Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 9

< October 8	October 10 >

October 9

Category:Photography museums

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photography museums into Category:Photography museums and galleries

Merge, upmerge to avoid overcategorization. Recury 23:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Overcategorization. —Xanderer 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Unnecessarily split. Postdlf 00:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and leave {{categoryredirect}}. David Kernow (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Photography books

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Photography books into Category:Photographic collections and books

Merge, upmerge to avoid overcategorization. Recury 23:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Overcategorization. —Xanderer 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a case for Category:Photographic X (meaning Xs containing photographs) and Category:Books on photography...? David Kernow (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand. What would be an example of Photographic X? Do you mean having Photographic collections and Photography books seperate? Recury 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking whether it was worth distinguishing between books that (primarily) contain photos and books that are about photography; sorry not to express this more clearly! Regards, David (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think in a lot of cases it would be really tough to make the distinction. One of the most important books on photography is Henri Cartier-Bresson's The Decisive Moment (which somehow doesn't have an article yet!). I've heard it talked about a lot for what it says about photography, but it also consists mainly of his photographs, so you can see how books like that might create a problem there (and there are a lot like that, maybe even the majority among "fine art" photography). I think in the end it would be more trouble than it would be worth. Plus we only have like 26 articles in these categories anyway, so it's not like multiple categories are really necessary quite yet. Recury 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking again, the distinction seems more appropriate for a library than for an encyclopa/edia. Thanks for your thoughts, David (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Anti-gay rights media personalities

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added Anti-gay rights politicians to the discussion since both were created by the same user and have the same issues of NPOV. Gdo01 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per After Midnight —Xanderer 23:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Supporters/critics of <issue>" categories. Which require citations/references. (I'm wishing I had a single button to push to add that comment. We seem to have so many of these.) - jc37 00:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes... in lieu of preventing their (re)creation, do you (and/or anyone else reading this) think a "People known for views on <issue>" category type might work...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not certain what you mean. As an allowable category? No. "known for" = needs citations. As a category of salted category names? I suppose that might be useful. (It will become rather large, I think : ) - jc37 01:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was thinking of the former, but assumed that each article would carry the relevant citation/s. On second thoughts, people may each be "known for" many views – opening the possibility of a proliferation of categories per article – so, yes, I reckon trying to accommodate this kind of categoriz/sation is probably in vain. Regards, David (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per immediately above. David Kernow (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while POV is a problem, the main problem is that it is impossible to provide a reference for the inclusion of a person in a category. The article should discuss the person's political views with appropriate citations; categories that do so without attribution possibly violate WP:BLP. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, categorisation by an opinion. If important it should be covered by the article. Pavel Vozenilek 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pov, possible even speedy as re-creation of Category:LGBT rights opposition (CFD 2006/Sept/18). -choster 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, create a new speedy criterion for such cases. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV LaszloWalrus 22:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LaszloWalrus is absolutely right. It's an "inherently POV" category. -- Freemarket 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because "rights" is too broad while "gay" is too specific.--T. Anthony 01:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one ever gives adequate criteria for categories such as this. Always pov. Jasper23 02:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and circumventing BLP sourcing rules. --Tbeatty 06:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. D e lta Tango | Talk 12:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brammen (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 October 2006
Delete potentially libelous category. Doczilla 17:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Piyo

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Piyo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't know what this is supposed to be (no article about Piyo), but it contains only images and Wikipedia is not a photo sharing service. Brammen 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have left this for the category's creator. (Perhaps worth making into a template – unless one already exists...?) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a red link on a lot of images so I created the category. It was on Special:Wantedcategories -AMK152 00:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh, I get it now. The uploader of the images in this category is User:Piyo. Delete as a user category. Recury 14:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Opponents of capital punishment

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising people by opinion. Includes mostly politicians whose stance could change. Subcategorised into Category:Activism. Greens inluded en-masse.

The category Category:Supporters of capital punishment may be somewhat more useful (not being in vogue) but IMHO could be considered too. Not on CfD before. Pavel Vozenilek 18:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a defining characteristic. If a person's only notable characteristic is their absurdly vocal opposition to capital punishment, we could just add them to a general sub-category of capital punishment rather than one solely for opponents, or just interlink them. --tjstrf 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: either delete or rename to Category:Politicians opposed to capital punishment. — Reinyday, 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Both this category and Category:Supporters of capital punishment --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Stupidly simplifies positions into binary fields (Eliot Spitzer, for one, only supports capital punishment for cop killers and terrorists), and assumes that holding an opinion on this issue means you should be defined by it. If an individual's position on capital punishment is important to that individual's life, their article will explain it. This is also something that should be sourced, so we know whether we're basing their supposed position on their voting record or rhetoric. Postdlf 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, create a new speedy criterion for such cases. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as Postdlf alludes a binary division for this and for most issues is too simplistic to be informative.-choster 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The criteria for inclusion is clearly stated, and all these entries have citations supporting that they endorse capital punishment. As for the argument that this position shouldn't be all they're known for: these entries are known for many other issue stances, and following this rationale all categories besides "politicians" Would be deleted. [[User:Treybien 15:58 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Cf suggestion in #Category:Anti-gay rights media personalities discussion above. David Kernow (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irrelevant and far too complex of an issue to be catorized. -- Freemarket 23:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one ever gives adequate criteria for categories such as this. Always pov. Jasper23 02:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete might chane to rapidly. D e lta Tango | Talk 12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another "supporters/critics of <issue>" category. - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such categories can't allow for shades of grey or changes of mind. They reduce debate from an encyclopedic level to a political level. Hawkestone 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 00:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Animal liberation movement

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 23:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Animal liberation movement to Category:Animal rights movement

Rename, The current title is WP:POV. Not all people supportive of animal rights (or even welfare) are supportive of the suggestive notion "liberation." Furthermore, Google Scholar shows that "animal rights movement" is much much more used than "animal liberation movement" (1130 hits vs. 178). Intangible 17:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as "animal rights" is much more common. — Reinyday, 20:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Rename to less emotive term. Brammen 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Animal rights" seems to be the more generally recognized phrase —Xanderer 23:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. David Kernow (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would seem to be an actual organisation name? See: Animal liberation movement. - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although one particular organiz/sation doesn't seem to be to focus of Animal liberation movement...?
If renamed, rename corresponding article Animal liberation movement to Animal rights movement. David Kernow (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Comment - I agree that the article and category should have the same name. Do we have any references/citations one way or the other? - jc37 06:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - after looking over several webpages, I think: category:Animal advocacy movement seems to be the inclusive term. "Liberation" is a POV term, and "rights" isn't inclusive enough. I can go more into detail if anyone wishes. - jc37 06:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be renamed as well as the category, perhaps Animal rights movement is what the "majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"...? (I agree, however, that "advocacy" echoes other categories...) Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the term here. - jc37 01:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "Animal rights" is the term I have heard. Perhaps "animal advocacy" is American English. Hawkestone 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rachael Ray

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rachael Ray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unique categories for individuals is generally a bad idea unless there are MANY articles on a variety of topics involving that person (imagine having 400 million categories, one per person). In this case, the category has a handful of articles, links to which all should already appear in the main article for Rachael Ray. Category is unnecessary. Dugwiki 17:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. That is what "see also" is for. Mapetite526 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Rachael Ray television programs" would help make more sense of this category. —Xanderer 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rachael Ray television programs would likewise be an unnecessary category for pretty much the same reasons I described above of it being a bad idea to create seperate categories for individual actors. Also, keep in mind that someone interested in seeing a list of all her TV shows could simply read her article. Making it into a category adds almost no benefit.Dugwiki 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I believe we have decided elsewhere that having categories for actors is not a good idea and this is similar (there are differences, like she will likely be the only one "acting" in any of these shows) but it really doesn't seem necessary yet. Just mentions the shows in the article. Recury 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Dug. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I think that this is different than the intersection of an actor with a fictional creative work (of which I would normally say delete). However, I think that in this case the category links are just as well served in an article. So, no preference. - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Minor media celebrities should not have categories because where they have connections to important people or things the result will be that those major articles are added to categories which do not represent defining characteristics for those more notable entities. Hawkestone 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all minor celebrities categories. Doczilla 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dictionary Corner

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

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

Category:Dictionary Corner to Category:Dictionary Corner guests on Countdown

Rename, (or similar name... open to suggestions -- Countdown Dictionary Corner guests?). As part of the Category:Countdown hierarchy this is OK, but the name makes little sense on the bio pages without clicking on the link. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a good idea to categorize people by a single appearance on a tv show. - EurekaLott 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would Category:Regular Countdown guests work...? (Are any guests regular...?) David Kernow (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think that Category:Dictionary Corner guests on Countdown is a bit long winded and something like the aforementioned Countdown Dictionary Corner guests is more applicable. The category shouldn't be deleted as 95% of the guests make regular appearances, especially in the 1980's, and are on at least four shows as that is how many shows they film in a day. (Quentin X 10:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per EurekaLott. Categories do not serve as a database tool or tags. Pavel Vozenilek 14:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibily listify. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Saying "Listify" doesn't help the category, since we have apparently no established guideline what the closer should do in that case. As far as I know, a result of "listify" equals a vote of "delete", unless someone interested makes a quick list. If I am incorrect, please explain/clarify. - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I am "on the fence" as to whether we should categorise guest stars on a television program. Any insight to other examples would be welcome. - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cities in Eretz Yisrael

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Eretz Yisrael" is a Hebrew phrase, the article on this is a redirect to Land of Israel.
We should categorise cities by states or other current political entities, not loaded concepts e.g. nobody is proposing to have categories like "Cities of Christendom" or "Cities of Dar al-Islam".
As the Land of Israel article makes clear, the borders of "Eretz Yisrael" are highly uncertain, so we could have lots of disputes about which cities go into this category. PatGallacher 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge with Category:Cities in Israel, per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge with Category:Cities in Israel, per nom. --Smerus 11:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's my category but decided to let it go, NOT per PatGallacher's reasons - there's NO POV about it, but because it will only have 2 categories ever, not needed. Amoruso 00:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks like it's already deleted per above. WOuld someone like to close? : ) - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. David Kernow (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Caterpillar

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Caterpillar to Category:Caterpillar Inc.

Rename, dismbiguation since caterpillar means larval butterfly or moth to most people. RobertG ♬ talk 13:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is empty except for two subcats, I don't really see the point of this cat. >Radiant< 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above - Also, to reply to Radiant, note that the two subcats have about ten articles each, mainly about specific Caterpillar products and VIPs. So there are probably enough combined articles to probably justify the category and its subcats.Dugwiki 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the need for those, but I don't see the need for the supercat. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. Wryspy 16:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Legit category, confusing name. Perhaps change to "Category:Caterpillar Inc people" —Xanderer 23:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Vegaswikian 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Corsica football team

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This a virtual association of football and don't needed of particular needed of sovereign. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alessio69 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do you know that is article and what is Category? Matt86hk talk 12:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mathew hk,

I read that you are working for Wiki Football project, so i understand that you candidate my article not avaialble for edit, but in this case I propose you that article propose our Virtul Association, and I never talking of a real federation of Foot.

Delete. Only one article. Looks more like a mistakenly place article than an attempt at categorization. —Xanderer 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Turn into an article, and then Delete. - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One more. Category:Corsican national football team I just want to say Corsica football team don't not exist (no official and non-official match) and not notable. And please see his edit on Italy national football team, Eritrea national football team, Somalia national football team , Ethiopia national football team, [Template:UEFA associations and Template:UEFA teams. It just a Vandalism. Matt86hk talk 13:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Georgian poets

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Georgian poets to Category:Poets of Georgia (country)

Rename: In English the phrase 'Georgian poets' is conventionally used to refer to a group of English poets in the period 1915-1930, and Wikipedia already has an article of that name about them. The proposed renaming therefore clarifies the topic of this category - I suggest adding '(country)' in case of further confusion with the US state. Smerus 08:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Brammen 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Smerus. —Xanderer 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional Scientologists

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Few fictional scientologists exist (only two currently have Wikipedia article and one of them is a cartoon character from a show known for not following continuity) and the likelihood of more coming into existance is low due to possible defamation concerns. I'd be willing to keep this category if more works of fiction chose to explore scientologist characters but the likelihood of that in the future looks slim. Gdo01 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though there are only two characters listed, it looks like this is part of a broader division of fictional characters by religion. So deleting this subcategory of that parent would leave these characters uncategorized under that scheme. (Now if you want to argue that fictional characters shouldn't be divided by religion, that's another topic....)Dugwiki 16:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category with almost no members. And on a separate note, the fictional character by religion categories are problematic because they are chock full of errors and assumptions (such as that all Middle Eastern characters are Muslim) and therefore stereotypes. Wryspy 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classing fictional characters by religion when it is not one of the major characteristics of their personality is probably a bad idea to begin with. If a character is a fictional priest of their religion, for instance, that's probably worth including, but if they are merely a member of a religion that's really not very noteworthy. --tjstrf 19:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I might agree that classifying characters by religion is debatable. However, as a procedural matter, that would be a seperate cfd nomination and debate. Meanwhile, as long as those categories exist, this particular Scientology subcategory is a tiny, but still probably necessary, part to complete that classification scheme.Dugwiki 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply You've never heard of running a test case? The whole point of CfD'ing individual portions of larger categories is that mega-mass-nominations are practically unjudgeable. By testing out a proposed standard on an individual category or two, you can see whether a mass nomination is likely to succeed. --tjstrf 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I could see being interested in how Scientologists are portrayed in fiction and this would provide a good way to get to those articles. It could also be turned into a list. — Reinyday, 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Dugwiki 23:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brammen (talk • contribs) 23:06, 9 October 2006[reply]
Weak Keep —Xanderer 23:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not convinced that, just because we have other religions listed in such a category, that all religions need to be represented, especially when the category in question just isn't necessary in this case. - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep --(trogga) 03:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Definite potential for expansion. -Sean Curtin 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Early settlers of the Ottawa area to Category:Settlers of the National Capital Region of Canada

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. as per reasoning below. "Ottawa area" is not strictly definable as well. -Mayumashu 07:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename. Better name. What's a "late" settler?. Luigizanasi 07:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something - Ottawa is a river... but NCR is not an appropriate name. 70.51.10.10 07:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and clarify —Xanderer 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Settlers of the Ottawa Valley. the Ottawa Valley is a fairly clearly defined area surrounding the Ottawa river on both the Ontario and Quebec sides, "from Mattawa to Hawkesbury" according to that article. (That is, from where the river turns from south-flowing to east, to just before it merges with the Saint Lawrence River.) It's relatively isolated on the North and South -- and would have been more so 150+ years ago. Pretty much all settlement took place along the river. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 05:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge as oxymoron. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Settlers of the Ottawa Valley per HKMarks. 132.205.44.134 21:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but not to "Settlers of the Ottawa Valley". Although the Ottawa Valley may technically be on both sides of the river, it is much more commonly used to strictly refer to the Ontario side. I would stick with the original proposal -- Settlers of the National Capital Region of Canada. Skeezix1000 12:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment at the time period we're talking about, Ottawa was at best a logging town, and not even called Ottawa. It was not the national capital, and the National Capital Region (Canada) wasn't called that until the Nation Capital Act in 1985. In fact, the NCR refers to a much smaller area. If "Ottawa Valley" doesn't include the Quebec side, how about Category:Settlers of the Ottawa Valley and the Outaouais? (See Outaouais region) Frankly though, as "Ottawa River" and "Outaouais" mean the same thing in different languages, I'm not sure it's necessary. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 13:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the name of the category has to reflect a geographical name that existed at the time that the settlers arrived. We should use the name that most clearly identifies the area in question for Wikipedia users. If we're bound by historic names, then "Settlers of Canada" should be renamed, because a number of them (including some already in the category) settled in areas that were not considered Canada at that time.

Yes, Ottawa and Outaouais generally mean the same thing, so you're right, that isn't a great category name.

I think the NCR is the superior name. But if it helps achieve consensus, I would say go with "Ottawa Valley", as long as there is an indication on the category page as to the extent of the valley. Skeezix1000 21:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also the issue that Quebec City calls itself the "National Capital".... --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 6 "National Capital Region" articles on Wikipedia, for various countries. That's why Mayumashu proposed Category:Settlers of the National Capital Region of Canada. I'm not sure how that causes confusion with Quebec City. Skeezix1000 11:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Capital Region is a horrid name for this kind of category. 132.205.44.134 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Early settlers of Canada to Category:Settlers of Canada

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per reasoning given below -Mayumashu 07:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename. Better name. What's a "late" settler?. Luigizanasi 07:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as settlers are "early" by deifinition. — Reinyday, 20:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Rename Settlers usually are there first. Well, unless you count the natives. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/merge as oxymoron. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Early Canadian feminists to Category:Canadian feminists

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. as per reasoning given in nomination immediately below. Mayumashu 06:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge'. Not many people in each category (yet). How do we know how punctual they are? Luigizanasi 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. "Early" has not been defined anyway. Wryspy 16:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Small cats, "early" undefined. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but I don't know how to word it. The definition of "early" with relation to Canadian feminism is if they were active before women were declared eligible to sit on the Senate in 1930 (which I think all the members satisfy). The parent category needs to be populated, but I'm sure there are enough living Canadian feminists to do that. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 01:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, though I really would like to say Delete all, as "supporters/critics of <issue>" categories. But since the entirety of category:Feminists isn't up for discussion, I'll withhold that thought at this time, out of fairness. - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Early Canadian business leaders to Category:Canadian businesspeople

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Pre-Confederation Canadian businesspeople --Kbdank71 18:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. the term "early" is not defined and to do so in the context of Canada would be original research (unless of course "early Canada" is a defined term with adaquet currency in Canadian historiography, but no such explanation is offered on the page.) "leaders" too is more problematic a term than businesspeople (or business people). eventually a clean devide could be made by creating a Pre-Confederation businesspeople page but for the meantime a merger is nominated here Mayumashu 06:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Pre-confederation Canadian businesspeople or something similar. I agree that the "early" term is not appropriate, but Category:Canadian businesspeople already has about 450 articles. We could then go in and recategorise the post-confederation types. Luigizanasi 07:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pre-confederation Canadian businesspeople or something similar. This is the sort of category that is going to become unmanageably large if nothing is done. Brammen 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "Pre-confederation" becomes "Pre-Confederation" per Canadian Confederation. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Pre-Confederation Canadian businesspeople per David Kernow. Hawkestone 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

DC Comics group members

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

The result of the debate was delete and listify --Kbdank71 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per categorisation guidance: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." This category is controversial in the criteria in which members are listed, some by their costumed name, some by their civilian name, with no conformity whatsoever. This category meets the criteria for deletion, with a comprehensive list replacing it upon deletion. NetK 05:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A baffling nomination. These are the most significant groups in DC Comics history, and their membership is well-known and uncontroversial. As to the straw-man issue of people being alternately listed by costumed name or civilian name, this is done because some characters changed costumed names multiple times: Dick Grayson, for example, cannot be simply called "Robin" or "Nightwing."--Mike Selinker 06:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (and delete). Since group membership changes a lot, a list would be the better format to show who joined and left in what order. >Radiant< 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with Radiant that a list would be useful here since it can provide additional information such as dates someone was a member, or whether or not the character is an active, inactive or reserve member. But such lists can be created in addition to the categories, so deleting the category wouldn't be necessary. Although I don't care if they're kept, I also don't see a reason off-hand why they'd need to be deleted. Dugwiki 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. A list can have citations for confirmation. A category cannot. Each category is redundant when the articles will indicate group membership. We have too many over-specialized comic character categories and need to clean them up. When almost everyone at Marvel has been an Avenger, the category means nothing anyway. When a superhero has been a member of nine different groups, the categories just crowd the bottom of the page until no one reads the category lists anyway. Categorization can also create confusion when an article covers four heroes who used the same name but only one was ever in a particular group. A list can specify which one it was. Wryspy 16:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are group member categories under other publishers, such as Marvel Comics; these should be discussed as well rather than only DC (and I don't believe those listed above are the only DC group categories either). Postdlf 16:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. Though this should go one step further and cover all of the comic book team categories, not just the three above. As to the first keep point, at this point the category tags have become an issue as multiple articles have been tagged, deserved or not. The result has been a game of add/delete tag tag across multiple pages. Converting to lists would in theory reduce this in addition to creating a "reasoning history" for inclusions/exclusions. — J Greb 17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. The people opposing might like to consider that this is coming from a prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Categories. Their membership is not "well-known and uncontroversial" as Mike states, it's fluid, arcane and subject to continuity and other matters, all of which are better addressed through annotated lists. Lists would also allow piped links which would allow us to contextualise which character was the member. These categories are controversial, cause numerous points of contention and it's a reasonable idea to consider deletion. These groups have at least twenty years of publishing history, in some cases more, which has ssen the membership rosters altered at various points to suit the publication points of the time. It might suit people involved in this discussion to know that there was a point earlier in the decade when Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were not considered by the publishers to have been members of the Justice League. Hiding Talk 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can handle, say, Mick Taylor in category:The Rolling Stones members, we can handle current and former Justice Leaguers in the Justice League category. Just because something was retconned doesn't make it uncategorizable as true.--Mike Selinker 20:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As much as there is a similarity of "Character by /team/" categories to "/music group/ members" or "/Television show/ cast" categories, there are differences.
    1) Some of the characters appear working with a team without a clear statement of membership sets the ground work for cat tags being repeatedly added and removed.
    2) The articles for the characters are splitting in such a way that awkward, erroneous, and double tagging is occurring.
    3) Retcons breed the game "edit tag" as #1, only worse.
    While the categories may have a valid reason for being, at this point they are creating controversy. — J Greb 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per usefulness of timeline (per Radiant). — Reinyday, 20:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep the only problem with these categories is, as far as I can see, issues of disambiguation of characters with multiple codenames who share a codename with other characters--and are therefore in articles under their real name, with no codename--a small proportion of characters overall. That's really an unrelated, case-by-case problem with the articles, which has only come up in the past few days, not a problem with the categories.

The categories are beneficial for linking related characters. Category tags on the page are, essentially, a link to a short list, and nothing else. I agree that all of these should have associated lists. The category can contain an annotated "List of... members" article, and the criteria for inclusion to the category can be cited inclusion on the list. However, lists and categories aren't redundant to each other. The Lists provide detailed roster information, timelines, and so on. The categories are alphabetical and short. (It's like this all over again... but in reverse... ageez... I dunna think I can handle it...)

Regarding DC's post-Crisis edict that Wonder Woman, Batman, and Superman were not members of the Justice League, that's really irrelevant. They were in it pre-Crisis. List of Justice League members, the first item in the JL members category, explains that... but Category:Justice League members has no need to. If they were ever members, they're in. Deconstructive retcons have no place in an out-of-universe perspective. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify - Up until now I had taken this to be a proper use of categories, but now that I consider it, the format that allows for notation is the best format for membership information. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepWe're not doing this to the Marvel Comics one. Brian Boru is awesome 22:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And you know this for a fact? It is common to only nominate a portion of like categories to 'test the waters' since these nominations take a lot of work. Usually related nominations will follow if the first group results in a decision to not keep. Vegaswikian 22:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Marvel categories, there seems to be more conformity as to whether alter ego or costumed identity is listed, with rare exceptions. Additionally, retcon memberships (as mentioned above) are not an issue with Marvel teams as they have been with DC teams. NetK 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, see: this discussion for one Marvel teams approach. (fair warning, it's rather lengthy). - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and listify The membership of most of these is not controversial, and it seems to be a bit of an overreaction because of a debate about whether the code name or the given name should be in the category. CovenantD 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there are more issues involved than provided in the initial premise of this deletion request. With that said, whether it is an "overreaction" is one point of view, but not that shared from the above comments. NetK 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please specify other issues? --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 01:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - To reiterate above: 1.) Membership is fluid, arcane and subject to continuity; 2.) Lists allow piped links to contextualise which character was the member; 3.) These groups have seen their membership rosters altered at various points to suit the publication points of the time; 4.) Lack of consistency between whether the alter ego or the costumed identity is listed, making for an uneven category you would never find in an encyclopedia or any publication reference from the publisher (DC). Shall I continue? NetK 02:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No need, I'll skip straight to rebuttals :) 1) Membership fluidity and continuity are irrelevant, since we're taking an out-of-universe, literary present stance. Past memberships count, no matter if they're written out. 'Arcane' is a bigger problem (I guess by that you mean "were they or were they not members?"), if it's a problem, but I can't think of any cases where it is. Examples? 2) Lists and categories are not redundant to each other. The list should be the first item in the category, allowing for annotations. It is even possible to treat the category like an article and annotate it directly, or on the talk page. 3) As with #1, irrelevant. 4) Seems to be the only one that matters. But I don't think it does. IMO, it should be on the alter-ego page, and only there, if there's a question of disambiguation. For characters that share articles, {{Superherobox}} templates will clear up any remaining ambiguity. Most importantly, this is probably the most reasonable way to subcategorize a large group such as Category:DC Comics superheroes, which would be extremely unwieldy otherwise--especially for characters who have only appeared as members of a team. Can you think of a better one? --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, you seem to be missing a few things here. Whilst it's fine to say that as we take an out of universe approach, we need to look at whether this information is best presented through categorisation. Lists are more suited for the many reasons already detailed, and it seems over-categorisation to both listify and categorise. As to sub-categorising Category:DC Comics superheroes, if we are taking a literary, out of universe approach, then the best method is to categorise by date of first publication. This would solve many issues we are facing at the project with regards categorisation. So Category:DC Comics superheroes 1980-1989 would cover those heroes first published in that era, and so on and so forth. Hiding Talk 12:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I never miss anything. (Ha!) I'm not saying it's best presented by categorization. I'm saying it's best presented by both. While we could use dates, it's not user or reader friendly (and anyway, it's already being done, with categories such as Category:1965 introductions). Lists = annotated, chronological lists that detail what teams are together. Categories = alphabetical lists of characters that are easy to find and navigate for readers who don't need that context. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair play. I only suggested deleting at the project to try and focus minds on adopting a solution. I still think lists work better for this, but if we can get agreement on how to handle all of the other objections, I can see a way forward. Hiding Talk 13:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think #2 and #4 are also being taken care of with Netkinetic's recent work in splitting up articles that cover more than one fictional character, such as Huntress (comics) and Robotman (comics), making it possible for each individual to be correctly categorized. CovenantD 04:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it you would want it like this? [1]. We could also create new articles of the character there's now Huntress (Helena Bertinelli), Huntress (Helena Wayne and others. This whole category stuff is a bunch of nonsense. Brian Boru is awesome 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate category. —Xanderer 00:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please specify which category is legitimate and which is not, as multiple categories are referred to above. NetK 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to most of these being rather untroublesome categories to begin with, the overblown mass nomination here makes it impossible to accurately judge these categories on their own merits, making this CfD essentially worthless to any form of accurate decision-making. --tjstrf 00:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. My comment to start this off was about the JLA, JSA and Infinity Inc. I don't know whether it applies to, say, Darkstars.--Mike Selinker 02:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three initial categories were lumped together into one by Mike Selinker, they initially were listed separately, and another editor added other entries followed by my adding one or two currently listed. Stating this is "worthless" when all these categories are based of the same premise is a faulty argument. NetK 02:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that's no good. Regardless, they're all nominated now. I'll revise my comment to Keep all. (And then if Darkstars or something else is deemed pointless, it can be deleted on its own.--Mike Selinker 06:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I like team member categories - and their exsistence can supliment the exsistence of any lists that people want to generate. j-beda 14:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. Same thing should be done to the Marvel teams. It's just category clutter. The article itself explains which teams they have been on, there is no need for redundancy. Too many categories flood articles, team categories should go. RobJ1981 05:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify: Adding my vote now to the additional categories added by Lesfer (my view of the initial three is indicated in my nomination above).NetK 06:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify Smerus 11:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are those votes to listify? We already have articles with lists of members and the categories merely reflect them. Not the other way around. User:Dimadick
Delete. We're crowding these articles with categories, to the point that no one will read any category. Characters get incorrectly categorized. Category lists aren't annotated. They can't include citations that confirm whether a character really was in a group or just hung out with that group once. If a character was meaningfully involved in the group, the character's article will already say so. So what can the team membership category possibly accomplish that an annotated list cannot? Doczilla 05:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that as Lesfer has added several entries beside my initial three (JLA/JSA/Infinity Inc) and, as said co-nominator for the above categories, I would like to invite him to offer his vote yay nor nay. Nominating other categories for deletion would seem to indicate delete and listify by Lesfer, although only he can make that determination. NetK 18:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Netkinetic is making other articles like Superman (Kal-L) Superman (Kal-El), Green Arrow(Oliver Queen I) and others. Brian Boru is awesome 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which at this point is not relevant as said articles have been stricken and the status quo has been reverted, aside from Kal-L, which was pre-Crisis on Earth-Netk lol. NetK 18:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except for category:Green Lantern Corps members and category:Darkstars members, since each of those two is a different type of organisation. I think lists are better for the team memberships, since they can specify when, and how long, and under what circumstances a character was a member. - jc37 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. --DrBat 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:List of shopping malls in Maryland

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of shopping malls in Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This category is a duplication of already existing category: "Shopping malls of Maryland" and only serves to redirect to an article that itself is just a list...that does nothing for which the already existing category is already serving the purpose. ju66l3r 04:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge - Category:Shopping malls in Maryland is the obvious choice. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 10:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above Dugwiki 16:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Wryspy 16:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as above. — Reinyday, 20:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Merge —Xanderer 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge as a test. Vegaswikian 19:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Dates in baseball

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dates in baseball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, this category contained only articles about what happened in baseball history on a particular date. These have all now been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2 in baseball (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2 in baseball. It now contains only a navigation template for the deleted articles. The template is currently nominated at WP:TFD. Thryduulf 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Thryduulf. >Radiant< 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wryspy 16:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. — Reinyday, 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete —Xanderer 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all such things (as unmainatnable under current WP structure). Pavel Vozenilek 13:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Yonkers

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:People from Yonkers, New York, or perhaps the other way around. Are there any other Yonkers? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but Yonkers is (currently) a redirect to Yonkers, New York, so I guess Category:People from Yonkers should be
merged per nom. If so, leave a {{categoryredirect}}...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the idea of leaving a redirect ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either way. >Radiant< 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:People from Yonkers. — Reinyday, 20:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge per nom, leave redirect. —Xanderer 00:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People from Yonkers - while we have a weird convention of using the state name in all US place names, there's no benefit in extending that to an unambiguous category. Guettarda 13:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'll go with either way. As proposed, it would match most entries in Category:People by city in the United States. If we go that way, then we probably need to rename the other exceptions there. Doing the reverse merge would be acceptable since it appears to be an unambiguous category. Vegaswikian 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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