Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 26 January 28 >

January 27

Category:Alleged puppet states

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Alleged puppet states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This category is inherently POV. Even with the word "alleged" it is a bad idea because it encourages users to make the implied statement that a state is alleged to be a puppet state without naming who made the allegation. It looks to me as if only one contemporary state (Iraq) is so categorized. A quick Internet search reveals that other states have also been alleged to be puppet states (including the USA, Britain, and North Korea) but I don't think the solution is to add them to the category. Boson 23:20, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Language Colleges in Buckinghamshire

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there are only 216 Language Colleges in the country, there is no need to group them by county. The pages in this list are in a national level category already. robertvan1 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did create the category, but I did it because I thought it was necessary. I still think it's necessary, regardless of whether you consider that being protective of it. It's a shame you didn't consider discussing it on the category's discussion page first, but I'm getting used to that as the Wiki way. Scribble Monkey 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You made no comment about the over categorisation point robertvan1 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you are suggesting that the category is subject to the Intersection by location guideline. However, Buckinghamshire schools share a common LEA, and I think that the categorisation is valid and certainly does no harm. Scribble Monkey 11:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is causing harm, because no other counties have their own category! If you start a job like this, you should finish it, or it ends up causing a lot of confusion and hassle. The far easier solution is a single, nationwide category. robertvan1 18:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to start somewhere. Perhaps more progress would be made if you didn't delete the categories (I see you are doing the same with Arts, but not with any other specialism, as they don't apply to your school) that are being created. Scribble Monkey 09:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be creating all the other categories once this is done with. I didn't want to start doing it my way, then have to change it if it was wrong. However, I have a feeling that this debate has already finished, but I will wait the compulsory 7 days before closing it. robertvan1 16:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that's it? It doesn't matter that I had organised all the Buckinghamshire secondary schools into categories; you decide it doesn't fit your view of things based on your school, and three people agree with you, so you're going to undo all my work? Would it really be so bad if Buckinghamshire secondary schools were organised by county? How many other counties have all their secondary schools in Wikipedia? Scribble Monkey 09:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not undoing, per-se. Just making it easier and simpler to list specialist schools. There are plenty of other secondary schools outside Buckinghamshire with a wp page. I agree with sorting comprehensives, private schools etc by county, but due to the small number of specialists, overcategorising them makes it harder for everyone. If my particular view is agreed to be the best by others, then it is probably not just my view, but the whole community's. robertvan1 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DfES do a pretty good job of listing the specialist schools at that level. This adds no value and removes a perfectly valid local perspective. You might as well not categorise the schools, but just create a Language Colleges in England page and link it to the relevant DfES spreadsheet. Scribble Monkey 00:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robertvan1 only created the Category:Language Colleges in England three days ago, and the fact that he has only managed to find 33 articles doesn't mean that there aren't any others. Scribble Monkey 09:21, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:South Africa by province

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 Speedy Merged. - Darwinek 17:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:South Africa by province into Category:Provinces of South Africa
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.

Category:Africa by city

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 Speedy Deleted. - Darwinek 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Africa by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy Delete, This category doesn't make any sense. Same user who created this cat created many "pearls" like "Morocco by city" etc. We have here perfect categorization in "Cities in XY" way. Other similar categories should be speedily deleted and I will do that as soon as the consensus will be given here. Darwinek 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. precedence was already made by speedily deleting ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Cape Verde by city. - Darwinek 20:44, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Project for the New American Century

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Project for the New American Century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:Dynamo

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dynamo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category brings together clubs named Dynamo, which are otherwise unrelated. There's also Category:Dynamo sports society. Category text duplicates dab page Dynamo. Conscious 19:58, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Fictional Scots

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: rename. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional Scots → Category:Fictional Scottish people

Rename to match parent Category:Scottish people and sibling categories such as:

I previously suggested this move as part of a different discussion, but got no response. — CharlotteWebb 19:43, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Music videos filmed in Italy

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Music videos filmed in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Filming locations of music videos are not notable enough for their own categories; almost all videos for singles by Italian artists could be placed in this category. Extraordinary Machine 19:32, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Long route concurrencies

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Long route concurrencies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe this to be overcategorization, and would be better done as a list in concurrency. NE2 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This may be overcategorization, but making a list in the concurrency article would (IMO) take away from the quality of the article. Maybe the list could be made in a separate article, as was done with List of unused highways. No vote on the cat. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, it doesn't have to be a category, but there needs to be something for these articles to fall under: a list or whichever. There's only 3 entries so far because I haven't really found anymore yet. It's hard to search for concurrency articles. I expect some of these concurrent route articles won't just be routes of the same type; i.e. Interstate and US route concurrent, so they won't really fit into the other categories. Combining the two route articles for a long concurrency could be efficient and will reduce repetition of information. Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong and there aren't that many long concurrencies. Actually, now that I think about it maybe "long" is the wrong word. U.S. 1-9 in NJ is only 30ish miles. Maybe a more proper title would be "Category:Concurrent routes" or something...strictly for concurrent route articles, not routes that have concurrencies. --TinMan 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The inclusion criteria are arbitrary. What is the definition of "long" in this situation? Are "long" concurrencies different from "short" concurrencies? Does a gray area exist between "long" and "short" concurrencies? This should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's just supposed to be for route concurrency articles, but not routes that have concurrencies. It just needs to be renamed and redefined. --TinMan 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It needs to be more clear and less vague. Needs a better name! Any ideas? --TinMan 04:46, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:Celebrities in music videos

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Celebrities in music videos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Actors in music videos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Singers in music videos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - trivial categorization, see also the deleted Athletes in music videos. Otto4711 18:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps you might want to make a properly-sourced list article instead. Assuming this is the sort of thing that belongs on Wikipedia, this is a case where a list would be preferable to a category. Otto4711 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then Why did I make a list of music videos made in a certain year and have it deleted? I feel that it is something that needs to be on one page and not looking for in each actor article Wikipedians cant have both ways.
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.

Category:Avifauna of Central America

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: rename. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Birds of Central America, see related nomination. -- Prove It (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 18:29, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Men writers

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Men writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Massively underpopulated. It would be tedious, or take a massive collaboration, to bring it up to standards. We ought to just merge it and go with the other subcategories of Category:Writers - or organise a project to populate it. Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 17:19, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Women writers

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See above. Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Delete and only upmerge the few that are not already in more appropriate subcategories of category:Writers?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly categorised and useful for women studies. User:Dimadick
This is the same as "Delete and only upmerge the few that are not already in more appropriate subcategories of category:Writers" above, is it not?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, yes, but since it wasn't the original proposal I had to spell out exactly which approach I was endorsing. Bearcat 23:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overbroad and not useful. Categories that target the author's genre or subject would be useful for women's studies; this simply indiscriminately lumps together every women from every culture who ever wrote on any subject in any manner, in all of recorded history. Postdlf 04:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I agree with Postdlf that lumping all these eras & genres together is problematic. But if it were to be broken down further (e.g., "Women writers of the X movement", "American women writers of the 18th century"), I suspect someone would come along & call it triple categorization. And yet those would be absolutely vital and useful and defining categories, which would fit into a "women writers" category. (maybe the problem is that these should just be container categories & not hold individual articles.) The problem is that identity categories are absolutely critical to studying fields (and not just women's studies), but the value of them varies across time and place. "Male writers" for example might really be a useful category in some literary fields & eras. --lquilter 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Comment - We should really keep this until there is broader discussion on the value & relevance of identity intersection categories. Approaching them in an ad hoc manner, then attempting to define some sort of "practice" or "consensus" based on the outcomes of the ad hoc votes is essentially leading us to a majority-vote system -- which is not what this is supposed to be. Moreover, having the discussions here, over and over again, makes for lengthy, simultaneously repetitive & incomplete, discussions, that swamp the discussions of other categorizing issues. --lquilter 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per commemts above. AshbyJnr 16:58, 4 February 2007 (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.

Birds by country

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: rename all of them. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Avifauna of Belize to Category:Birds of Belize
Category:Avifauna of Bermuda to Category:Birds of Bermuda
Category:Avifauna of Costa Rica to Category:Birds of Costa Rica
Category:Avifauna of El Salvador to Category:Birds of El Salvador
Category:Avifauna of Greenland to Category:Birds of Greenland
Category:Avifauna of Guatemala to Category:Birds of Guatemala
Category:Avifauna of Honduras to Category:Birds of Honduras
Category:Avifauna of Iceland to Category:Birds of Iceland
Category:Avifauna of Nicaragua to Category:Birds of Nicaragua
Category:Avifauna of Panama to Category:Birds of Panama
Category:Avifauna of Fiji to Category:Birds of Fiji
Category:Avifauna of Mexico to Category:Birds of Mexico
Category:Avifauna of New Zealand to Category:Birds of New Zealand
Category:Avifauna of the United States to Category:Birds of the United States
  • Rename all Most of the bird categories are 'Birds of xxx', and the parent category is Category:Birds by country. The names should be standardized either way, but I would prefer to move all the 'Avifauna of xxx' to 'Birds of xxx' rather than the other way around, since 'Birds of xxx' is already more commonly used, is less pretentious, and is perfectly clear. 'Birds of xxx' is also consistent with categories such as Category:Mammals of Australia. As stands, it is hard to categorize birds by country, since the categories are inconsistently named. Lesnail 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The rationale behind these categories probably needs to be considered, but, in the meantime, consistency in naming seems to be a useful thing.
Xdamrtalk 15:26, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:Disney villains

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: merge per consistency and precedent of several earlier instances of consensus on this issue. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disney villains into Category:Disney characters
  • It has nothing to do with whether I personally think they are villains or not. This is about the emerging consensus that use of the word "villain" to categorize fictional characters is improperly POV. Otto4711 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here's a concrete example (categorized as a "Disney's Aladdin villain," which would be a subcat of this cat): Iago (Aladdin). Iago starts out as Jafar's henchman, then switches sides for the sequel and the TV series. Iago spent more screen time as a "good guy" than a villain yet he's categorized as a villain. So the question is raised, is a single "villainous" appearance sufficient to permanently categorize someone as a "villain"? If not, why not? If so, how is it reasonable to discount the entire remainder of the character's history for the purpose of the "villain" categorization? What about characters who switch back and forth, like Emma Frost or Jean Grey or Magneto, who before the categories were deleted were categorized as heroes and villains simultaneously? What about someone like Namor who from his very first appearances switched back and forth between "good" and "bad" on practically an appearance by appearance basis? What about Galactus who operates on a morality beyond human comprehenson but who as written is a fundamental necessity of the universe? He was lumped into the "villains" categories too. What about characters who in some iterations are "villains" but in others are "heroes" but are reported within the same article? Why not go with the solution that doesn't require any judgment be made and categorize the characters factually as characters? Otto4711 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit you want to delete this just because the other villain categories were deleted and not because there is actually anything wrong with this one? 67.171.163.212 02:51, 4 February 2007 (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.

Category:Film villains

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: merge to "film characters" as a reasonable compromise, and per ample precedent cited of earlier consensus. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Film villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per all previous "villain" category discussions. Otto4711 15:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: who decides which characters are "villainous" enough to be included and which ones aren't? As has been discussed numerous times over the last several weeks, labelling a character a "villain" requires POV which is impermissible. Otto4711 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't troll me Otto, I said I agreed with Safemariner. Maybe those so-called "consensuses" were no such thing. Tim! 16:55, 3 February 2007 (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.

Category:Manga and anime villains

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: merge the lof of them. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Manga and anime villains into Category:Manga and anime characters
Category:Dragon Ball villains into Category:Dragon Ball characters
Category:Kirby villains into Category:Kirby characters
Category:One Piece villains into Category:One Piece characters
Category:Pokémon villains into Category:Pokémon characters
Category:Sailor Moon villains into Category:Sailor Moon characters
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.

Category:London Subway Stations

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: merge. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:London Underground stations, to match London Underground. -- Prove It (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Nicktoon villains

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: delete. "It's useful" is not a particularly strong argument, and even some keep-commenters note that this is ambiguous. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nicktoon villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Nicktoon characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - even if "villains" were not POV, categorizing characters by the network on which they appeared is a terrible idea. The characters should be categorized as being from their individuals shows of origin. Otto4711 15:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disney, Warner and H-B charcters jump shows, films and other source material in a way that to the best of my knowledge Nicktoons characters do not (not familiar with "UPA" so no comment). That is some justification for maintaining them, since many of the characters can't be easily categorized by a single show. I would oppose, for example, a "Toon Disney characters" category for the same reason, because categorizing characters by the network on which they appear is a poor choice. I would also oppose such things as "CBS characters" or "CW characters" or any other such scheme. Otto4711 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: who decides which characters are "villainous" enough to be included and which ones aren't? As has been discussed numerous times over the last several weeks, labelling a character a "villain" requires POV which is impermissible. Otto4711 01:29, 3 February 2007 (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.

Category:Series-specific villains

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: merge, per all the above. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disney animated features canon villains into Category:Characters in the Disney animated features canon
Category:Earthworm Jim villains into Category:Earthworm Jim characters
Category:G.I. Joe villains into Category:G.I. Joe characters
Category:The Incredibles villains into Category:The Incredibles characters
Category:James Bond villains into Category:James Bond characters
Category:Jewel Riders villains into Category:Jewel Riders characters
Category:Kim Possible villains into Category:Kim Possible characters
Category:Kingdom Hearts villains into Category:Kingdom Hearts characters
Category:Mickey Mouse universe villains into Category:Mickey Mouse universe characters
Category:Scrooge McDuck universe villains into Category:Characters in the Scrooge McDuck universe
Category:Static Shock villains into Category:Static Shock characters
Category:TaleSpin villains into Category:TaleSpin characters
Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles villains into Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters
Category:Transformers villains into Category:Transformers characters
Category:Disney's Aladdin villains into Category:Disney's Aladdin characters
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.

Category:Godzilla villains

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: merge per reasonings above. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Godzilla villains into Category:Godzilla characters
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.

Category:Fire disasters in the United States

Category:Building fire disasters in the United States

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: rename. >Radiant< 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fire disasters in the United States to Category:Fires in the United States
Propose renaming Category:Building fire disasters in the United States to Category:Building fires in the United States
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.

Transport in Africa

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: rename. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Transportation in Africa --> ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Transport in Africa
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Transportation in Algeria --> ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Transport in Algeria
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Transportation in Egypt --> ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Transport in Egypt
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Transportation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo --> ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Rename all. As for the parent category, vast majority of subcategories use "Transport" form (they were already renamed long time ago), so it would be illogical to keep parent cat in "Transportation" form. As for the rest, all countries mentioned above use standard "Transport" form, main articles also use this word for a long time.
Algeria: [1]
Egypt: [2]
Democratic Republic of the Congo: [3]. - Darwinek 11:07, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Legendary Toronto Godspell Cast

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Legendary Toronto Godspell Cast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:People with absolute pitch

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with absolute pitch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - According to the Wikipedia article, absolute pitch is defined as "the ability of a person to identify or sing a musical note without the benefit of a known reference note". While the information is useful, its implementation as a category in very awkward, as half of the category is a referenced list. The references also seem questionable; some of the referenced information originates from http://www.perfectpitchpeople.com, a commercial website selling books and other materials related to "perfect pitch" that wants to demonstrate the prevalence of the phenomenon. This information belongs in an article, but the awkward implementation demonstrates that it is inappropriate for a category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Verifiable, non-trivial, and a notable characteristic of musicians and composers. I see no difference in the value of this category compared to anything in Category:People by medical or psychological condition. I don't know what is meant by "implementation as a category is very awkward". The referencing can only be a good thing, and if the referencing is poor, that is outside the scope of a category deletion debate. –Outriggr § 08:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because "absolute pitch" can be a transient quality and many, many people who reportedly have perfect pitch have not been confirmed to have it. At best, you'd have to rename the category to something like "People alleged to have perfect pitch". But try to define "perfect" or "absolute". The words just are not that concrete. A list might be useful to anyone wanting to research the phenomenon because a list will require external sources so we can at least evaluate the validity of this claim. However, even a list will have POV and V problems because pitch is more subjective than one might think. Doczilla 08:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: There is extensive interest in this topic. For a time a list was kept at the absolute pitch article, but it was an annoying magnet for spam. The references on this page appear because there is no easy way to add a reference for a category in the article itself (short of adding a comment about the category somewhere in the article, and adding a citation there). The category page itself seemed a reasonable place to put it. As for the linking to "perfectpitchpeople.com", there are only two links to that site, and I don't see any advertising on the linked pages other than directly for the artist's work (the pages don't appear to be advertising books related to perfect pitch). This category page is a bit of a spam magnet, but as I've said, there is extensive interest, and myself and others have managed to keep this page clean. - Rainwarrior 09:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This connects random musicians on the basis of not necessarily reliable comments about an attribute they may have had at a certain time. It is not a defining characteristic. Pinoakcourt 13:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – despite the name, absolute pitch is a subjective label, and one that is often applied casually. I don't support it either, but if we are represent this set, it must be in list form, and with high quality references. Incidentally, I checked 20 articles from the "category" section (C through H), and only three of them mentioned the term (and one of them was tagged {{fact}}). ×Meegs 15:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether someone has perfect pitch is a good thing to put in articles, but the category is not useful and is very unwieldy and problematic. Lesnail 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fact that it's difficult to place in the article simply highlights the fact that this is not a defining feature. I too think it's very interesting & thought about it carefully, but a list is the right way to handle this. The spam-magnetness of the list suggests other solutions, such as semi-protection. I wish to reiterate that categories are very difficult to police appropriate inclusion or exclusion therefrom. If it's not mentioned in the article, I for one would have great difficulty in determining whether or not to take off a recently anonymously added Category:People with absolute pitch tag. A list can require individual sourcing. --lquilter 16:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lesnail. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to nominate it. It's fine. It's descriptive. It's of interest to someone reviewing that topic. What's the problem? –Outriggr § 20:26, 3 February 2007 (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.

Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:Diabetics

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: do not rename. Since several people suggested deletion, I'll renominate them for that under today's listing. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Diabetics to Category:People diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Diabetics by nationality to Category:People diagnosed with diabetes by nationality
Rename Category:Fictional diabetics to Category:Fictional characters with diabetes
Rename Category:American diabetics to Category:Americans diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Argentine diabetics to Category:Argentine people diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Australian diabetics to Category:Australians diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Austrian diabetics to Category:Austrians diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:British diabetics to Category:British people diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Cambodian diabetics to Category:Cambodians diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Canadian diabetics to Category:Canadians diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Egyptian diabetics to Category:Egyptians diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:English diabetics to Category:English people diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Ethiopian diabetics to Category:Ethiopians diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Filipino diabetics to Category:Filipino people diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:French diabetics to Category:French people diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Italian diabetics to Category:Italians diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Nauruan diabetics to Category:Nauruans diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Scottish diabetics to Category:Scottish people diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Somali diabetics to Category:Somali people diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:South African diabetics to Category:South Africans diagnosed with diabetes
Rename Category:Vietnamese diabetics to Category:Vietnamese people diagnosed with diabetes
  • Rename Category:Diabetics and its subcategories because "diabetic" is an adjective. Using it as a noun is professionally inappropriate. Even though you'll hear some professionals misuse the term, they should know better. People are not their diseases. Doczilla 07:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. The Nauruan and Vietnamese categories are empty and may qualify for speedy delete. If they are not deleted, however, the suggested rename stands. Doczilla 08:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • F.Y.I. for anyone who just wants to vote to delete the whole lot: Several of these categories recently survived CfD nomination. So this time, please focus on the name. People who want to discuss deletion can always try again later. Doczilla 08:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all The current names are normal English and it sounds like professionals are coming round to its convenient brevity. Pinoakcourt 13:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all people who have diabetes are diabetics. How is this different from Category:Amputees?. -- Prove It (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all Use of 'diabetic' as a noun is included in the Oxford English Dictionary with examples dating back to 1840.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
    • This isn't 1840. A lot of nouns that got used for people in 1840 are no longer appropriate. Obvious examples can be seen in words used for members of different racial and ethnic groups. Plenty of nouns still in the dictionary nouns are not appropriate for Wikipedia categorization. For example, you're not going to find a "Negro" category even the dictionary still defines the word. Doczilla 17:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with the political correctness that people are not their disease, but also would like to point out that people are not their nationality, as in the numerous proposed and existing "Australians with X" or ""Americans with X" categories. But we have to try to make categories work in a practical way, and people are, for better or worse, generally known in English as "Americans" and "Diabetics". Proposal seems likely to generate a lot of needed "don't use this category" blank categories, policing of those blank categories, and so on. --lquilter 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Australians" and "Americans" thing did cross my mind even as I typed them. For those I referred to other categories to see what appeared to be the most common wording. Medical professionals are trained to avoid using nouns like "diabetic"; they are not trained to avoid using nouns like "American". Doczilla 17:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave all - a diabetic is a person diagnosed with diabetes; shorter titles are better. Pcu123456789 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no consensus is reached, another option would be to compromise and use "diabetic" as an adjective, e.g. "Diabetic Italians." --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that won't work. Compromises are not supposed to sound worse than the two opposing sides they seek to bridge. Picaroon 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. Regardless of the correctness of its use as a noun, "diabetics" is widely used for the purpose of referring to people with diabetes. Picaroon 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming. Wikipedia should reflect reality, not seek to shape it. I realize that there is a movement to not use terms like "diabetics," but until that movement "wins," Wikipedia should not take sides and simply use the accepted English. Doing otherwise will lead to chaos, as everyone takes their favored spin on a term and propose renaming based on it. SnowFire 03:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RENAME PER WIKIPEDIA MANUAL OF STYLE.[4] but with "people" in each category name for consistency. It is not shaping reality to say that they are people diagnosed with diabetes. That is perfectly accurate and is terminology everyone uses without disagreement. There is not universal agreement regarding diabetics as noun. The Wikipedia Manual of Style's medical section clearly states: Be careful not to define a person or group of people by their medical condition. For example, seizures are epileptic, people are not. Wryspy 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I see you are stopping by talk pages, I figured this would merit a response. First, that is a proposed guideline and a fairly young one at that. The line you are referencing was added only about three months ago on a not heavily-trafficked page. And, to put it bluntly, I don't agree with that and would support its removal even from a proposed guideline. Look at the line introducing that sentence: "Ensure your language does not cause offence." "Ensure your language does not cause offence?!" That sounds like a formula for choking off a gigantic amount of content at Wikipedia, and causing tortuous rewriting. People can and will take offense at anything, but Wikipedia is not censored. "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." There is no good way through the offense minefield; Wikipedia is going to be causing offense no matter what. The only reasonable standard to set is typical English usage.
Again, I'll note that when "person with diabetes" displaces diabetic as common English usage, by all means reintroduce this proposal. But, having known diabetics myself who had no problem using the term, I don't think that time is here just quite yet. (Edit: And just to clarify. If you are hanging your hat strictly on the "it's grammatical" argument, you are correct that diabetic is an adjective, but it's also a noun. Merriam Webster's #2 definition is "affected with diabetes." So "Bob is a diabetic" is grammatical, too.)SnowFire 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline exposes the kind of silly politically correct thinking behind this proposal. My dad is a diabetic, and I know how he would vote. There are still a lot of rational people in this world who don't waste their time going around looking for opportunities to be offended, and as far as I am concerned those that do damn well deserve to be offended often as their politically correct intimidation and censorship offends me every day. ReeseM 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all as political correctness gone mad per above. ReeseM 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per all professional style guides. (Though, I'd prefer People with diabetes as the diagnosed bit is clumsy and superfluous). First: yes WP:MEDMOS is just a proposed style guide (note: guideline not policy). Please feel free to comment over on its talk page. Those who equate encouraging good style with censorship are IMO missing the point. A quality newspaper will hopefully censor rarely and may use language many find offensive – that doesn't stop them having a guideline of not deliberately, gratuitously or carelessly causing offence. For example: The Guardian Style Guide says on Epilepsy:
seizures are epileptic, people are not; so say (if relevant) "Mr Smith, who has epilepsy ..." not "Mr Smith, an epileptic ..." In the Guardian, we do not define people by their medical condition.
Professional style guides commonly advocate the so-called Person First terminology. See the oft cited Guidelines for Non-Handicapping Language in APA Journals. Those who think everyday speech is acceptable in an encyclopaedia obviously live in a very polite and formal society. Formal, professional writing is careful. We all need to be reminded from time to time to "take care", particularly when writing about the marginalised and disadvantaged. Whilst "offensive" writing may be tolerated on Wikipedia, for good reason, I think you'll find that "offensive language" is swiftly dealt with as it would in any encyclopaedia. They are not the same thing.
Wrt to diabetic: the argument against the noun is not as strong as some medical conditions. For example: Encarta regards the term epileptic (noun) as offensive, but not diabetic. My theory is that this is related to how stigmatised the people group are or were. We didn't send people with diabetes (or e.g. coeliac disease) to institutions the way we did with those who were mentally unstable or impaired. You wouldn't think of calling someone a retard, cripple or spastic. I can appreciate how someone may be quite comfortable with being labelled diabetic (e.g., this person). I note that the Diabetes UK charity uses "people with diabetes" almost exclusively, and the Journal of the American Diabetes Association: Instructions for Authors says "The term diabetic should not be used as a noun." Colin°Talk 16:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What I meant was that diabetic is still accepted as a term for diabetes in accepted formal English (for example, see this NYTimes search). I agree that usage in informal English counts for less (where diabetic wins by a much larger margin). That said, I very much disagree that diabetic somehow "gratuitously" causes offense. Does "Albert is a Chicagoan, businessman, and diabetic" somehow trivialize Al as "just another Chicagoan" as well? If so, then there's a LOT of things to rename and rephrase.
I don't want to get too much into the morass of debating the merits of person-first terminology, as that isn't something we can cite Wikipedia policy on and will probably turn into an Internet forum style discussion. I will only say that you're probably correct that "diabetic" will be "offensive" in 10-20 years. It only takes a small number of people to decide something is offensive (note: Your cited style guides) to start a ripple effect where you can avoid conflict and angry letters by using the "new" term. And I think few people object to "person with diabetes," so the term of least resistance will win, even if it means exactly the same thing in English. Your example of "Retard" is good on this: in the 1950s, retard may well have been a neutral way to describe a mentally handicapped person, and not insulting like "feebleminded" (and would have been appropriate for a 1950s Wikipedia). As the usage fell out of favor in higher circles, it became such that the only reason to use it nowadays is to be intentionally provocative and/or offensive. So "retard" is not appropriate for modern Wikipedia. However, people identify as diabetics and are called diabetics all the time without any intent to be offensive currently, so "diabetic" is currently appropriate for Wikipedia.
Also, Colin was the one who added the line being contended to the proposed MEDMOS in the first place- which is fine, of course, just wanted to point that out. SnowFire 18:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not supposed to set the agenda for ten or twenty years time. Sumahoy 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all, not a defining characteristic. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all This world is topsy turvy when people want to keep this category but people want to get rid of fictional villains! A person's misfortune in being a diabetic should not be trumpeted out. This information should be considered private and personal and people should respect the privacy of diabetics. If diabetes affects a persons public life, it may be mentioned in an article about the person but grouping diabetics together like this is an invasion of privacy, ghoulish and cruel. What is next, a list by country of people with bipolar disorder, AIDS, Tuberculosis, Leprosy, Alzheimers? --- Safemariner 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All - its scientific and referenceable, in that someone is or is not. Its something which in recent times was a major contributary factor to a cause of death. Its something which other diagnosed diabetics would regularly search for - its a resultantly a useful support mechanism. Much as though the style manual should be used as the guide, in this case I think the precedent of English should be used as convention. Rgds, - Trident13 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Most people are not notable because they are diabetic. They are notable for doing other things. Categorizing by health condition just does not seem meaningful. Dr. Submillimeter 22:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all "Diabetics" is standard English and Wikipedia is controlled by ordinary people, not the politically correct liberal elite. Piccadilly 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normal people also say, "That guy has diabetes." It's not always, "He's a diabetic." In everyday conversation, it's both. Is your only reason for opposing it an aversion to "political correctness"? How about we say what is medically most correct? Doczilla 08:02, 1 February 2007 (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.

Category:Turkish Olympic medalists

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Turkish Olympic medalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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.

Category:Nobles

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 speedy delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nobles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - We just deleted this on after a CFD on Jan 10th & already it's back again. This category is redundant of the preexisting, well-established, and fully sorted Category:Nobility tree. It should be deleted. lquilter 05:19, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:L.A.W. members

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: delete. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:L.A.W. members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, As per precident, remove superhero/villain team category and replace with a list. J Greb 04:54, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Afterlife

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: merge. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Afterlife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A very small (populated with one article) category, it is for practically the exact same topic as Category:Life after death. I recommend merging the two. Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 04:37, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Christian fiction

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: lack of consensus; this issue may need clarifying. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Christian fiction and allegory. -- Prove It (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Fictional priests

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: merge. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Fictional priests and priestesses. -- Prove It (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:1958 NCAA Division I-A football season

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: rename. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:1958 NCAA Division I-A football season to Category:1958 NCAA Division I football season
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.

Category:Caribbean lawyers

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: no consensus. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as intersection by irrelevent region. It makes much more sense to categorize them by county, than by geography. -- Prove It (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "county"? Do you mean by country? Doczilla 08:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was aware of the Caribbean Court of Justice etc, but my understanding is that, other than these superior courts, the nations retain their own legal apparatus. This includes independent national Bars/solicitor's bodies. If a pan-Caribbean Bar etc has been formed then I would agree with your strong keep, categorising as I advocated above, under the legal system rather than the nation.
Xdamrtalk 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Caribbean, as a boundary, only works if the institution itself is pan-Caribbean. In the case of lawyers, this means that there should be a pan-Caribbean Bar and a pan-Caribbean solicitor's body. Only then can there be said to be 'Caribbean lawyers'. So long as the two are regulated by the individual states and lawyers continue to pertain to one legal system or another, this unified category is inappropriate.
Similar circumstances apply to other countries, such as the UK. Both England and Scotland have their own legal systems. Scottish lawyers cannot practice in England, English cannot practice in Scotland. They are categorised separately as a result, despite the fact that the two jurisdictions share their highest civil court, the House of Lords. My understanding is that the same circumstances apply to the Caribbean nations, as such, it isn't correct to group them together.
Xdamrtalk 03:17, 1 February 2007 (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.

Category:Heartbeat (TV series) connections

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: rename. >Radiant< 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Heartbeat (TV series), to match Heartbeat (TV series). -- Prove It (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_27&oldid=1138388116"