Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 7

< December 6	December 8 >

December 7

Category:High Rock

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: By the time you read this, this category will probably be empty, but even now it is for two articles that are probably soon to be deleted, and even THEN, a two article category? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now down to own article, on its way to deletion. Pagra shtak 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then there were none... speedy in a couple of days. 19:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:University of St. Thomas

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 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 debate was rename Category:University of St. Thomas to Category:University of St. Thomas (Houston). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of St. Thomas to Category:University of St. Thomas (Houston)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are multiple schools name the University of St. Thomas and I believe that some disambiguation is needed. Eóin (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the main article. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 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 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:Ancient Greeks by City-State and region

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 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 debate was Closing per compromise. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greeks by City-State and region to Category:Ancient Greeks by city-state

Nominator's rationale: No regions are listed within the category, only city-states. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thrace,Sicily are regions not just a city state Catalographer (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are categories you've recently created. Some of them should be renamed as well, such as Category:Ancient Thracian Greeks. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pergamum was a Kingdom, not just a City-State and existed before my edits Catalographer (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway if we let a category with only City-States then we should create a new category for regions

btw Aetolians had league not just a city-state Catalographer (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then let's create a Category:Ancient Greeks by region. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:10, 7 December 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 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:Television personalities by nationality

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 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 debate was keep as is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Television personalities by nationality to Category:Television presenters by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Merge. We currently have two very similar "by country" categories, one for TV presenters and one for TV "personalities". The latter is somewhat subjective (although by "television personality" I guess we mean "celebrity", that's where the article is anyway). It's also broader, but arguably too broad as it could include anybody who appears on TV. The problem is somewhat compounded by some countries having subcategories in both (e.g. Australia) and some having only "TV personalities" (Canada).

Having a category for anybody who appears on TV seems too broad to me, and I'm not seeing any value in maintaining both these categories. Therefore my proposal is to merge the two and to rename all subcategories to "presenters". I appreciate however that this is another difficult one, and it could result in an amount of miscategorisation in shorter than the long term, so I'm keen to hear other opinions. kingboyk (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. These are not the same. Presenters has been discussed in the past and presenters are their only unique group. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Presenters are unique, yes. But, some presenters are being placed in that category and some in personalities. If personalities was a high level category containing more specific subcategories - including presenters - it might not be so bad; but right now all we have is a mishmash of categories which contain mostly the same things. --kingboyk (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that some presenters may be winding up in the wrong category does not justify moving the vast majority who are correctly classified into a category that is totally inappropriate for them. Most of these simply are not presenters which has a very specific connotation in the countries that use it. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As below, language differences do not excuse category overlap. Secondly, a "television personality" is a "celebrity" == everybody on TV. The scope is too large unless the category contains only subcategories of types of TV personality, of which presenter is one.--kingboyk (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not all television personalities are presenters and "presenters" is far from universally used. I don't recall ever hearing an American TV host referred to in American media as a "presenter." "Presented by" in America usually means "sponsored by" as in the commercial sponsors of the show. Otto4711 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regional differences in language are no justification for having near duplicate categories! Why should a reader have to look in "TV personalities" to find a Canadian TV presenter and in "TV presenters" to find a Brit doing the same job?! --kingboyk (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not all "television personalities" are "television presenters." Merging the categories will result in people being miscategorized. Otto4711 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could switch all of these to the US usage which seems to be clearer about the various types of hosts. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Vegas & Otto. Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 8 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

(Response after closing)

Again, not all "television personalities" are "television presenters." Merging the categories will result in people being miscategorized. Otto4711 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is already happening; that's my entire point! Switching to a standardised usage would be better, yes, Vegaswikian. Right now it's a mess because there's no clear definition of what goes where (not least due to a US-centric attitude); I'm surprised and disappointed that folks think that's not a problem. --kingboyk (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buffyverse

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 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 debate was keep as is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Buffyverse, Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Category:Angel (TV series) to Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel

Nominator's rationale: I wrote the following on WT:CFD but got no response, so I am bringing my best idea for discussion here. If you have a better idea (or think the current category scheme is fine) please speak up :)

"The Buffyverse" is a slang term for the fictional universe of the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. These two shows have more in common than differences.

Currently, we have a Category:Buffyverse (slang, a mishmash of articles and subcategories); and below it we have a Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Category:Angel (TV series). I'm finding this messy and confusing; the overlap between the shows makes good categorisation difficult and what we have at the moment sure doesn't look good to me. --kingboyk (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if anyone can come up with a better scheme for this, and put it through CFD. The best I can think of is to merge and delete all 3 categories into a new Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. --kingboyk (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto Buffyverse - Buffyverse is used, and is the title of books, and the category already exists. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whetever else happens, oppose the name Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. I don't really see a huge problem with keeping all three categories. If they're "messy" then clean them up. But if there is consensus to merge then Buffyverse is the best choice as it encompasses both series. Otto4711 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Buffyverse is slang, albeit quite widely used slang. The official title of the series are (1) Buffy the Vampire Slayer and (2) Angel.--kingboyk (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I am aware of the origin of the term. The fact that it originated as slang does not mean that it can't now be used as a category title, especially in light of its extensive use in books and scholarship. I am also aware of the correct names of the two series. There is not, however, a series called Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel which is another argument against a truly awful suggestion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Agree with Otto4711 on the proposed category name. (2) Conceptually with two series in a shared universe the category structure seems fine to me. The problem described sounds like a clean-up problem not a conceptual problem. However, if these 3 categories need to be merged then either "Buffyverse" or something else named after the originating show could work (e.g., "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (fictional universe)"). "Buffyverse" is concise and has name recognition, which is worth a lot. (3) As for "slang", that just means words someone doesn't like. Wikipedia should use what is commonly used and what is clear and understandable. "Buffyverse" seems perfectly acceptable to me. --Lquilter (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Otto & Lq - looks ok to me as it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 8 December 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 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:BattleTech characters

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains only one article. Better as a list. Pagra shtak 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And the article it contains is... a list. It doesn't look like separate character articles ever existed. Gimmetrow 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 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 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:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award nominees

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: speedily deleted, per WP:CSD#G4. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as repost of deleted content, we decided against doing nominee categories. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4; has been tagged with {{db-g4}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:28, 7 December 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 and Non-Fictional Heroines

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inherently POV and nearly impossible to source, and way too broad in any case. Kolindigo (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe that it is not too broad in fact the heros category is more broad than the new one that was currently created. There are no other categories that give focused acknowledgement on women real or not that have or still influence people today.Mcelite (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

Delete. Ridiculous. Was added to Hillary Rodham Clinton; one person's "hero" is another person's villain. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People have their own opinions on who's a hero and who isn't. However, alot of people do look up to her for the positive changes that she has done. It's not like she George Bush.Mcelite (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

Delete OR; non-defining. I appreciate the intent, but Susan B. Anthony and Princess Leia, Eleanor Roosevelt and Coco Bandicoot in the same category. . .you can't get much more non-defining than this. The category description is clearly OR, and the creator's statement above 'to give focused acknowledgement to women real or not' is problematic at best. Maralia (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective, see also April 7th discussion. I think it's also a bad idea to mix fiction with reality. -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you guys propose? I believe it's a valid category and nothing else really focuses on the subject as the one I created.Mcelite (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

Start Heroinesapedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that you stop this. I didn't notice this category discussion until after I spent half an hour cleaning up after you. I'm sorry ... Celine Dion a heroine? I nearly bust a gut. DeleteKww (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too vague for a category. Is there also a heroes category? We should delete that one, too, if it exists. --Lquilter (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puleeeze delete. This looks to be very nearly "Females I've heard of and like." Someone must like swimming and track, but not golf or basketball. And someone must like games and science-fiction, but not novels. The "recentism" here is clear: Aaliyah and Alicia but no Aretha; Amanda Beard and Natalie Coughlin but no Janet Evans; Marion Jones who's been stripped of her times and medals but no Wilma Rudolph. The inherent selection bias by current popular culture does a disservice to women looking for '"heroes": no Jody Williams, Aung San Suu Kyi, Mother Teresa, Clara Barton, Grace Hopper, ... I'm very sympathetic to your idea of drawing attention to admirable women, but there is probably no reasonable way to do a "My female heroes". Best would be separate categories for "Female science fiction characters", "Female video game characters", etc. Hult041956 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a nonsense category - every woman can possibly be someone's heroine --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several above - one for MySpace Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could potentially be as broad a category as Category:Women. And it's not in sentence case. Gimmetrow 01:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I happen to share mcelite's taste in heroines and a lot of these women are on my watchlist, but it's not a defining category and it's way, way too subjective for an encyclopedia. Decafdyke (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in this; the fictional heroines already have categories, while the real-world ones are inherently POV and unnecessary. As per Hult041956, too; it's also utter recentism. Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague, subjective, ridiculously broad, incorrectly capitalized, and simply pointless category lacking any useful inclusion criteria. Doczilla (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. And furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Greg Jones II 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Geez quit with the pileon already. --Lquilter (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete times infinity. :) Snocrates 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the process: Not piling on, but what happens next? Hult041956 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 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 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:Casey Donovan

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 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 debate was merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Casey Donovan albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 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 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:Casey Donovan Releases

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 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 debate was split and merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divide into Category:Casey Donovan albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist, and Category:Casey Donovan songs. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divide per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 11 December 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 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:Light Middleweights

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 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 debate was merge. Kbdank71 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Light-middleweights, convention of Category:Boxers by weight. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom but the whole structure should probably be examined, since boxers and other fighters can and do fight in multiple weight classes. Otto4711 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with Otto's analysis but not the follow through; if a boxer fought in more than one division they'll have to go into more than one category. I'm sure categorising boxers by weight division is useful to boxing fans (of which I'm not particularly one but anyway... :)) --kingboyk (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all & agree with Kingboyk Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom & agree with Kingboyk. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 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 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:Babbar Khalsa - Parmar faction

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 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 debate was merge into Category:Sikh politics. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Babbar Khalsa - Parmar faction to Category:Sikh politics

Nominator's rationale: Merge, excessively narrow orphaned categ for one faction of the Babbar Khalsa which itself has no eponymous categ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 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 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:Diverticulitis Sufferers

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, orphaned category, non-defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listify, or at least Rename to Category:People with diverticulitis, convention of Category:People by medical or psychological condition -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not defining. If kept, a rename per ProveIt is in order, but we cannot categorize people by every disease or condition they have. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this isn't a useful defining characteristic. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: possibly worthy of note is that the category was created by a spree vandal Clark2361. Robertsonsfolly and Angrylungs have added all other articles to this category as an unsourced and unreferenced claim. Creation of this category solely for sockpuppet vandalism is plausible. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: all articles placed in this category have been reverted. Multiple checks show no valid source for the categorization of each subject. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:48, 10 December 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 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:Victoria

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Victoria to Category:Victoria (Australia)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to match main article Victoria (Australia). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 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 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:Australia's Next Top Model

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, orphaned category, articles already interlinked by Template:Australia's Next Top Model. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 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 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:Nordic Green Left

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 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 debate was rename Category:Nordic Green Left to Category:Nordic Green Left Alliance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nordic Green Left to Category:Nordic Green Left Alliance

Nominator's rationale: Rename. NGL and NGLA are not the same. NGL is a sub-group within GUE/NGL in the European Parliament, and NGL has little existance of its own. NGLA is another structure, detached from GUE/NGL and EU institutions. Soman (talk) 15:18, 7 December 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 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:Oakland Raiders members with books by and about them

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation, possibly listify. Excessively narrow category for players who tend to be heavily categorised already. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete egregious overcategorization. Maralia (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did this, what does listify mean? Is their a way this can be done as their are other players and members. thank you for help in advance. Robert C Prenic (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't listify OCAT, but I don't think the encyclopedia benefits by narrow lists of people with books by and (or?) about them. Think of every university faculty with a list like this, most large corporations, many sports teams, lots of crooks of various stripes (some wearing them), lots of "celebrities", members of various legislatures, etc. all supporting lists of 2 or 3 or 40 or whatever people with books by/about them. Then we can cut the lists by location, List of people from Cincinnati with books by and about them anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a subject of a biography or whatever is non-defining. Even writing a biography is non-defining. If they're notable as writers then they'll get added to the Category:Writers category. --Lquilter (talk) 20:53, 7 December 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 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:UK Donship 2007

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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Orphaned category, no idea what it's about. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it makes slightly more sense after moving the category to the article George Lamb (DJ) rather than the 19th century politician and upon reading this web page, but the category should still be deleted as a non-notable characteristic of possible members. Tim! (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tim. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Road accident victims by location

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 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 debate was rename all to "Category:Road accident deaths in Foo" format. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming the daughters of Category:Road accident victims by location

Nominator's rationale: The following categories are all subcategories of Category:Road accident victims by location. As the title indicates, these categories sort the deceased by the location of the accident. But the current format, Fooian road accident victims, could give the impression that they are sorted by nationality of the victims. This could cause confusion. The Danish rapper and reggae singer Natasja Saad, for instance, is listed in Category:Jamaican road accident victims. So is she a Jamaican victim of a road accident, or is she the victim of a Jamaican road accident? The latter, but it doesn't become clear from the title. For this reason, I nominate the following categories for renaming:

Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. And Heather Brigstocke, Baroness Brigstocke needs to be moved to Category:Victims of road accidents in Greece .William Avery (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all but to Road accident victims in <country> rather than "Victims of road accidents in <country>" to match the parent category. Lugnuts (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment why this rename pattern instead of 'Road accident victims in foo'? To follow the main category and to have 'road' as the first word more important word not 'victim'. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Road accident victims in <country>. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:Road accident deaths in Foo to clarify that these are for people who died in road accidents. "Road accident victims" is ambiguous and will lead to people being added who were just in car crashes, which is not defining. Otto4711 (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Otto4711 (rename to Rename all to Category:Road accident deaths in Foo). Jaraalbe (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Category:Road accident deaths in Foo per Otto. "Victims" could apply to those who were only injured in a car accident, best to be more specific. jwillbur 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I can't see that these categories are really a defining characteristic, most people are all known for some other reason. List of people who died in road accidents is probably more useful for people interested in road deaths. --Salix alba (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:Road accident deaths in Foo per Otto and for clarity. "deaths" not "victims" per jwillbur. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:09, 14 December 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 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:Steam trucks

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 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 debate was rename Category:Steam trucks to Category:Steam road vehicles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Steam trucks to Category:Steam lorries

Nominator's rationale: While it is true that "lorry" and "truck" are often seen as interchangeable terms, that is not true of the "Steam lorry". The term "Steam truck" is relatively absent from usage. I simply named the category poorly when creating it, to reflect the minority, not the majority usage. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I did some 'research' on this back in February (see Talk:Truck#Steam_Lorry_Naming) which confirmed my suspicions that the term 'steam lorry' was more prevalent than 'steam truck' (11800 vs 757 g-hits). EdJogg (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Your research could be read to imply that the name of this category should become "Steam wagons" because this is the greatest number of Ghits (etc). I assume your comments about "overtype" etc mean that a wagon is substantially different from a lorry, and that the right categorisation is for steam lorries? While you make this clear in your response here there is scope for a non subject specialist to make the assumption that wagons are the most correct. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Steam wagon per Timtrent. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I absolutely do not mean rename this to Steam wagon. I would oppose that. The proposal is to rename it to Steam lorries, and that I endorse. I simply asked EdJogg to show why his research genuinely does not indicate that it should become Steam Wagon. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a US/UK thing? Is there a main article? Would Category:Steam lorries and wagons work? Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a US/UK thing, that is it is not a linguistics thing. It appears that, with steam road transport, the USA created steam cars and the UK created steam lorries (a generalisation, but one that appears to hold good). A steam Wagon appears to be an altogether differently architected beast, with its heritage in Road Locomotives - steam traction engines. The difference is not as subtle as it first appears. The lorry tends to have a substantially "neater" motive power arrangement than the wagon (boiler and all the way to final drive). I'd see the category that you suggest as a parent category that then held two subcats, one for lorries and the other for wagons. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are only 4 articles, which is not enough for 2 cats. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QED? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, here's my input. I'm not an expert in steam road vehicles, but I have a definite interest in the subject, and there seem to be precious few of us editing WP!!

As stated in my research, 'steam wagon' was typically used for the 'overtype' vehicles, which were the earlier designs that borrowed technology and layout from traction engines. The 'undertype' vehicles arrived later and were much more akin to lorries as we know them today. The 'research' does indeed show that 'steam wagon' is the most common term, but this may be because Sentinel called their vehicles 'steam waggons' (two 'g's), even though they were undertype, and clearly 'lorries'.

I had not yet created a category for these vehicles as I had not really started adding much content (NB there is a little scope for Category:Steam lorry manufacturers, or similar...) It will be some time before there is adequate content to support both Category:Steam wagons and Category:Steam lorries, but either would be better than Category:Steam trucks. Personally I would prefer 'lorries', but if other reviewers feel that 'wagons' would be a more likely search term, then so be it.

Incidentally, there is not, as yet, a main article on the subject. There is small coverage under Truck, and a little more under Traction engine (from where it is intended to spawn a new article -- this is a long-term goal!) but no separate article. I have (my own) pictures of twenty-plus steam lorries and wagons, but my reference material is rather short on the subject.

EdJogg (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment merge all to steam wagon, as there are not enough articles to support three categories, and EdJogg indicates that steam wagons came first. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it's not entirely clear that what would populate this category is exclusive British manufacturers & goods, if North American based manufacturers & goods could be included this would be a British vs. American usage change and frowned upon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While appreciating that point all the current articles on WP are British, and so far no US manufacturers have such articles. Thus the "if North American based manufacturers..." is currently speculative rather than based upon what we have here. Were such to be found, added in the short term, etc, the discussion would alter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steam road vehicles? We are not achieving concensus here, & time is running out. No-one seems to support the present name. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I have just had a look at my 'project' page on which I have been trying to lay out a hierarchy for all things steam-powered. Category:Steam road vehicles would be more than adequate at this stage of the proceedings, avoids complaints of UK/US bias, and usefully allows inclusion of a number of other pages. Indeed, its creation might actually make me get off my a**e and finish the project!! EdJogg (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category:Steam road vehicles. That seems go me to be an excellent modification of my original error, and I am happy to modify my proposal to this new category. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:29, 12 December 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 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:Royal Navy patrol boats

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 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 debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Royal Navy patrol boats to Category:Patrol vessels of the United Kingdom - This is another "mergeto" template.

Neutral - jc37 07:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added "boats" as a subcat to vessels, matching the frigates & corvettes sub-cats. It seems ok now, although this whole area seems a bit tangled & duplicatory. Johnbod (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge Technically, boats are a logical subset of vessels. It's certainly an acknowledged fact at WP:SHIPS that our 'by navy' and 'by country' categories are problematic, and we're actively working on cleaning up ship/boat/vessel/craft terminology in categories, too. For now, Johnbod's solution is fine. Maralia (talk) 15:13, 7 December 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 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:Food crops

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 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 debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Food crops to Category:Crops - This is another "mergeto" template.

Neutral - jc37 07:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - effectively empty & not needed. Johnbod (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The vast majority of crops are food. LeSnail (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cash crops are not food crops (tobacco, cotton, etc), and feed crops for animals is not necessarily human edible. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for practicality per Johnbod. Anon is absolutely correct, but no one has bothered to populate everything and unlikely will keep this going as many more food crops will <ahem> crop up in the future. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 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 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:Street railways

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 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 debate was merge Category:Street railways to Category:Streetcars in North America. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Street railways to Category:Tram transport - This is another "mergeto" template.

Neutral - jc37 07:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Streetcars in North America. Streetcars are not trams. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Streetcars in North America per Vegas - although this is a sub-cat of trams. but either way. Johnbod (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, it is a sub-cat of trams. This is one of the problems we have with trying to make categories language netural. Sometimes it creates strange bedfellows. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I shouldn't go there, but what's the difference? Not all the US ones are cable cars. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 8 December 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 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:Sequences and series

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 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 debate was merge Category:Sequences to Category:Sequences and series. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Sequences and series to Category:Sequences - This is another "mergeto" template. One is under Category:Mathematics, and the other is under its subcat: Category:Mathematical analysis. - jc37 07:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - jc37 07:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pending mathmeticians opposing. Seem to be the same Johnbod (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge Category:Sequences to Category:Sequences and series -- A series is not a kind of sequence and should not be categorized as one. They are distinct but related ideas. LeSnail (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per LeSnail. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
propose following structure:

Category:Sequences and series - for general articles coving both topics
1. Category:Sequences - articles specifically about sequences
  1. Category:Integer sequences - articles on integer sequences
2. Category:Mathematical series - articles on series

this seems the most logical structure. The Reverse merge is also acceptable. --Salix alba (talk) 14:24, 10 December 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 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:Living museums

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 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 debate was keep. Kbdank71 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Living museums to Category:Open air museums - This is another "mergeto" template. Note that one is a subcat of the other. - jc37 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - jc37 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are two very different concepts and are not always inclusionary. Living museums don't have to be open air do they? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Vegas - I think we debated this once. Johnbod (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Category:Zoos is a subcategory of living museums, but they need not be open-air. Unless, of course, zoos are miscategorized here. The article Living museum does suggest that they are open-air. Snocrates 20:59, 12 December 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 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:Geoffrey Paris albums

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 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 debate was delete, empty. Kbdank71 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is populated by 1 article which has been proposed for deletion for non-notability. Both that album page and this category were created by a user with COI issues. Dchall1 (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close pending the outcome of the prod on the album article. If the album aricle is kept then this category is required to place it in the Category:Albums by artist structure. If the album article is deleted then this can just be tagged as empty. Otto4711 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the album by a redlinked singer gets its five days of free webhosting posing as encyclopedic content at one of the most visited websites - a quirk of some editors' views on WP:CSD#A7 which would allow the nn musician to get speedy-ed but let his album be free advertising for a while. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just deleted the article (the prod had expired) and so it is now empty. Rigadoun (talk) 19:06, 12 December 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 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:Warsaw Uprising Insurgents

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 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 debate was rename to Category:Warsaw Uprising insurgents. Kbdank71 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Warsaw Uprising Insurgents to Category:Category:Warsaw Uprising participants

Nominator's rationale: Per Category:November Uprising participants and Category:January Uprising participants. Alternatively, if CfD experts prefer, rename all of them to Category:People of ... Uprising (per Category:People of American Revolution).--User:Piotrus

Rename but to Category:Warsaw Uprising insurgents. The cat name should clarify that it is limited to the persons who actually undertook the rebellion, not just anyone who happened to be involved in general. 'People of...' cats are more vague, and could possibly lead to inclusion of the enemies of the uprising as well. --Soman (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but to Category:Warsaw Uprising insurgents per Soman. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 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 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:Copyright free use attribute required

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Copyright free use attribute required to Category:Free images with attribution requirements

Nominator's rationale: I think "copyright free use attribute required" is unclear. I first took it to mean "no copyright, but attribution is required", which would be a contradiction. It looks like it was meant to read "copyright; free to use with the condition of attribution", which makes sense, but I think the current name may be misleading. Suggest renaming to Category:Free images with attribution requirements or Category:Free images requiring attribution, or something of that nature. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:43, 7 December 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 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:Murdered kings

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 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 debate was merge to Category:Murdered monarchs. Kbdank71 16:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Murdered kings to Category:Executed royalty - This had a Template:mergeto, which I presume shouldn't be used for categories.

It looks like Category:Executed royalty is part of the Category:Executions by occupation / Category:Executed royalty category scheme, while Category:Murdered kings seems to be part of Category:Murder victims by occupation / Category:Murdered royalty

Neutral - nominated due to seeing the "mergeto". - jc37 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~(see below) "murdered" and "executed" are not only not the same thing, strictly speaking they are mutually exclusive. The tag has been there since January - let's just remove it (editor who placed it has left WP)Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Murdered monarchs. While often royalty categories should be split along sex lines, the sex of a murdered royal is not relevant to the fact of his or her being murdered. Otto4711 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Murdered monarchs, which has a whole lot more kings, & only 1 Queen, per Otto. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Murdered monarchs A review of the surrounding category structure shows this to be the best fit. Hmains (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Murdered monarchs per Otto. No need to split murdered monarchs by gender. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Murdered monarchs per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.