Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 26

Category:Photography games

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * photography games


 * Comment: I made the category's thinking that people looking up games like Pokemon Snap or Dead Rising might want to know if there were any other similar games. I figured the rarity of the gameplay type might stimulate interest and a category would help. If that's not enough to have the category then deleting it is fine. ♦TH 1 RT 3 EN talk ♦ contribs 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Th1rt3en's comment offers a reason to make a list, not a reason to have a category. Doczilla 09:01, 27 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Handheld electronic games

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Handheld electronic games to Category:Standalone handheld video games
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I know what a "handheld electronic game" is. Until I read this, I had no idea what a "standalone handheld video game" is. I have never heard that phrase from my video game fanatic sons and never on the video game review program X-Play which I watch regularly, so it seems unlikely to be frequently used, standard terminology. Doczilla 09:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Doczilla. Sumahoy 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, me neither. Are there many "handheld" electronic games that are not "standalone?" Or do you mean only a game player and not also a PDA/cellphone/music etc? &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 12:36, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former parks and open spaces in London

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Former parks and open spaces in London to Category:Former parks and open spaces of London. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Former parks and open spaces in London to Category:Former parks and open spaces of London
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Rename per nom for consistency and grammatical accuracy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename I think the nom meant Category:Former buildings and structures of London. AshbyJnr 21:13, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Open Spaces in Croydon

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Open Spaces in Croydon to Category:Parks and open spaces in Croydon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Open Spaces in Croydon to Category:Parks and open spaces in Croydon
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Rename per nom for consistency and grammatical accuracy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Awards of the Vatican

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Vatican noble titles. These seem to be titles rather than awards, and this should meet all concerns. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * awards of the vatican
 * Note: Previous rename attempt


 * Comment - the category is currently empty. What articles were in it? &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There were I think 3 articles - Papal Gentlemen, Prince Assistants to the Papal Throne, and Prince of Civitella-Cesi. There is Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Holy See, with subcats specifically for orders of knighthood, but the first two articles above don't fit nicely into these categories, nor do they really fit classification as occupations. The last is a noble title which the wiki article seems to say was awarded by the Pope. Gimmetrow 05:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unpopulated. Can the articles described not go into Category:Papal Titles? The article Papal Orders of Chivalry is in that category. Herostratus 14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Emphatically no, it does not belong in that category, and neither does Order of Chivalry. As for the category being unpopulated, it was unpopulated prior to any discussion, and the three articles in it were recategorized wrongly. What do you suggest doing with them?
 * Keep unless a correct way to categorize the articles removed is suggested. Gimmetrow 23:25, 4 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cinemas and theatres in Canada

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Cinemas and theatres in Canada to Category:Cinemas and movie theatres in Canada. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cinemas and theatres in Canada to Category:Cinemas and movie theatres in Canada
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Rename. Seems OK to do so, and will be consistent with parent category Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:39, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Iwerks

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * iwerks


 * Delete per nom. Consider replacing with a template. Sumahoy 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, does anyone else think that perhaps WikiProject Iwerks might be a bit too narrow? -- Prove It (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, template per Sumahoy. It's a little narrow of a project, but I'm not familiar with the rules of projects, is there a minimum scope? &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 12:44, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diabetics

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

The result of the debate was RENAME to Category:People with diabetes. Well this is a tough one, with a triangular structure (Keep-Rename-Delete) rather than binary. Looking at the raw totals FWIW, we have 5 Rename, 2 Keep, 7 Delete. So right off the bat we don't want to Keep it as is, absent a really compelling argument to do so, which I don't see. So, Rename or Delete? The nature of the discussion changed as it went on, from Keep-or-Rename to Rename-or-Delete. The last eight commentors fall out to 7 Delete, 1 Rename, which looks like a consensus to Delete emerged. On the other hand, comments should not necessarily be weighted by temporal order. So with 7 Keep-or-Rename against 7 Delete, I don't see a numerical consensus to delete. So on to the arguments. WP:OCAT is strong argument, and the Delete commentors mostly made this argument. This was not really refuted, as the Rename commentors mostly made arguments in favor of Rename but didn't address whether the category should be kept or not; they probably mostly assumed that this option was not on the table, as it was not offered in the nomination. We cannot know if they would actually prefer Delete to Rename.

Taken all together, it really tends toward Delete, with strength of argument and the way the comments were tending. However, not strongly enough in my view. We have to take the Rename commentors on face value, and they did not suggest Delete, which they could have. In this situation, the less destructive option is preferred, thus rename, but with no prejudice against an immediate renomination to Delete rather than rename. Herostratus 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Diabetics to Category:People Living with Diabetes
 * Nominator's Rationale:

Rename "Diabetics" is an inappropriate term to label individuals who happen to have diabetes. Diabetic is an adjetive and not a noun. The term "diabetic people" or "people with diabetes" or "people living with diabetes" is more appropriate and of course less offensive. Princess LJ 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is nothing inappropriate about calling a diabetic a diabetic. "Diabetic" as a noun has entered the vernacular and no one, upon being told that someone is a diabetic, is going to respond by asking "a diabetic what?". Given that a subcat of this category is "Deaths from diabetes," renaming this cat to "people living with diabetes" is absurd. The idea that the current name "lacks neutrality" is less than compelling. Otto4711 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as is I'm with Otto on this one. Pascal.Tesson 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no problem with deleting the category which is what the debate has now turned into. If kept, I do favor "diabetics" but it is indeed a non-defining characteristic. People primarily known for having the disease (if that makes any sense) can always be added to category:Diabetes. Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:People with diabetes per other subcats of Category:People by medical or psychological condition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this comment puzzling because that category also includes Category:Synesthetes, Category:Bearded women, Category:Hunchbacks, Category:Albinos. The reason why there are so many "people with problem x" subcats is that there is no word such as Parkinsonists, hypertrichosists and so on, not because the cat strives for some uniformity on that matter. A shorter, to the point, cat name seems much more appropriate. Pascal.Tesson 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the reason there is no such word as "parkinsonist" for people living with parkinson's disease, or "canceric" for people living with cancer, or anything else like that is because it would be offensive; the fact that "diabetic" is often used as a noun does not make it a noun. Princess LJ 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sort of cite that anyone would find a word like "canceric" offensive or is this just an assumption on your part along the lines of your assumption that "diabetic" is offensive? As for "diabetic" not being a noun, the dictionary seems to disagree with you. This nomination is coming off more and more like POV pushing by a nominator who takes personal offense at the term. Otto4711 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per BrownHairedGirl - if it is offensive to some, we should use this alternative. --After Midnight 0001 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT - "Might be offensive to some" is unconvincing as a rationale for a name change, especially in the face of no evidence that it's offensive to anyone, let alone "some." Otto4711 01:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The ADA seems to refer to people not as diabetics, but rather as people with diabetes.  Also, please remember to stay cool. --After Midnight 0001 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly cool, so I'm unclear as to why you felt the need to try to make this about my supposed emotional state. Otto4711 12:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Otto4711, WP:NOT says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive"; however, it does not say that we are obliged to use an offensive or potentially offensive term. In this case we have a choice of two phrasings, both of equal clarity; the choice involves no loss of information either way. Why choose the one why will offend some people? Naming conventions (identity) tells us to "Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use", which on this case is "Peopke with diabetes". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see any proof that anyone considers "diabetics" to be an offensive term. Otto4711 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See for example and  and this short guide] from the Disability Rights Commission. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first source suggests that "People with disabilities" is a disfavored construction because "‘People with disabilities’ suggests that the disability ‘belongs’ to the disabled person, rather than ‘disabled person’ which accurately infers [sic] that society disables the individual, thus adopting the social model of disability." Your second source contradicts this, stating that "people with disabilities" is the preferred construction. And your third source suggests that the preferred construction is not "disabled person" but "Person with rights under the Disability Discrimination Act." None of them appear to mention "diabetics" and none of them appear to claim that use of the word "diabetic" is "offensive." Otto4711 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you miss one of the point about the first source, although its not spelt out: that the primary noun should be "people", with the illness as an adjective rather than a noun ... so in this case the usage would be "diabetic people". And no, they don't use the term "offensive": they try to explain why language matters, and why some formulations are problematic; some people will find inappropraite usage offensive, others but won't. This is an evolving area of language, but he one thing you won't find support for anywhere in the literature on disability and language is referring to people with a disease or disability as the only noun. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:People with diabetes for consistency with the majority of other categories for people by medical conditions, e.g., Category:People on the autistic spectrum, Category:People with bipolar disorder, Category:People with motor neuron disease. The names go on and on. The exceptions are a minority. "Living with" is inappropriate for Wikipedia style because we're not supposed to classify people as "living", but the name does need to change. "Might be offensive to some" is a weak reason, though. In fact, as we've seen before, that argument will just rile some people up over issues of censorship and political correctness while distracting from professional issues. Using "diabetics" pushes a personal preference rather than the medically specified term. "People with diabetes" is the medically preferred phrase, not the only phrase, but the one the modern diagnostic manuals use most consistently. Even if someone doesn't agree with the problems with the word "diabetics", I haven't seen a sensible argument directly against "People with diabetes". We should defer to the American Medical Association and American Diabetes Association on this. I have trouble enough trying to teach my students to use the field's preferrred terminology without Wikipedia confusing the issue. Doczilla 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I have checked Cassell's new English dictionary (1949),  The New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (2003), m-w.com, dictionary.com - all of them say that someone with diabetes can be called diabetic. None of them say anything about the term being offensive. I would say therefore, that this isn't an argument against using the term. Then, consistency: the consistency appears to be in that the shortest viable name is taken for the category. That canceric is not a viable term should not influence the decision on whether diabetic is. The important question, I think, is whether the term diabetic is precise. "Category:People on the autistic spectrum", for example has a cumbersome name, but it would otherwise not be precise. "People with diabetes" is not in any way more precise than "Diabetics". Finally, political correctness. We should not, in my opinion, in pre-emptive political correctness rename a category that hardly anyone will find offensive. -- rimshots talk 09:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-defining as per Dr. Submillimeter. If the category is kept all I said about the name still holds, though. -- rimshots talk 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - People generally are not notable for having diseases. People are instead notable for other achievements.  If people want a category for diabetes activists, then a Category:Diabetes activists would be appropriate.  Also note that several other related categories were deleted following a 7 Feb 2007 discussion.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The deleted categories were intersections of disease and nationality. I submit that it is not necessarily reasonable to infer from those deletions that this category should also be deleted, especially in light of there having been no consensus the first time this category was nominated and this category having been excluded from the second round of nominations. Otto4711 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The "no consensus" from the first set of nominations was because the first set of nominations was about renaming. The second set of nominations were to discuss deletion.  The reasoning there (or at least my reasoning there) still applies here; the only difference is that diabetics/people with diabetes are no longer sorted by nationality.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Most of the disease and death related categories are just clutter. Haddiscoe 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:People with diabetes The main things are 1) the category naming scheme should be consistent, and 2) only articles which specifically talk about the person's diabetes should be included. Since most of the similar subcategories use "People with X" format, rename to that. Deletion isn't necessary assuming inappropriate articles are removed. Dugwiki 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have three kinds of opinion here: Keep, rename (although generally not to the nominator's suggestion), or delete. I just hope that the admin who closes this doesn't settle on "no consensus" because of the rename vs. delete discussion. Either way, there is a strong consensus to change and not keep as is. Doczilla 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-defining.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-defining characteristic. If kept, either keep the current name or use Category:People with diabetes, as the extra word "Living" is unecessary and/or improperly limits the category to living people (not to mention the improper capitalization).  Xtifr tälk 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OCAT.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a defining way to categorize people. It's on the level with "people who have had heart attacks". Some medical conditions are particularly notable. Wilford Brimley's eccentric pronounciation aside, diabetes is not notable. If kept, this should be renamed to "people with diabetes" (the "living with" thing is unnecessary), but this should not in any way be construed to mean that I would endorse any keeping. Deletion is really the only sane option. — coe l acan — 20:51, 3 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Science and technology in the European Union

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Science and technology in the European Union to Category:European Union and science and technology. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Science and technology in the European Union to Category:European Union and science and technology
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Casperonline 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to clarify the focus of the title. Haddiscoe 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any solid reason to stray from the convention of Category:Science and technology by country. This list of renaming of EU categories looks politically motivated. Our readers are smart enough to understand the difference between the EU and a country and keeping a uniform nomenclature for categories should be a much higher priority than nitpicking about whether the name overstates the importance of the EU. For people doing categorization work for instance (such as myself) unexpected category names are an unwelcome headache. Pascal.Tesson 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename This is not the same type of category as the national ones. Much of the contents of the country categories is in types of subcategory that do not exist at EU level, eg for scientists, engineers and inventors. Choalbaton 21:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. (Category:European Union policies and initiatives on science and technology would also be a good option, but perhaps it is too much of a mouthful. Nathanian 20:26, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Environment of the European Union

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Environment of the European Union to Category:European Union and the environment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Environment of the European Union to Category:European Union and the environment
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Weak oppose. It's not as strong a link as in agriculture, but the EU's impact on the environment is through its member states, so it makes sense to link the two. My preference would be to have Category:Environment of the European Union as a container category to include both the environment cats for the member states and this cat renamed to Category:European Union and the environment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Casperonline 01:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to clarify the focus of the title. Haddiscoe 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Sumahoy 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Brown Haired Girl. ARgument that "by country" cover is not only nation-centrist, but misses the use of categories on Wikipedia. Tazmaniacs 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Wikipedia is "nation centric" because it is reality centric - nations remain the main way that the world is organized. The EU is not a nation. Many of the other EU categories already have names that reflect its unusual institutional role. Postlebury 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us what categories you're thinking of? I mean we have Category:Foreign relations of the European Union, Category:Geography of the European Union, Category:Politics of the European Union, Category:Energy in the European Union, Category:History of the European Union, which are all (conveniently I might add) following the set conventions. Pascal.Tesson 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Here also, there is no solid reason to stray from the convention of Category:Environment by country. Let me simply cut and paste the argument above: this list of renaming of EU categories looks politically motivated. Our readers are smart enough to understand the difference between the EU and a country and keeping a uniform nomenclature for categories should be a much higher priority than nitpicking about whether the name overstates the importance of the EU. For people doing categorization work for instance (such as myself) unexpected category names are an unwelcome headache. Pascal.Tesson 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename The convention of Category:Environment by country is not relevant, because the EU is not a country. There is no reason to use the convention of that category unless one wishes to misrepresent what the EU is. Choalbaton 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, let's not assume that all Wikipedia users are idiots: they know that the EU is not a country and they understand full well that this category is meant to include articles discussing environmental issues that are handled at the EU level (of which, of course, there are many). Now I don't quite understand why we should rename this one and not rename the national categories. There is more value to uniformity in names than a slight semantical twist to make sure people realize that the EU is not a country. Pascal.Tesson 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aspects of the EU function in a manner similar to that of a nation. That's why I decided to follow the naming convention for nations. --Hemlock Martinis 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Nathanian 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename The creator was an "idiot" by Pascal's definition it seems, as he placed this category in Category:Environment by country. The EU shouldn't have the same type of menu as countries, and this proposal is a move in the right direction. AshbyJnr 21:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But why are you assuming that following the convention set for countries will lead people to get confused and think "Oh so it must be a country then"? This is why I'm saying we have to trust that are readers know the difference between the EU and a country. Pascal.Tesson 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Pascal was calling me an idiot at all. Furthermore, parts of the EU act very much like a country, so it makes sense to maintain the uniformity of the categories by keeping the category as-is. --Hemlock Martinis 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. I created the category and named it as such to bring it in line with Category:Environment by country to maintain uniformity within the topic. Also, although it is true that the EU is not a nation, it often produces policies and makes decisions similar to that of a nation through its directives. Thus, I felt it was reasonable to name the category similar to other categories. --Hemlock Martinis 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose the renaming, though I do like the container idea proposed by BrownHairedGirl. I oppose the renaming because maintaining uniformity in naming conventions reduces confusion; though this change is proposed to help reduce confusion, I don't think it will really help matters at all -- you're just confusing a different set of people with the rename.  Keep the conventions the same, and if you'd like to clarify, do it in the section header. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:44, 3 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Agriculture in the European Union

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Agriculture in the European Union to Category:European Union and agriculture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Agriculture in the European Union to Category:European Union and agriculture
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Strong oppose. More than in any the sector, the EU's policies are a defining feature of all agriculture in the EU.  There is a marked distinction between agriculture under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and agriculture in neighbouring non-EU states, such as Switzerland or Turkey. This is quite properly a sub-cat of Category:Agriculture by region, which it could not be if renamed; however, the agricultural cats for the member states should be added as sub-cats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename Most of the articles are nothing to do with the EU. Categorisation by country is sufficient - and where it is not the new name would not be a problem. Casperonline 01:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it, all the pages in the category relate to a EU agricultural policy, EU agricultural organization or EU agricultural term. --Hemlock Martinis 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename The proposed name is more focused on what is relevant. 99% of agricultural history occurred before the EU. Articles about individual countries are easily accessed via Haddiscoe 11:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the articles within the category? They're all either created by the EU or pertain directly to the EU. --Hemlock Martinis 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Srong oppose per Brown Haired Girl. Categorization by country is one thing, it should not prevent categorization by the EU which is quite an important body since 50 years now (especially in agricultural matters). Tazmaniacs 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and Haddiscoe. At a supranational level I would prefer to see continental categories if anything. Categories for regional groupings are confusing unless one knows which countries belong to the grouping. Sumahoy 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom to reflect the current contents of the category and to encourage it to remain focused. Postlebury 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming the political debate notwithstanding, the current name reflects the choice of Category:Agriculture by region. Pascal.Tesson 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename The EU is not a region, it is an institution. Choalbaton 21:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But like it or not (and I understand you clearly don't) EU legislation on argiculture is significant enough to make the EU a natural choice of "region" in which one can expect to find some degree of uniformity on agricultural matters. There is no added value to the name change except to break the uniformity. Pascal.Tesson 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Jamie Mercer 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Nathanian 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to break the uniformity as suggested by Pascal. AshbyJnr 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I created the category and named it as such to bring it in line with Category:Agriculture by country to maintain uniformity within the topic. Also, although it is true that the EU is not a nation, it often produces policies and makes decisions similar to that of a nation through its directives. Thus, I felt it was reasonable to name the category similar to other categories. --Hemlock Martinis 23:28, 2 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Universities and colleges in the European Union

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * universities and colleges in the european union


 * Keep makes perfect sense as a subcategory of Category:Education in the European Union. While the EU does not run the universities, it does provide significant research funding for them and runs things like the ERASMUS programme which involves these universities. Pascal.Tesson 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pascal.Tesson, as a sub-category of Category:Education in the European Union. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The EU does not run the universities, and nor is it the country in which they are located. Casperonline 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see how this disqualifies this category as a meaningful supercategory of the national categories. Pascal.Tesson 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - This category is simply being used as a parent category for categories on universities and colleges in individual countries. The category is fairly meaningless for organization.  However, it does imply that the EU is involved with the operation of educational institutions in its member countries, which is incorrect.  If the category is kept, then it should be renamed as Category:Universities and colleges in Europe.  However, note that universities and colleges are only organized by country, not by continent.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. If users wish to find these institutions, they may do so easily enough at Category:Universities and colleges by country. Haddiscoe 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The European Union has education agreement (ERASMUS, etc.) and is converging towards a general harmonization of diplomas (see the very important LMD reform). Others examples include: (for one, for another, European Parliament on the mutual recognition of diplomas, etc. Tazmaniacs 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The EU's role in education is minor, as is confirmed by the very weak list of influences above. Sumahoy 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The statement that EU's role in education is minor denotes a profound misunderstanding of the fundamental role it plays in funding high-level research in universities. It also, as was pointed out by Tazmaniacs, is striving to create common standards for diplomas in the union. Having a category encompassing high-education institutions in these countries is a meaningful browsing tool and deleting it seems pretty pointless and solely motivated by a need to downgrade the importance of the EU in these matters. The category does not " imply that the EU is involved with the operation of educational institutions in its member countries", it indicates that because of the EU, these universities share a number of institutions that manage collaboration between them, strive to standardize their systems, funds common research projects. Pascal.Tesson 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tazmaniacs. There are a lot of harmonisation of higher education initiatives in the EU. Also I do not think the US runs "the university and college systems of its member states.". In Australia also, the Commonwealth Government funds universities but does not run them and they were established under State law. --Bduke 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Education is almost always discussed in the context of nation states - except perhaps in Brussels. This category reflects the EU's aspirations to claim a greater role for itself, rather than current reality. Postlebury 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment sorry but I can't resist debunking this one. Do you really think that this category was created by some EU official to reflect the EU'S aspirations? No, it was created most likely in good faith by someone who felt it was a meaningful classification. Let's leave the politics out of this debate: the sole question we need to worry about is whether the category system is in better shape with or without this cat and so far I haven't seen a convincing argument that deleting the category will serve any purpose but to satisfy those who wish ill to the EU. True, education is almost always discussed in the context of nation states. Occasionally, it's also discussed in the wider context of the EU which is why we have a meaningful Category:Education in the European Union and this cat is a perfectly reasonable and natural subcat of it. Pascal.Tesson 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Pro-EU bias is not confined to Eurocrats, and it is naive to think that politics can be left out of the debate on a controversial political issue. It is hard to see that this category serves any purpose other than raising the spirits of advocates of EU-centralization. It serves no browsing function that is not met by Category:Universities and colleges by country (It's pretty unlikely that anyone who doesn't know which countries belong to the EU would be interested in the role of the EU in diploma harmonization). The "propanda of inevitability" is a key technique used by supporters of the EU, ie overstate the gains already made  by the EU at the expense of the nation states, or the future EU gains that can be deemed to be irreversible, so that people will resign themselves to ever greater claims by the EU. This category is a speculation about future connections. As of now the connections between the university and college systems of English speaking countries are stronger than those between the systems of EU countries, but Wikipedia does not have Category:English-speaking colleges and universities. Choalbaton 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm Canadian. I couldn't care less about the pro-EU/anti-EU dichotomy but from my perspective as an academic, I see a clear increase in collaboration between universities of the EU through EU-funded programs and as far as I'm concerned it's a useful category for browsing if only because of this. I simply don't see a way to argue that deleting this category makes Wikipedia better. I don't understand how anyone can seriously argue that its existence is part of a pro-EU conspiracy of inevitability. Pascal.Tesson 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Jamie Mercer 12:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nathanian 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pascal doesn't seem to have had much exposure to the way the Europhiles operate, which is understandable as he lives in Canada. AshbyJnr 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by that statement: are you saying that we should delete this category because it's part of a Europhile conspiracy? Let us please stick to the question that really matters here: regardless of what one might think about the EU, is this category a meaningful one that can reasonnably be expected to be helpful to some readers. Pascal.Tesson 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There is no serious EU educational apparatus nor is there pan-EU system of educational governance.  That being the case I'm afraid that this category (and similar) have the hint of POV and agenda-pushing.


 * X damr talk 22:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. That statement is quite simply incorrect. The treaty of Amsterdam says the EU "shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States". There are multiple EU run programs in that respect, ERASMUS, SOCRATES, European Civil Engineering Education and Training. There's a European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System which covers EU universities... Pascal.Tesson 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I perhaps wasn't clear. I certainly am familiar with the idea of cooperation, but my criterion is control.  The EU is not responsible for the hiring or firing of teachers, neither for paying their salaries, it does not set the curriculum, etc, etc.  There certainly are linkages, but these exist in various forms between various states in the world; I do not believe that the links between the EU countries are sufficient to justify a move away from the established by-country categorisation.
 * X damr talk 23:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm real puzzled by this response. Countries, in many cases, are not "responsible for the hiring or firing of teachers, neither for paying their salaries" nor "set the curriculum, etc, etc."; the universities themselves are or the province, lander, state, city or whatever is. The linkages within the EU are significant. This category should remain along side the country categories. --Bduke 03:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. The United States presents a pretty strong example of that. So does Canada. As for setting the curriculum, EU leadership has played a key role in the move towards a Bachelor/Masters/PhD structure in EU universities and in many countries this has been the most significant change of curriculum in the last twenty years. Pascal.Tesson 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian FRSs

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * christian frss


 * Delete For one thing, if this category is to be kept, its name needs to change as there is no reason to assume that people know what FSRs stands for. In any case, looks like overcategorization with a POV undertone. Pascal.Tesson 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as overcategorisation and random intersection. While some of the FRS fellows may well have been religious, the contention that religious belief is directly relevant to FRS has no apparent referenced support, and the only purpose of the category appears to be to make some point about scientists not necessarily being atheists (it there is something to be said on that subject, it belongs in a properly referenced article, not in a category).  If properly used and parented, this category would also have the undesirable effect of sub-dividing on religious grounds Category:Fellows of the Royal Society. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this category beacuse the stated objection of several editors on the AfD debate at List of FRSs with public religious stances was that this could be done with categories. So it seems (shall we say) a trifle inconsitent for the community to say that the category belongs in an article. It is perhaps worth remarking that Richard Dawkins signs his letters to newspapers "Richard Dawkins FRS" thus emphasising his scientfic credentials, as do other scientists who oppose Dawkins's views.  I would of course have preferred to have a list which allowed for the variety of religious stances that FRSs publicly espouse, which would give the same prominence to Humanists, Christians and people with other public religious views.  But this was AfDd! NBeale 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry NBeale, you obviously got some bad advice from one participant in that AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lists that are deleted in AfD nominations often are inappropriate as categories as well. The intersection between Fellows of the Royal Society and Christianity seems inappropriate, and inclusion or exclusion in this category could be the subject of lengthy POV debates .  Moreover, this type of information definitely needs to be referenced, which means that the category is probably inappropriate for listing these people.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As POV classification by opinion. Haddiscoe 11:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as irrelevant intersection. -- Prove It (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a very good rule of thumb that if something isn't appropriate as a list, it is even less appropriate as a category. The minimal standards for lists are lower than that of categories, because a bad list mainly impacts the list article but a bad category results in inappropriate tags in multiple articles and creates greater problems.  So given that the list is likely to be deleted, the category should almost certainly be deleted as well. Dugwiki 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete sets a bad precedent for POV categories - as per nom - why pick on these two attributes and combine them? Sophia  19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list is bad. This category is worse. Gnusmas 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone has added Jocelyn Bell Burnell to this category. She is a Quaker but does not necessarily subscribe to orthodox credal beliefs, for instance in the pre-temporal creator God (Listen to Ext Link - Bakewell belief's interview). I suspect Professor Bell Burnell would prefer NOT to be described as a "Christian FRS", for the purposes of some WP editor's argument with Prof Dawkins. How do we know the other entries in this thin category would want to be described as "Christian". === Vernon White (talk)  21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dugwiki. Choalbaton 21:50, 28 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ethno-cultural groups

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

The result of the debate was Delete CSD G7 author request. -- Prove It (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ethno-cultural groups


 * Speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Incidental musics by Marc-Antoine Charpentier

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Incidental musics by Marc-Antoine Charpentier into Category:Compositions by Marc-Antoine Charpentier. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * incidental musics by marc-antoine charpentier


 * Upmerge to Category:Compositions by Marc-Antoine Charpentier as overcategorisaton. Also suggest upmerging Category:Operas by Marc-Antoine Charpentier. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge both per BrownHairedGirl. JS Bach has two sub-cats for many more compositions, but M-A Charpentier is over-categorized with two such sub-cats.  Bencherlite 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See separate CFD for the other subcat at Categories for discussion/Log/2007_March 27 (it's a bit late to add it to this nomination, but we should have some PROD-style mechanism for uncontroversial category mergers). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge this, leave the operas alone. Johnbod 01:27, 30 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arnold Schwarzenegger

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * arnold schwarzenegger


 * Delete, but it would make sense to create an Arnold Schwarzenegger navbox instead for these articles. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 17:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary. Most of these are sub-articles of the main article and have a "see also" link, and the main article already has three nav templates on it. Navboxes for everything end up just cluttering the articles. Anyone at one of the sub-articles just has to click the link for Schwarzenegger. Otto4711 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The only problems I see with deletion are that some of these articles appear to be subarticles to the main article which might not have a good category otherwise, such as Bodybuilding competitions featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger. My worry is that deleting this category might leave those articles insufficiently indexed in the category system. Dugwiki 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I should mention that I wouldn't be surprised if you could delete or merge the Bodybuilding article, since it's literally just a list of the competitions he took part in. The political career article is more problematic. Dugwiki 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The category should exist for articles such as Bodybuilding competitions featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography, and Political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger. The entry on eponymous categories at Overcategorization specifically exempts such categories.  Dr. Submillimeter 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is why I favor eponymous categories when there are articles that can't go anywhere else.--Mike Selinker 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Overcategorization. Doczilla 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This category could be used in a way that is similar to how Category:Jan Smuts and Category:Ronald Reagan, both of which are listed at Overcategorization as the types of eponymous categories that should be kept.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dr. Submillimeter Haddiscoe 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Borderline case but weak keep I would slightly prefer keeping as there is a decent chance that Schwarzenegger's political career will result in the creation of more articles whose natural place would be this cat. Pascal.Tesson 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep By my reckoning this category just-about-but-only-just meets the standard for an eponymous category. --  X damr  talk 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dr. Submillimeter --After Midnight 0001 15:44, 4 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:War criminals
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * war criminals
 * french war criminals


 * Note that:
 * was tagged for speedy, but with no reason given so I removed the speedy; it did not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:CSD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * in Jan 2006 there was a previous CFD for Category:War criminals; the sub-cat Category:People convicted of war crimes was created in July 2006. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The mentioned category is much more objective and definitive than this one, and the broad inclusion criteria does leave it open to POV interpretation.  A r k y a n  • (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as an appropriate subcat of Category:Criminals. I have WP:BLP concerns about any category for criminals but until such time as the entire category tree is addressed I see no reason to cherry pick "war criminals" out of the tree. I suggested in a previous CFD that categories for criminals should all be changed to "convicted..." but there was no consensus. Otto4711 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply the same cherry-picking concern could be applied to the previous nomination, but I think that the other issues here are sufficiently different to justify it as an exception to the rule (esp a rule without consensus support). "War crime" is a charge which is prosecuted in only a small fraction of the cases where there appears to be prima facie evidence, and the difference is often due to the politics of the situation (in most cases, it is only the losers who get charged with war crimes). While that may appear to be an argument for keeping the category broad, the problem is that the low prosecution rate means that "war criminal" is a tag used in a POV way much more than in other categories of crime, such as rape, murder or assault.  It seems to me that Category:War criminals is better compared with Category:Traitors, where similar political issues apply (the CFD on that one ended after an apparently out-of-process deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry another comment: if this category were to stay, then it would need a definition sufficiently precise to make it clear whether, for example, Bomber Harris is included. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A quick glance through the category's present entries makes it obvious that it is too often used as a vehicle for POV pushing. There's really nothing else that can be done about it due to the lack of objective criterias for inclusion (the only possible meaningful criterion is already covered by Category:People convicted of war crimes). -- int19h 06:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Change name according to proposition (to Convicted). PS: I created the category:French War Criminals on the model of "War Criminals". Tazmaniacs 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. We already have Category:People convicted of war crimes - it's a different, existing category. So renaming is not an option here. It's whether we need these two as two distinct categories, or whether Category:People convicted of war crimes is sufficient, and Category:War criminals should be gone. -- int19h 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a duplicate of Category:People convicted of war crimes. "People convicted of war crimes" has very clear inclusion criteria.  "War criminals", however, may be interpreted subjectively to include people who someone thinks should be convicted of war crimes.  Dr. Submillimeter 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Nathanian 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV pushing. --Eleassar my talk 12:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:Bing Crosby
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * bing crosby


 * Delete and also delete Category:Arrangers for Bing Crosby Agreed. The category doesn't appear necessary. In addition, I notice one of its subcategories is Category:Arrangers for Bing Crosby, which is an even worse idea for a subcategory, in my opinion (imagine if every music arranger had a seperate category for every singer they ever worked with). I'd recommend nominating that arranger subcategory for deletion as well. Dugwiki 18:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call on wanting that arrangers sub-cat deleted. I wish I'd thought of that. ;-P Otto4711 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well If you want Category:Arrangers for Bing Crosby deleted, then you should comment here. That discussion now is a toss up between an upmerge and delete. Vegaswikian 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and also delete Category:Arrangers for Bing Crosby. However, the other two subcats are useful: Category:Bing Crosby songs and Category:Bing Crosby albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Overcategorization. Doczilla 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This easily has sufficient content. AshbyJnr 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As of this point in time, this cat seems to exist as a near duplicate/subset of Category:Crosby family, so as long as that is not up for deletion, we don't need this one. --After Midnight 0001 15:52, 4 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alpha Delta Gamma brothers, Category:Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters, Category:Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, Category:Chi Omega sisters and Category:Chi Psi brothers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was listify and delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per earlier discussion here that resulted in consensus to delete a bunch of fraternity membership cats, I am nominating these as well. See also Category:United States student societies for several dozen more of these cats.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Dominictimms 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The lengthy discussions at the previous CFDs didn't produce any evidence of fraternities being a defining characteristic. There was plenty of evidence that they may be very significant experiences for the members, but nothing that in any way impacted on their reasons for notability. I'd happily change my mind if someone could offer some evidence of a link between fraternity membership and notability, but I'd need something more than doing some good works, participating in hazing, and taking oaths to mom-and-apple-pie ideals.  (BTW, I don't mean "mom-and-apple-pie ideals" in a disparaging sense: the ideals as explained all sounded great to me, but were so generalised that no-one would oppose them, so they didn't commit members to anything exceptional). --19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and previous discussions. -- rimshots talk 09:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fraternity/sorority membership may be defining for some people but not for the vast numbers of people in the category. Like the previous categories, they should be deleted.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dr. Submillimeter again. Dr. Submillimeter makes many astute comments. Haddiscoe 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, it has taken several years to compile this list and I don't agree with summarily deleting the hard work by the many users that have donated personal time to compile this list.--Ccson 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - At least one of the administrators has a bot that can listify this category. The list would then be preserved, while the category could be deleted.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question&mdash;Where would he list be placed? The whole idea for creating the category was because the list was making the article longer and some articles are just a list.  The Alpha Phi Alpha article is a Featured Article, and I wonder how including this list would affect its status, assuming of course that the answer to my question is that the list would be within each group's article.--Ccson 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-defining.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Listify per Ccson and Dr. Submillimeter's commentary. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepThese pages serve as a convenient grouping for notable individuals that share a common bond, and assisted researchers in finding such individuals. User:Pettiebone 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nathanian 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the long unsigned comment second down. AshbyJnr 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Listify to List of Foo brothers/sisters and Delete --After Midnight 0001 15:59, 4 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kappa Sigma Fraternity
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Kappa Sigma Fraternity to Category:Kappa Sigma. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Rename to omit "fraternity", per standard.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename - This is a sensible maintenance-related nomination. Dr. Submillimeter 09:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Sumahoy 16:07, 27 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

====Category:African women in war, Category:Nubian women in warfare, Category:Japanese women in warfare, Category:Turkish women in warfare, Category:Indian women in war and Category:Women in European warfare==== <div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Standardize. Rename all to "Women in war in ". Split per BHG's remarks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Sorry, I was going to say "support", but deleted all that I had typed out when I realised that tying the categories to the theatre of war rather than to the nationality of the women concerned completely changes the basis of the category. I think that it is more useful to tie the nationality to the person than to the war, because many countries whose citizens were involved in major wars did not have much conflict on their own territory: e.g. WWII in the USA was a short-lived affair which which consisted of Pearl Harbour; however the USA was involved in WWII for nearly for years, all over the globe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on reasoning above, though I'm not sure about the Pearl Harbor logic - wouldn't articles on "the war at home" and Rosie the Riveter still belong in a Women in War in the United States? I still think, however, that the category more likel to be useful is the current one. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Reply you're right Sam, the nominator's renaming would still allow Rosie the Riveter to fit in a Category:Women in war in the United States] ... but is there really any benefit in restricting the category to include only those who remained within the borders of the USA? --17:49, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in the Canadian armed services, Category:Puerto Rican women in the military
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Standardize. Rename all to "Women in war in ".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Both of these categories are sub-cats of Category:Women in war ... but they are occupational categories, which the others are not (I have now added them to a new category Category:Female military personnel, itself a child of Category:Military personnel).  "Women in war" includes civilians caught up in conflict, and in modern history (when military service is a fairly clearly defined concept) it is useful to separate the the concept of military service from involvement in war. This also affects the parenting of the categories: if renamed, these categories could no longer be subcats of Category:Military personnel.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, shuoldn't it be renamed to "Women in the Puerto Rican military"?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sounds right to me, User:BrownHairedGirl.  Has someone notified the people who use these categories, who may have thoughts on the right ways to categorize? A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:31, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in ancient Egyptian warfare
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Women in ancient Egyptian warfare to Category:Ancient Egyptian women in warfare. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Standardize. Rename all to "Women in war in ancient Egypt".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Or rename per BHG, I don't mind.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom for consistency. This is much better than the earlier proposal, which appeared to involve removing the word "ancient" -- it would not be helpful to broaden to category to include the very different later periods in Egyptian history. --17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)~
 * Act Consistently with outcome in above categories. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ancient Egyptian women in warfare: changing my recommendation after reconsidering other categs, and recommending this renaming to tie the nationality label to the person, for consistency with my the other categs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ancient Egyptian women in warfare per BrownHairedGirl. Postlebury 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This category makes no sense, unless we are going after "me-too" consistency. War was common phenomenon of ancient societies and female rulers were not expected to be meek (well, they would not last that long). Pavel Vozenilek 12:05, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in war in South and Central America
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Women in war in South and Central America to Category:Women in war in South America. The Latin American idea is reasonable, but would mean that the whole system would need to be rethought. That's a bit too radical for this narrow discussion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of the "by continent" tree, so rename to "South America" since that's what the continent is called. There's already a cat for north america.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, because if this goes ahead, note that we will need to create Category:Women in war in Central America, because South America does not include Central America. Is there any purpose in splitting the category? It is correctly parented, and only contains 22 articles and one sub-cat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it's part of the "by continent" tree. There are two continents involved, "North America" and "South America". Central America is not a contintent, and neither is "South and Central". Any articles in there should simply be moved to either the North cat or (for most) the South cat, and more specifically to the categories by country that we use for just about anything.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Where were decisions made on how to group continents/categories? It strikes me that culturally, "Latin America" is a more useful category for most cultural/historical subjects.  Likewise, there are regional areas like the "Middle East" that defy continental/national categories, and I'm curious as to whether they have been dismissed? A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a Category:Latin America - why not make this a subcat of that one and follow this cultural categorization scheme instead of the arbitrary "continental plate" approach.A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:46, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:North American colonial women in warfare
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much redundant with Category:Women in warfare in North America; dividing between "colonial" and "non-colonial" is rather pointless. Merge.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose this seems like a useful division by era, and also provides a distinction from native Americans. --16:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems consistent with splitting out "ancient" versus modern Egypt, per above. Where is the dividing line?  This is the kind of question that is best dealt with by those who are creating and populating the category, who usually have some expertise in the subject. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:34, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Central Asian women in war
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. The category does not contain any articles which are about Central Asia according to geographical definition. Given the multiple definitions of Central Asia, WP:OCAT is a problem here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mostly redundant with Category:Women in war in Asia. Splitting Asia into the "central" and "non-central" parts isn't all that useful. Merge.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom . Per-country categs will suffice where more precision is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Asian women in war. Changing my vote, per comment above about it being more useful to tie the nationality to the people than to the theatre of war. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't rename Sorry or changing my mind twice, but since e seem to be agreeing on the other categories being renamed to "Fooian women in war", this one should stay as is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Rename per User:BrownHairedGirl based on lack of population of the category (and why is there an Indian subcat of Central Asia?). This is one that could be a logical subcat, like the Middle East would be, but doesn't seem useful in its present state.  If someone were to populate, I might change my mind.  Have the creators been notified, as is civil? A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * rename, keep central asia It is very useful, since Asia is quite a large place, and central asia / steppe peoples should be separated from South Asia, East Asia. 132.205.44.134 22:05, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women in war in Scandinavia
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Women in war in Scandinavia to Category:Finnish women in war. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to "in Finland", since it has only one woman in there who happens to be Finnish. Create cats for Denmark/Sweden/Norway as necessary; no need for a "broad region" cat.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Finnish women in war, per other comments on tying nationality to the person rather than to the theatre of war --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per User:BrownHairedGirl, provided consistent with outcome of above discussions. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:37, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scandinavian archaeology
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant with the by-country cats for Denmark/Sweden/Norway. We cat by country and occasionally by continent, not by sub-continental region. Delete.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This analysis continues to baffle me. What about Category:Middle East or Category:Southeast Asia?  It strikes me there are important regional divisions other than continents.  A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that in general it's better to stick to country and continent categories,but there are circumstances where other regions are the logical way to organise things. In this case, the history of the area is not always mappable to the current nation-states, and some of these articles do seem to me to be best classified as Scandinavian rather than by country: e.g. Pitted Ware culture seems not to fit the national boundaries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Much of the archaeology relates to the period before the modern states existed, and to a greater extent than most neighbours, the modern states evolved from a common origin. Casperonline 01:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep useful regional distinction. --Peta 03:36, 30 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Economies of the Caribbean
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Economies of the Caribbean to Category:Economies of Caribbean countries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only serves as a placeholder for categories of the actual countries in the Caribbean. We cat by country and continent, not by sub-contintental region. Delete.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Question Given the existence of CARICOM, isn't there some merit in facilitating those readers who want to consider the Caribbean as a distinct economic area? (Not all Caribbean countries are members, so I don't that the CARICOM article is a substitute). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Economy of the Caribbean. Have to agree with BrownHairedGirl that the cat has some value but there is certainly no reason to have Economies as a subcat of Economy. Pascal.Tesson 22:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm also ok with the proposed renaming although I still slightly favor a simple upmerge. Pascal.Tesson 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per PT and BHG. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename as Category:Economies of Caribbean countries - The category serves as a useful subdivision of Category:Economy of the Caribbean, but it needs to be renamed to indicate its purpose. Note that if Category:Economies of the Caribbean is merged into Category:Economy of the Caribbean, then finding some of the other subcategories (e.g. Category:Companies of the Caribbean, Category:Banks of the Caribbean) will be difficult.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename as Category:Economies of Caribbean countries per Dr. S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename as Category:Economies of Caribbean countries per Dr. Submillimeter. Nathanian 20:28, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:High School Musical
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * high school musical


 * 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs parodied by "Weird Al" Yankovic
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete; already listified. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * songs parodied by "weird al" yankovic


 * Listify and delete per Otto4711's excellent nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Listify/delete - We should not categorize by parodization. Some articles would acquire multiple categories.  Dr. Submillimeter 14:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete already listified at List of songs by "Weird Al" Yankovic. –Pomte 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pomte Dominictimms 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As above, already listified. Dugwiki 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and make sure that the list includes songs in the category. Pascal.Tesson 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-defining, and the list already does the job much better. --Canley 03:46, 27 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rage guest programmers
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * rage guest programmers


 * Delete per nom and strong precedent against categorizing by guest performances. Otto4711 13:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as deprecated performer-by-performance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & precedent. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/Delete I wanted to replace the list with the category.Farsouth 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if it's deleted. But how long do these usually take to decide? Farsouth 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if it's deleted. But how long do these usually take to decide? Farsouth 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete rage has been going for about 20 years, AFAIK, and pretty much every band in the world would have guest programmed it at some time. This is really not a defining feature that anyone would need to categorise a band by, and it means nothing to non-Australians. I am also concerned that the list article is a wholesale copyvio of the ABC website, these should be an external link from the Rage (TV program) article. --Canley 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, they dont do guest programming every week. Identities as well as bands have guest programmed. I think a category is better than a list. Metao 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Guest Programmers on the rage site does go back to 1990 so thats about right. And if it is actually a copyvio well then I guess that is that. Though to me it was just a list. My thought was i would include subcategory by year but it seems no one wants such a category. Farsouth 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete most bands that tour Australia program rage. --Peta 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 40 bands or musicians last year guest programmed rage. How many toured in that time? Farsouth 11:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete a list is more flexible than a category (allows to list in order, or mention interesting songs they programmed, for example), and the category is not a useful identification (I'm Australian and even I wouldn't care). pfctdayelise (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete overcategorisation. List of - or category - and this is something a list would be better for as mentioned already.Garrie 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OCAT as performer by performance. --After Midnight 0001 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listification might work. It's certainly more appropriate.--ZayZayEM 13:27, 6 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Myx Music Awards by Year
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * myx music awards by year


 * Delete per nom. Trivial awards (Favorite ringtone?) and lists of winners can be linked to the main article. Otto4711 13:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete See WP:OCAT for reasoning. Dugwiki 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Doczilla 06:46, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Politicians
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * martin van buren
 * mitt romney
 * william mckinley


 * Reluctant weak delete; may be worth putting a notice on the Van Buren and McKinley article, in hopes that someone will populate these categories. Van Buren, in particular, could be useful if it were better used. But those in the category are for the most part either debateable or easily navigated from the main article itself. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Looking through these I agree with the nom. All the articles I saw seem to be reasonably indexed elsewhere already and are also interlinked in the main articles. The only one that seemed borderline was the article about the 2008 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney, but I'm ok with keeping that specifically in the 2008 presidential campaign category. Dugwiki 18:25, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hills in Longford
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge of Category:Hills in Longford into Category:Mountains and hills of Longford. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * hills in longford


 * Weak keep and place as subcat of the Category:Mountains of Ireland (soon to be renamed to Mountains and hills of Ireland) tree. Otto4711 13:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Category:Mountains and hills of Longford, which should have been created by the time this CFD closes (see Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 25). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Organisations in Dorset
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Organisations in Dorset to Category:Organisations based in Dorset. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Dorset to Category:Organisations based in Dorset
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Casperonline 01:49, 27 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mike Gravel
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * mike gravel

Delete. If those other cats got junked, this one certainly should. Wasted Time R 14:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Similar to the Mitt Romney category above. Again, only the 2008 presidential candidacy article would be borderline, and I'm ok with it just being in the 2008 presidential campaign category. Dugwiki 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Overcategorization. Doczilla 09:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete pr nom. Postlebury 14:54, 28 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Short-lived television shows
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

short-lived television shows needs to be renamed. — CharlotteWebb 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Television shows" should be "television series" instead, to match the parent Category:Television series.
 * 2) "Short-lived" is POV. However, the category's description page states that it is for programs canceled after one season or less, so the title of the category should be changed to reflect that.
 * Weak delete as an arbitrary inclusion standard (although I find the category interesting personally and am fine with people wanting to keep it). The television debut and cancellation/ending category trees, if placed appropriately, would tell people looking at the articles that the shows only lasted one season or less. Otto4711 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Perceptions of what "short-lived" means will vary from country to country. Dominictimms 17:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Arbitrary inclusion standard. However, I could possibly see a practical use for a category that includes series which ran long enough to go into syndicated reruns, if you could come up with an appropriate definition. (Whether or not a show's reruns lasts long enough to get picked up in general syndication is an important facet in judging the overall financial and popular success or failure of a series.) Dugwiki 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete category with vague title and arbitrary inclusion data. Doczilla 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dugwiki. Pavel Vozenilek 12:07, 31 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Adult models
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose renaming.-- Wizardman  18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Category:Adult models to Category:People in pornography How about "Models in pornography" or "Actors and models in pornography"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename. Avoids weasel words and is more precise. The present category sounds like it's a list of models who are adults (rather than child models); the category page contains a disclaimer to counter that perception. Hopefully all the people in pornography are adults. "Models" as used here is another weasel word in most cases. The category as it is now also lacks a main article; a possible future candidate would be Pornography, regardless of the outcome of the nomination. &mdash; Chidom  <sup style="color:#721227;">talk   08:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The existing name is clearly misleading, but the proposed name would widen the scope of the category by including producers, photographers, retailers, distributors, financiers etc, all of whom should be in separate sub-cats of Category:Sex industry.
 * Rename to Category:Pornographic models per Resurgent insurgent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dominictimms, below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose and rename to Category:Pornographic models. Would go along with BHG's alternative, but "X in pornography" sounds like an unnecessary mouthful. Resurgent insurgent 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Pornographic models. "People in pornography" is overly broad and could also include cameramen and porn fim directors. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)\
 * So call it "Performers in pornography", or make that a subcat of the "parent" category.— &mdash; Chidom  <sup style="color:#721227;">talk   12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The models aren't pornographic, by the way—the medium is. So "performers in" is better if you want to avoid having directors, etc. lumped in. "Models in erotica"? Are people who just pose for a picture "performing"? Are there actors who perform in erotic works? &mdash; Chidom  <sup style="color:#721227;">talk   21:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose rename to "Pornographic models" because not every "adult" photo is "pornographic." We distiguish between Category:Pornography and Category:Erotica so I'm uneasy at the possibility of either miscategorizing erotic models as "pornographic models" or excluding erotic models from the category. What about Category:Pornographic and erotica models?
 * Two people having sex are not "models". An argument can be made for an individual posing for erotic photos being referred to as a "model"; "adult models" isn't as clear as "models in erotic photography". They don't necessarily need to be in the same category. &mdash; Chidom  <sup style="color:#721227;">talk   12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is a distinction between a porn star and an adult model. Dominictimms 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So why are they all in the same category now? Adult model redirects to Erotic photography; call them "Models in erotic photography" and "Performers in pornography" (what constitutes a porn "star", anyway?). Some will be in both categories, some in one and not the other. &mdash; Chidom  <sup style="color:#721227;">talk   12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename because "adults models" sounds like they're models who aren't children. Any of the "pornography" or "pornographic" titles would be more accurate and apparent. Doczilla 09:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a common phrase. Anyone who speaks English knows what it means. Haddiscoe
 * I speak English and I've never heard the construction "adult model" outside of this category. "Adult entertainment" or "adult film" or "adult subject matter" or "adult themes" yes, but not "adult model." Which, come to think of it, is another argument for renaming to something other than "adult." An "adult film" in the vernacular is not the same as a film with "adult themes." "Adult" has different connotations so calling models "adult" is ambiguous. Otto4711 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose renaming, as it would overwrite the distinction between (hard-core) pornography and glamour photography, which is conventionally used in the real world. Haddiscoe 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it universally "conventionally used"? Apparently not. This is an encyclopedia; meanings should be clear. &mdash; Chidom  <sup style="color:#721227;">talk   12:44, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Domesticated animals by country
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. For example, Category:Domesticated animals of the United States will be renamed to Category:Animal breeds originating in the United States; Category:Domesticated animals by country will be renamed to Category:Animal breeds by country of origin; Category:English dogs will be renamed to Category:Dog breeds originating in England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Relisted from Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 15 in order to generate further discussion - jc37 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * domesticated animals by country


 * This is actually a proposal to rename the subcategories of the parent category. Domesticated animals by country. I think the content of the category would be more apparent if the subcats were all in the format Domesticated animals bred in X, which appears to be how the categories are being used; and since very few of the animals were technically domesticated in country X, but are rather breeds created from already domesticated species, the name change also clear up a misconception. As is the category name is fairly ambiguous and could really be stuck on any domesticated animals that occurs in a country. The parent cat may also need to be renamed to reflect the actual content as well.--Peta 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support rename, no preference as to how it's worded. Perhaps the parent could be renamed to Category:Domesticated animals by country of origin?  Postdlf 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion for the parent. --Peta 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename proposal is reasonable, although there are probably other clear ways of wording it, eg. something like: "Animal breeds domesticated in foo", because the sheep was probably only domesticated in 1 or 2 countries (which are probably long-since defunct), whereas these cats are actually about breeds of sheep (etc.), not the species itself. Someone started this with Japan a long time ago, and then the dog breeds more recently, and I was just trying to put it all in a broader framework. (There is a bit of problem with a lot of the African and Asian breeds, because our articles do not state their country of origin - modern countries did not exist when many breeds were developed - and it is probably not even known exactly where they 1st emerged anyway.)-- Mais oui! 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with your suggestion is that it perpetuates the problem of the original name, breeds aren't typically created from "wild" animals - they are created from already domesticated animals. The simplest solution would be to drop domesticated from the name all together, and to just go with Animal breeds from X, or Animal breeds originating in X--Peta 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Animal breeds from X, I think, is ambiguous. It could either mean animals bred in X or animals breeds originating in X. How about something closer to the original suggestion, either Animals bred in X or Animals first bred in X. I support the notion that the adjective domesticated is not necessary, once animals are bred, they are, for all intents and purposes, also domesticated. Domesticated as a verb is problematic for the two reasons pointed out already: (1) Existing domesticated animals were usually domesticated before the existance of our modern countries; (2) New animal breeds usually originate in existing domesticated breeds of animals. --Rimshots 10:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no opinion on this yet, but please include Category:Hungarian breeds in the discussion. The Hungarian category is named differently from everything else, and its name should be changed to match other categories (although it cannot be named until a decision is made on the other categories).  Dr. Submillimeter 09:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: domestication is not equal to breeding a new subspecie of already domesticated animal (that would be "breed by country" category), the name suggests often non-existent relation between domestication of an animal and a modern state, categorising of animals by political entities is generally wrong (this is, AFAIK unsolved problem) and there's very little relation between the categorised items to make such category useful. Pavel Vozenilek 11:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - These animals generally are recognized as connected with modern states. In many situations, the animal breeds were developed in modern countries (such as the Boston terrier in the United States, the brittany (dog) in France, and the akita in Japan).  Deletion seems highly inappropriate here.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Update - I've changed the rename to Category:Animal breeds by country of origin and the subcats Category:Animal breeds originating in X . I think this reflects the content of the categories and is "biologically" correct. --Peta 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support the updated proposal. -- rimshots talk 09:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename following Peta's suggestion - This should be acceptable to almost all people. Dr. Submillimeter 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Request for clarification am I correct in understanding Peta's suggestion as being, for example :
 * Category:English dogs to be renamed to Category:Dog breeds originating in England
 * Category:Domesticated animals of England to be renamed to Category:Animal breeds originating in England? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I hadn't considered to dog breeds, they should probably be renamed too; and yes they wouls be renamed as you have described. --Peta 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per Peta. --Mais oui! 07:20, 2 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Aviation lists
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Aviation lists into Category:Aviation-related lists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Aviation lists to Category:Aviation-related lists


 * Merge. We only need one and the suggest target seems to be the most common form. Vegaswikian 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom as duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom and keep as a redirect. Hawkestone 12:31, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wharton Infosys Business Transformation Award winners
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * wharton infosys business transformation award winners


 * Delete as per many other award categories; this is not a defining characteristic of the companies involved, and only creates category clutter. The existing list in the article does the job more effectively, because (as with other awards) the information is generated as a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:12, 26 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:List about Disney
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:List about Disney to Category:Disney-related lists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:List about Disney to Category:Disney-related lists
 * Nominator's Rationale:


 * Rename per nom. Otto4711 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. The current name does not so much have "grammatical issues" as a grammatical breakdown :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Rename per nom. Hawkestone 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Doczilla 09:08, 27 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American ice hockey people by state
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Consensus was clear even with strong opposition. Previous discussions about the significance of birthplace and future success in a particular career have generally gone in the direction of delete. The one for Canada mentioned below being one of the exceptions and that one probably should be reconsidered in light of this discussion and its result. Vegaswikian 21:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * american ice hockey people by state


 * Delete all per nom - Agree completely that categorizing athletes by state or province is overcategorization. Otto4711 00:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Resurgent insurgent 09:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all trivial categorization. Pascal.Tesson 15:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom and for being worded clumsily. Katr67 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Categorizing players by state is too messy, especially since hockey players may live in several states during their childhoods and careers. Dr. Submillimeter 09:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Where a player is from denotes where he was born and does not change as he moves around. A standard exists for whom is placed in these categories. --Djsasso 00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Haddiscoe 11:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep. An attempt to delete Category:Canadian ice hockey personnel by province or territory recently failed and this is an attempt to do the same thing via the back door. Kevlar67 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That CfD ended as "no consensus", which is not the same as "keep". Even if it ended as a keep, consensus can change between discussions. Resurgent insurgent 12:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This was not an attempt to backdoor anything. I specifically decided to nominate these categories after seeing Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24.  I was not involved in any prior discussions regarding Category:Canadian ice hockey personnel by province or territory and in fact, did not know those categories existed until I saw your comment. --After Midnight 0001 06:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment yes, it would be nice to assume good faith here. I'd like to note also that the relative importance of hockey in Canada makes the "by province" classification more useful. For most American states, there are only a handful of notable hockey players and this is really overcategorization. Pascal.Tesson 12:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: "no consensus": Fair enough, but it seems odd that we would expect consensus here when it wasn't forthcoming there.
 * Re: Not being a part of the other discussion: Sorry I didn't take the time to look more closely. I still feel that both sets need to be considered together not separately.  It's clear Canadian editors came out with powerful defences of the by province categories.  Just because American editors thus far haven't done so this time, doesn’t mean they should be deleted.
 * Thank you --After Midnight 0001 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Re "relative importance": I'd argue that it's even more defining for American players since it is highly notable to be a hockey player from a sun-belt state. Kevlar67 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as said already. Kaiser matias 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very usefull. Where a player comes from especially a hockey player in the US is a very defining characteristic. --Djsasso 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, is the state a hockey player from a very defining characteristic? Otto4711 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well to use an extreme example...If a hockey player came from Hawaii it says alot about what he had to go through to have become a hockey player compared to a player from Minnesota. --Djsasso 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in the category tells us nothing about the player or what he had to go through to be a hockey player. Being born in Hawaii and moving to the mainland at the age of two would qualify the player for the "from Hawaii" category. In some ways your suggestion is an argument against categorizing by state, because it can lead to unfounded assumptions which are unsupported by facts. Otto4711 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To be one of the rare professional hockey players from a sunbelt state in and of itself is defining. Even if he did move at the age of 2 he still came from an area that its not played (normally) and thus him picking it up when he moved to the mainland is still remarkable. --Djsasso 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. I'm not at all convinced by "Even if he did move at the age of 2 he still came from an area that its not played ..." and where this might have some slight impact, every state has indoor ice rinks, so it's rather minor. — coe l acan — 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete trivia. Doczilla 07:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep though cats by team is most useful (per nom), by geographic area does is telling of the player. Agree with Katr67 that wording is awkward.  Mitico 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Besides being useful for categorizing the state/province of origin of individual hockey players, it's also useful as a subcategory of "People from (whatever state/province)" or "Athletes from (whatever state/province) -- which is where I'm coming from as a member of WP:ALASKA. --Yksin 01:14, 6 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FSA debit card provider
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * fsa debit card provider


 * Delete - This category looks like it is being used to advertise the services of FBMC, which is the only entry in the category. Note that FBMC has been nominated for deletion, although the nomination appears to be incomplete.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as meaningless advertising category for a single promotional article. See the AFD for FBMC at Articles for deletion/FBMC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not needed and will be empty soon since FBMC will likely fail its AfD and be deleted.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Haddiscoe 11:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as empty when main article fails AfD. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - looking into it more, it seems that when the spam article FBMC was written, the editor also created a bunch of categories similar to this, I've put them up for CfD as a group here. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 13:12, 29 March 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.