any prejudice why discriminate with softer view which is the root cause?
• Delete "Extremism" is far vaguer than terrorism, and it even more misused. Osomec 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, note that whether or not Category:Terrorism has POV issues would be a seperate topic of discussion. I think that it survived a cfd debate around March 2006 (there was a cfd tag removed at that time with a note that the result was "keep"), but I can't find any links to the actual cfd discussion.Dugwiki 20:07, 11 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable people from Mar del Plata to Category:People from Mar del Plata

• Rename, as non-"notable" persons would not have articles, and per convention of Category:People by city. choster 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's good to be as specific as possible. .V. 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But adding "Notable" to this category name does not make it any more specific.-choster 19:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per choster. ×Meegs 19:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention of Category:People by city in Argentina. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to remove word "notable". Tim! 09:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. Osomec 19:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The word notable isn't necessary since all articles are supposed to be about notable subjects. If the person isn't notable, the article should be deleted. Dugwiki 20:18, 11 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 merge all per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Religious leaders in California
• Category:Religious leaders in Georgia
• Category:Religious leaders in Florida
• Category:Religious leaders in Alabama
• Category:Religious leaders in West Virginia
• Category:Religious leaders in North Carolina

Merge into Category:American religious leaders, excessive overcategorization, see discussion of December 6th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete cats per nom. --Quuxplusone 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepMerge. In looking at the parent, there is, or soon will be, a need for sub cats. The ones proposed for deletion are likely to be recreated to support that. I also wonder if any of those entries belong under Category:American clergy? So my vote may be more of do nothing pending a cleanup of what is there to see if we really need to change anything. If kept, Rename Category:Religious leaders in Georgia to Category:Religious leaders in Georgia (U.S. state). Vegaswikian 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking about this some more, I think the merge as proposed would be a good way to start the cleanup. So I have changed my vote. Vegaswikian 07:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all of these reasons and more. And that is a good suggestion for a rename, as well as for others in these same type of categories. Thanks! Pastorwayne 21:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge following precedent - Dr. Submillimeter 13:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom as overcategorization. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The leaders don't ID themselves by state, I'm sure. Xiner 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also a related discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:57, 12 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 to Category:Easy listening music. the wub "?!" 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from speedy)

• Category:Easy Listening to Category:Easy listening Capitalization. Pascal.Tesson 14:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Easy listening music; less vague. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Easy listening music, similar to Category:Classical music. -- Satori Son 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Her Pegship / Satori Son. David Kernow (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What value is there in adding one redundant word? Bellczar 09:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't even want to fix the capitalization error?? -- Satori Son 15:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepAs stated, the addition of 'music' would be a redundancy. 'Classical', without further elaboration, could mean many things, from architecture to languages to C19th sociological theory: this is not the case with Easy Listening. I'd also keep the cap, as the term has become a titular rather than simply a descriptive.FrFintonStack 15:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is indeed value in adding a word that makes the category subject more clear to everyone. We have Category:Ambient music, Category:Atonal music, Category:Classical music, Category:Country music, Category:Dance music, Category:Folk music, Category:Folk rock music, Category:Hardcore music, Category:New Age music, Category:New Wave music, Category:Pop music, Category:Ranchera music, Category:Rock music, Category:Smooth jazz music, Category:Steelpan music, Category:Techno music, and Category:Trance music. Surely several of these are slightly redundant, but just because we know that "easy listening", "new wave", "smooth jazz", "techno", etc., are musical genres, it doesn't mean readers all over the world also immediately recognize those terms as such. -- Satori Son 16:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but with a few exceptions (smooth jazz and ranchera, and in those cases, the articles devoted to them do not have the word 'music' in title), all those terms have potentially ambiguous meanings (Ambient atmosphere, Folk rebellion, Hardcore porn, New Age mysticism, New Wave cinema, fizzy Pop, Rock salt, Techno as a virtually all-purpose prefix, and well, the state of being in a Trance). In addition, the term "Easy Listening" already acts as a sufficient descriptive to anyone with a working knowledge of the English language, while ranchera and the like require a degree of direct knowledge of the subject at hand. Furthermore, in the proposed "Easy listening music" category, where the "Easy" and "listening" are reduced to mere adjectives and the "music" raised to the object and noun, many kinds of music would that fall without the common understanding of "Easy Listening" could fall into the category because they make, well, easy listening. Like smooth jazz and steelpan, for example.FrFintonStack 02:31, 17 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 Tim! 12:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the articles in this category have been merged together into Minigames of Final Fantasy, leaving it empty. As such, it should be deleted. --PresN 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Shimeru 00:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Deckiller 00:23, 9 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 Tim! 12:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There aren't any actual pages on these offices. The individual pages redirect to the United States District Court pages. No need for a whole category that suggests that there will actually be a page on these offices, when there are no such pages. JCO312 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In general, redirect pages should not be categorized, anyway. (There are a few exceptions, probably, but mostly it's just misleading and confusing, as in this case.) --Quuxplusone 22:59, 8 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 moved to Category:Editors of Christian works per Tlmclain; more than two or three members and "Editors of Christian works" seems a viable category. David Kernow (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Editors, is religion relevent here? Note this is currently the only Category:Editors by religion category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename? Based upon the two entries in the category, this seems to be for editors of Christian works. Thus, perhaps it should be renamed to something like Category:Editors of Christian works and placed in the sub-category, Category:Print editors.--Tlmclain | Talk 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what Category:Editors of religious publications is supposed to be for. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Editors - Religion is not relevant for the editors themselves, and the category for editors of religious publications already exists. The category is not needed. Dr. Submillimeter 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Editors of religious publications. Xiner 20:51, 12 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 per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable Christmas trees to Category:Christmas trees

• Rename, as non-notable Christmas trees shouldn't have articles, and so that general information about Christmas trees and related traditions can be grouped together. choster 15:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, however, does this mean that all categories beginning with the word "notable" should also be renamed? Other such categories include: Category:Notable British railway junctions, Category:Notable college football games, Category:Notable rooms, Category:Notable people from Mar del Plata, Category:Notable sports spectators, and Category:Notable publications in evolutionary biology. --Tlmclain | Talk 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them should be, yes. Sometimes the word notable is thrown-in to make it clear that the category is intended for articles about individual instances (e.g. articles about specific rooms, and not ones about rooms in general), but there are almost always better ways to do this. ×Meegs 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see a "notable" category survive a cfd/cfr nomination. As Meegs notes there are almost always better ways to capture significance besides simply labeling something as significant. -choster 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was some peripheral discussion here in support of Category:Famous animals, and famous is pretty much the same as notable. ×Meegs 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Who gives a crap about regular Christmas trees? I mean, there are probably like 50,000,000 christmas trees. We only care about the notable ones. .V. 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the point. "Notable" in category names is reduplicative. -choster 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming people who view it will be familiar with Wikipedia policy. Of course it's obvious to you, because you know the policy. To someone who just shows up, using "Notable" is MUCH clearer. I don't think newbies or casual readers should have this inconvenience. I mean, they might see it and think "balls, I can put any friggin christmas tree in here, look there's the category of it!" Seriously m8, this needs some consideration. So, it's a bit longer. That's the price for specificiosity. .V. 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and others. Doc Tropics 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Meegs. The "Famous animals" caveat doesn't apply to Christmas trees, which are already individuals by definition. --Quuxplusone 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Tim! 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Also, is there any reason for the difference in names between Category:Individual trees and Category:Famous animals? Mairi 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The extra word serves the same purpose for each. I'm not sure there's not a better name for both of them, though. ×Meegs 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename All the categories that include the word "notable" need to be renamed. Hawkestone 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as tautological. If an article is not about a notable subject, it should be deleted, so all chritsmas trees with wikipedia articles should be notable. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:24, 12 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 no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Gay actors, or at least Rename to Category:American gay actors, yet another triple intersection. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:LGBT actors from the United States. Otto4711 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:LGBT actors from the United States as the more comprehensive cat. Doc Tropics 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:American gay actors. Grouping LGBT is POV. Hawkestone 23:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How exactly is LGBT "POV"? Explain. Otto4711 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it simply reflects one movements view on which favoured groups should be combined. Why are paedophiles and necrophiles excluded? Hawkestone 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because only a jackass would seek to equate fucking children and corpses with being LGBT. Otto4711 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that there is a diffrence between a straight person and a LGBT person other than whom they choose to have sex with? Seems to me there isnt and that categorizing by sexual atrraction doesnt work, as some people are sexually attracted to things like rubber chickens. (Animedude 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Rename to Category:American gay actors per by nationality convention. Wimstead 04:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into all parents. Sexuality sometimes becomes hard to define, and specific orientation is usually already secondarily defined by profession and nationality.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:American gay actors. If there is doubt someone should be placed in the bisexual category (or better still not categorised in this way at all). Osomec 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:LGBT actors from the United States. Overcategorization. Xiner 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:American gay actors as Category:Gay actors is very large. Felix Han 20:19, 13 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 keep —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Estudios Churubusco films[reply]

Rename to Category: Films shot at Estudios Churubusco. JW 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep by convention of Category:Films by studio, the defining charactistic of this category is Estudios Churubusco, the studio that made them, no matter where they were actually filmed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The films were shot at Estudios Churubusco, not made by them, which is why the category name needs changing. JW 15:14, 13 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 no consensus —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Venona Appendix A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Venona Appendix B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Venona Appendix C (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Venona Appendix D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Category:Venona Appendix E (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Delete This category and its subcategories refer to the appendices in the book Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by Haynes and Klehr. In these appendices, various categories of known or suspected Soviet spies are listed, and these WP categories are collections of the biography articles of the names appearing in those lists. As noted in the content of Venona Appendix A, the usefulness and validity of these lists is disputed by some. The content of appendices B, C, D, and E are often dubious and based on suspect conclusions on the part of authors Haynes and Klehr. The Venona Appendix E category even includes names that aren't included in the actual Appendix E of Haynes and Klehr's book. Making this book and the content of its appendices into a category is POV, as it suggests that the book is some kind of canonical, indisputable source of truth; a view that is not held by scholars in the field. The content of Venona Appendix A (including the disclaimer in the text, of course) is interesting and useful, and should be made into an article. The content of the other appendix/subcategories is non-notable and should be deleted. KarlBunker 14:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as this is hopelessly POV and almost impossible to prove one way or the other. This information belongs in the book article or a list attached to it. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I haven't read the book, so I can't say for sure, but I think the lists are worth keeping if the authors were merely collecting names from other sources. For example, if the cat were "People mentioned in Venona decrypts", that sounds interesting and factual enough to keep. However, if the lists were "original research" by the authors (in the Wikipedia sense), then I'd be a little worried about POV and a lot more worried about WP:COPYVIO. See the perennial discussions on "top N lists", such as Fortune's Top 100 Places to Work. We can't just grab this book's list, unless it's really notable enough to qualify as fair use. In any case, these cats need renaming. --Quuxplusone 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quuxplusone may be right that the use of these lists represents a WP:COPYVIO. The lists are not straightforward transcriptions of names from publicly available documents. Rather, Haynes and Klehr applied their own research and conclusions to determine what names should be included in their lists. The reason for this is that people appearing in the "Venona transcripts" (which are publicly available NSA documents) are usually identified by codenames. Determining which codename represents which person often requires some creative research. KarlBunker 14:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - someone asked about this on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... and I offered my opinion there with regards to copyright. Facts are non-creative and thus not copyrightable. So if a book compiled a list of, say, every college football player who caught at least 10 passes each year, that may be an interesting fact, but it's still not copyrightable. On the other hand, if they are listing their 100 favorite college football players, we cannot use that. I don't know the subject matter, so I don't know if these lists are exhaustive lists of publically available information or if they are lists of people the author felt was important or otherwise creative. From reading what everyone is saying here, it looks like they are POV lists, which would be copyrightable. Regardless of copyright issues, I suggest delete - they are unencyclopedic categories. BigDT 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment what is to be done about all the bio articles in WP that use this Venona information as the factual basis for assertions that the person was a Soviet agent? Hmains 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see a problem. Haynes and Klehr's book is still a valid source of analysis and opinion, as long as it's described in the article as opinion. Probably a lot of these articles should be edited to avoid using Haynes and Klehr's opinions and analyses as if they were established fact, but overall, they're valid as articles. KarlBunker 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Presumably the Venona transcripts are from the US Government and once declassified would be in the public domain. As for the articles, we should certainly refer to what the transcripts actually said if that information is available. Capitalistroadster 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Provides a necessary and important index to articles describing the events and persons involved in known breaches of security in the USA. 71.100.6.152 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Capitalistroadster, you've ignored my comments. The lists in these categories are not a simple transcription of US Government documents or publicly available information.
• Comment: 71.100.6.152, your comment is factually incorrect. These people in these lists are not "known" to have participated in breaches of security. KarlBunker 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Without reading the arguments in detail, I would just say that organizing articles based on how they are listed in a specific book is not practical. Dr. Submillimeter 12:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then delete; the material here seems a good example of when to list rather than categorize. David Kernow (talk) 04:45, 18 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. David Kernow (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian Rapists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Was up for speedy rename, but this is a POV category (unless it's renamed to "convicted Italian rapists" which I am not proposing), and the only entry currently is an ancient Roman who therefore was not an Italian. If kept, rename to Category:Italian rapists. RobertG ♬ talk 11:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Italian rapists. Not POV and the Ancient Roman in question was Italian. Olborne 13:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. It was me who created this category. At present it only contains one person but it may well expand, I doubt if rape is a particularly unusual offence in Italy. This is the definition of the super-category "Rapists": "This category is for individuals who have been criminally convicted of rape, or those for whom there is little academic doubt among historians as to whether they committed the crime." While the history of the kings of Rome is largely mythical, the expulsion of the Tarquins may well be a historical incident, give him the benefit of the doubt. Assigning nationality to historical figures can be problematic in some cases, but Italians are relatively straightforward. "Italian people" and its sub-categories already contains a lot of people (e.g. some Renaissance artists) who pre-date the creation of a unitary Italian state in the 19th century. PatGallacher 13:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked, the category "Ancient Romans" is a sub-category of "Italian people", so this is presumably a well-established categorization accepted by most Wikipedians who have worked on this area. PatGallacher 13:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not POV. Italians can rape just as good as any other race/nationality. .V. 18:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to fix case. There's plenty of nationality categories in Category:Rapists, and the definition of that category sufficiently limits who can be included. Mairi 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename to Category:Italian rapists. There are no legitimate concerns about this category. Hawkestone 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category per precedent regarding any category that includes UNCONVICTED criminals. This can be libelous. Doczilla 20:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What precedent? We have loads of existing categories for rapists and other criminals. If there are libel problems in some cases then remove the person from the category. PatGallacher 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such precedent. On the contrary that position has been rejected muliple times as anachronistic, Western-centric and contrary to full and accurate categorisation. Osomec 19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename to Category:Italian rapists. Osomec 19:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Italian rapists to correct capitalisation. Keep, but edit category to clarufy that ut it is only for convicted rapists. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is now-centric. Hawkestone 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename due to capitalization. Xiner 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or it can be merged with Italian Criminals or similar category. -RiverHockey 22:53, 14 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 keep. David Kernow (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Category:New York Times people to Category:The New York Times people[reply]

rename subcategory on Category:The New York Times.--Wosmd 10:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at current name. "The X people" just sounds weird to native speakers, regardless of what "X" is. (Correct usage: "The staffs of the New York Times and the New York Post had a footrace. The New York Times people won.") --Quuxplusone 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quuxplusone Chicheley 16:06, 9 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 nomination withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hypothetical galaxies into Category:Galaxies

• Merge to Category:Galaxies - This was being used as a catch-all for a wide variety of objects, including clusters that may be galaxies, gas clouds that may be galaxies, galaxies that may be clusters, hypothetical objects, dark matter-dominated objects, and objects that may be false detections. This is effectively a recreation of Category:Uncertain galaxies, which was deleted because of its ambiguity (see the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 18 discussion). This category is not needed and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a counterpart for Category:Hypothetical stars, and other such things under the Category:Hypothetical astronomical objects hierarchy. I used the Hypothetical planet article as a guideline towards populating this category. (though dealing with galaxies rather than planets). See also List of hypothetical astronomical objects. Zzzzzzzzzzz 20:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment dark galaxies, Omega Centauri and G1 have all been proposed as "galaxies". Candidates for dark galaxies surely would be hypothetical galaxies, as the classification for dark galaxies as galaxies is not concrete. Zzzzzzzzzzz 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the heterogeneous nature of these objects, collecting them into a category is not useful. Is it really useful to group globular clusters with nebulae, or either of these with an object predicted by theory? Dr. Submillimeter 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Uncertain stars was renamed to Category:Hypothetical stars. Zzzzzzzzzzz 20:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category will not include enough materials to justify its existence. Merging it with accepted galaxies would be misleading. Xiner 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw my nomination - In a discussion with the category's creator, we have reached the conclusion that this category may remain as long as it stays focused on objects that are predicted by theory. Dr. Submillimeter 10:31, 13 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. David Kernow (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:X-Men animated series to Category:X-Men (TV series)

rename as X-Men (TV series). Ruwcsx2 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This category doesn't appear to be necesary. In general it's a bad idea for individual television shows and films to have their own seperate categories unless the category covers multiple shows/spinoffs/films or is otherwise somehow extremely important in television history. In this case, the articles in the category should probably instead be categorized or listed under either cast lists/categories or episode lists/categories. Dugwiki 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:X-Men episodes, and remove the main article from the category. -Sean Curtin 04:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. We can't categorize every X-Man based on every single program, game, comic, movie, ad, etc. they ever appeared in. Overcategorization. Doczilla 07:25, 14 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 X-Men Evolution, keep/no consensus re X-Men Evolution episodes. David Kernow (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:X-Men Evolution to Category:X-Men: Evolution
• Category:X-Men Evolution episodes to Category:X-Men: Evolution episodes

rename as X-Men: Evolution. Ruwcsx 08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:X-Men Evolution As with the X-Men category above, this category appears to be unnecessary. Cast lists can appear in the main article or in a cast list article, and episode categories can be categorized under Category:Episodes by television series. Generally speaking most television shows and films should not have their own unique categories. Dugwiki 20:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my remarks above about the X-Men: Animated Series category. Doczilla 07:26, 14 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 a rename to WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles per description on category's page. (This should not be the only category carried by these articles.) David Kernow (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Molecular and Cellular Biology to Category:molecular and cellular biology

• Rename, as above if this is supposed to be for encyclopaedic content, or else to Category:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and move this out of the article-space category structure, along with a number of similar such; this is really quite muddled. Alai 04:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either one sounds good to me. Dr Aaron 06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Molecular and cellular biology (as per WP naming conventions) if for encyclopedic content. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:WikiProject Molecular and cellular biology articles per other WikiProject categories and description on this category's page. David Kernow (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per SMcCandlish. Xiner 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As no-one seems entirely certain which is the actual intent, I'll play safe and say split, deleting this category, and creating two categories as discussed above (or give-or-take the actual name for the project-space version). Alai 02:33, 13 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. the wub "?!" 10:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:American veteran politicians or Delete. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Absolutely. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to correct the capitalisation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chicheley. Changing my vote, because the discussion below persuades me that this is a largely irrelevant intersection which creates a maintenance nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for reasons stated above (capitalisation). --JayJasper 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. We also have some new sub-categories to deal with now, too. Has anyone dropped a note on the creator's talk page? -- Satori Son 02:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See related December 9th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for uselessness. The vast majority of mid 20th century politicians were "veterans", as were hundreds from other eras. All of them should have at least one military related category, which is sufficient. These categories serve the POV purpose of burnishing the military credentials of certain politicians. Chicheley 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an irrelevant intersection. Hawkestone 23:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - its irrelevant, and those that are notable (John Kerry, John McCain) have nice long sections on their articles anyways.Bakaman 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to comply wiht naming standards. --StuffOfInterest 03:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as category clutter. Wilchett 15:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and subcat - I think it is useful to be able to categorize politicians who are also military veterans, as a gross class. I think the renamed (and merged, see Dec 9 discussion) category should be made a subcategory of the existing cat "American politicians". - Crockspot 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Personally, I found the name misleading: I expected it to mean "American politicians who have been politicians for a very long time", as opposed to "American politicians who were previously in the armed forces". Bluap 04:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a general rule all categories that connect two occupations should be deleted as category clutter. Also, as per Bluap the current name means "American politicians who have been politicians for a very long time" in non-American English as the word "military" is missing. Osomec 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; clutter. --tomf688 (talk - email) 04:08, 17 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 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: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia Bulldogs basketball players to Category:Georgia Bulldogs men’s basketball players

Category:Georgia Bulldogs basketball coaches to Category:Georgia Bulldogs men’s basketball coaches

Category:Georgia Bulldogs basketball to Category:Georgia Bulldogs men’s basketball

*Rename, to avoid confusion with the women's basketball team. This is part of a revised category hierarchy for the University of Georgia - see Template:UGAcats Tlmclain | Talk 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As long as the women's team is named the Lady Bulldogs, this category name is correct per all other subcategories of category:college basketball teams.--Mike Selinker 08:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Based upon the comments of Mike Selinker and a further discussion here and here, it is clear that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to rename these three categories. --Tlmclain | Talk 17:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've consolidated these topics after triplicate comments from Tlmclain and Mike Selinker. ×Meegs 16:04, 8 December 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 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: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Georgia basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This particular category is no longer needed as a result of a reorganization of the category heirarchy for the University of Georgia - see Template:UGAcats. Tlmclain | Talk 02:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. However this is arranged for the UGA categories, the current category should be the main category for Georgia found in category:College basketball teams, as the men's and women's teams are named differently.--Mike Selinker 08:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Based upon the comments of Mike Selinker and a further discussion here and here, it is clear that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to delete this category. --Tlmclain | Talk 17:49, 8 December 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 —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from November 25 CfD

• If kept or no consensus, reverse merge to Fictional characters based on real people. David Kernow (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 02:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'd like a clarification on these categories, because I see many, many things being covered here:
  • Actors portraying satirical versions of themselves (often using their actual names)
  • Historical-fiction portrayals of real people (using their actual names)
  • Satirical portrayals of real people (using their actual names)
  • Blatant parodies of real people (using different names)
  • Partly original fictional characters inspired to a large extent by the characteristics of some real person (using different names)
  • Category:Alter egos: fictional personas taken up by real people (with different names by definition)
• How are all these things going to be sorted out? Is this clearer to everybody else? –Unint 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per that point, how about "Real person parodies"?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with Unint. Both cat names are too vague, and we need more cats with more specific names. Any move or merge might as well wait until this is sorted out. (And "real person parodies" is a funny name; how many fake person parodies can you think of?) --Quuxplusone 23:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete broad, poorly defined category. Ultimately, most fictional characters are based on real people to some extent. Doczilla 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to create Category:Fictional analogues of real people. Many (but probably not most) of the most famous fictional characters are based on real people to some extent, but "

based on" can be a tricky area to determine. Limiting the category to direct analogues is probably for the best. -Sean Curtin 04:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Take both categories, plus Category:Alter egos, and Redistribute between Category:Fictional portrayals of real people and subcategories Category:Parodies of real people and Category:Alter egos of real people (replacing Category:Alter egos). Naming might be improved on; however, I think a distinction needs to be made between these three main groups. Furthermore, weed out "tenuously/possibly based on real people" characters like Charles Foster Kane and Norman Bates, as well as alter egos of fictional people. –Unint 20:54, 18 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 no consensus —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from November 24 CfD

• Perhaps too vague, but maybe rename to Category:Groups of people...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current name is clearer than Category:Groups of people, which doesn't hint at an upper size limit. Olborne 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I look at the current title and I say what the fuck. I look at "groups of people" and I know exactly what I'm looking at. .V. 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't use obscenities. Chicheley 16:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category is not for all groups of people. Chicheley 16:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, in lieu of something more effective, I guess it remains "Multiple people"... I wonder, though, whether the articles left after giving Pairs of people a category of their own and recategorizing "teams" would be too diverse to merit categorization...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This category is not suppossed to cover extensive groups. User:Dimadick

• Rename Multiple people will not be understood by many people. I can't come up with a solution off my head though. Xiner 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't believe there is a better option. Hawkestone 20:17, 13 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 —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Chadron State Eagles football players, convention of Category:College football players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:26, 8 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 —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see also relevent discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have spent most of this week reorganizing Category:Families according to the layout seen on the right side of User:TonyTheTiger#Categories Created. In particular, I have created Category:Families by profession, Category:Families by religion, & Category:Families by ancestry to supplement the already existant Category:Families by nationality. I moved the pages in Category:Roman Catholic crime families to the Category:Roman Catholic families subcategory of Families by religion and Category:Crime families subcategory of Families by profession. In retrospect, I think it will be more correct to replace the pages moved and make Category:Roman Catholic crime families a subcategory of both of these subcategories. By 5:00 PM Central on Friday all changes will likely be reverted. Note subcategories appear with redlinks at this hour because the two categories Category:Crime families and Category:Roman Catholic families were misspelled by their creators. They have been proposed for speedy rename. TonyTheTiger 07:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After further review. This is an unnecessary category. TonyTheTiger 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What is a Roman Catholic crime? If you mean Category:Criminal Roman Catholic families then I doubt anyone can incontrovertibly demonstrate that an entire family is or was criminal. Category:Roman Catholic Families with a criminal family member is a bit weak: I'm sure most families have the odd black sheep! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary examples are the Five Families. TonyTheTiger 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think ethnicity matters more than religion on that. Unless they kick members out for leaving the Catholic Church, which if so is not mentioned.--T. Anthony 14:51, 10 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 —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Crime families. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only one entry which is an empty subcategory also up for deletion. If kept, rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Crime families I had proposed this as a speedy rename. The subcategory will not be empty for long. I am replacing the Five Families in the subcategory. As stated above I have spent most of this week reorganizing Category:Families according to the layout seen on the right side of User:TonyTheTiger#Categories Created. In particular, I have created Category:Families by profession, Category:Families by religion, & Category:Families by ancestry to supplement the already existant Category:Families by nationality. I moved the (Five Families) pages in Category:Roman Catholic crime families to the Category:Roman Catholic families subcategory of Families by religion and Category:Crime families subcategory of Families by profession. In retrospect, I think it will be more correct to replace the pages moved and make Category:Roman Catholic crime families a subcategory of both of these subcategories. By 5:00 PM Central on Friday all changes will likely be reverted. Note subcategories appear with redlinks at this hour because the two categories Category:Crime families and Category:Roman Catholic families were misspelled by their creators. I proposed them for speedy rename, but they ended up here. TonyTheTiger 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. note that right now at least two populated categories would be parented by the renamed Category:Crime families (Category:Mafia crime families and Category:Outlaw gangs).

P.S. possbily rename as Criminal families and gangs. TonyTheTiger 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about a rename to Category:Organized crime families? It seems to me that these are just criminal organizations with a high degree of nepotism. It helps if you're related, but you don't have to be ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go along with that. The category has to absolutely be renamed to "Something families" to be consistent with the nomenclature. TonyTheTiger 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I have been asked to rethink my delete vote: I have rethought it, and stand by it. About the two candidate members for this category that TonyTheTiger proposes, Mafia crime families is fine as it is and has no need for a parent cat such as this, and articles in Category:Outlaw gangs need not be about families (Hole in the Wall Gang). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:48, 13 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 —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Comics - New Universe into Category:New Universe

Category:Marvel Comics - New Universe characters into Category:New Universe characters

• Rename. There is nothing else of note called "New Universe", so no disambiguation is needed — and the disambiguation format is improper in any case. –Unint 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psi-Force members

• Delete. Every other team membership category has been deleted per October 17 (and content is nonexistent in any case). –Unint 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom but Merge Psi-Force members into New Universe characters. Otto4711 07:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested. Delete the Psi-Force category--Mrph 23:23, 19 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.