Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 8



Category:Period piece TV series

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Period piece TV series to Category:Period television series
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. I created the category and this renaming is fine with me, though I don't have any strong leanings either way. I do think the category serves a purpose.  Fiction using historical events as background is an established story telling tradition.  Being from a prior historical period is part of the definition of such a story.  Otherwise the story is assumed to take place "now". SnappingTurtle (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not defining for tv series which are often fiction which obviously has ahistoric events usually from the past to give them context. And how far in the past must it be to be "period" - 60 Minutes is mostly about past events, as are most newsy shows - I am waiting for a financial channel who'll be giving me the closing stock prices for a future date. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Period Piece Television implies a piece set in a period but made outside it, while Period Television suggests a piece of a period. That said, neither really "works" for me.  However, as the only alternative I can think of is "costume drama" I can't suggest something else. Duggy 1138 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the rename is in line with the existing Category:Period films. The notion that 60 Minutes could be viewed as a period piece is ridiculous. Otto4711 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries to Category:People killed by loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles in Northern Ireland
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to something as the current title is very POV. I was thinking this was about Central America... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support if "in Northern Ireland" is dropped - as they didn't just kill people in Northern Ireland. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 23:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:People killed by security forces

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People killed by security forces to Category:People killed by British security forces during the Troubles in Northern Ireland
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to something as the current title is very POV. I was thinking this was about Israel... 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:People killed by British security forces during the Troubles, the "in Northern Ireland" will cause problems, for example Diarmuid O'Neill. One Night In Hackney  303  14:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:People killed during the Troubles

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People killed during the Troubles to Category:People killed during the Troubles in Northern Ireland
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Oppose renaming to that name. The category and sub-categories include people who were killed in the Republic of Ireland, so it would be factually inaccurate. One Night In Hackney  303  10:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment how about Category:People killed during the Irish Troubles? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that that suggestion could work. Snocrates 08:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is "during" intended to indicate a causal relationship? Or just a time-relationship? Because if the former, I'm not sure it's strong enough -- wouldn't it include random car accidents? I note that there is no "people killed..." parent category; it should probably be Category:War-related deaths, and the format there is "People killed in ...", as in Category:People killed in World War I or Category:People killed in the Spanish Civil War. That would lead to "Category:People killed in the Irish Troubles" (which is clear but I do note that "The Troubles" is specific enough -- the term is used only in reference to n.ireland AFAIK). --Lquilter (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Official IRA members

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

The result of the discussion was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Official IRA members to Category:Official Irish Republican Army members
 * Category:Real IRA actions to Category:Real Irish Republican Army actions
 * Category:Provisional IRA actions to Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army actions
 * Category:People killed by the Provisional IRA to Category:People killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army
 * Category:People killed by the Official IRA to Category:People killed by the Official Irish Republican Army
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Administrators of the EPA

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

The result of the discussion was rename Category:Administrators of the EPA to Category:Administrators of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Administrators of the EPA to Category:Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * Comment - Actually, both the category and the main article probably should be renamed specifying that they are for the United States, to distinguish them from all of the other Environmental Protection Agencies. Cgingold (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom - I don't think it's necessary to specify "USA" as the parent cat is already Category:United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Sting_au   Talk  21:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename using US as there are other EPAs. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (nominator). Per Cgingold, main article for agency is at United States Environmental Protection Agency, so it could be renamed Category:Administrators of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. That's probably a good idea, and it wouldn't hurt to move the main article for the administrators to match, I suppose. Snocrates 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films set in Washington state

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

The result of the discussion was rename one, merge one per nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Films set in Washington state to Category:Films set in Washington
 * Propose merging Category:Washington (state) actors to Category:Washington actors
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Comment Only problem I see with this, is that it could start being confused with Washington DC. -Djsasso (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which should have its own categories under the structures and currently doesn't. Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it does: Category:Films set in Washington, D.C. and Category:Washington, D.C. actors. Rename and merge, but put a note on the ones from Washington state saying that DC-related ones go in their respective categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose use the discriminator " (U.S. state) " 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom for consistency across categories. Snocrates 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per long standing consensus and consistency. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Radio stations in Jamestown / Valley City

 * The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Kbdank71 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * radio stations in jamestown / valley city


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unnecessary cat.  Sting_au   Talk  21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Turkish Navy ship classes

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

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * turkish navy ship classes


 * Nominator's rationale:
 * Comment - Mainly for convenience within Category:Turkish Navy - I will remove from Category:Ship classes. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. In the future, ideally (according to WP:SHIPS guidelines) Category:Turkish Navy ships would have subcategories for each class, which would contain the class article and articles for all of the individual ships; however, I understand that that's difficult to at this point because for most of these classes we don't have articles on the individual members. TomTheHand (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Wuppertaler SV Borussia players

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Wuppertaler SV Borussia players to Category:Wuppertaler SV players
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. – PeeJay 08:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Minnesota films

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

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Minnesota films to Category:Films set in Minnesota
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * Merge to standard - agree per nom.--Appraiser (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom.  Sting_au   Talk  21:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Mass Effect characters

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * mass effect characters


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nomination. Too broad to be any good. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - very unlikely to be further populated and current article covered by other cats.  Sting_au   Talk  22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Online Trading Card 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Online Trading Card Games to Category:Online collectible card games
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per non - better matches parent cats. Sting_au   Talk  21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:German-born Americans

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:German-born Americans to Category:German immigrants to the United States
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge (or delete) - this is a newly created category with 1 member, Robert F. Wagner, already in the longer-established and well-populated Category:German immigrants to the United States via Category:German-born United States political figures. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Before you merge or delete, keep in mind that there are German-born Americans who are not immigrants, many (though not all) of them military brats. An especially notable example is John McEnroe, born in Wiesbaden (his father was stationed at Wiesbaden Air Base at the time). — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dale Arnett's comment, but rename as Category:Americans born in Germany or similar. --Bob (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that John McEnroe is in Category:German-born Americans and not in Category:German immigrants to the United States (and not in Category:German-Americans) - but do we need this category at all? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - overcategorization, part of the mania for breaking down race, nationality, ethnicity, etc. to ever more absurd degrees of specificity. Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was only commenting that you can't necessarily conflate German-born Americans with German immigrants to the US. With all the comments in mind, I now officially vote to delete. — Dale Arnett (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711 overcat.  Sting_au   Talk  22:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete John McEnroe and one could add Jackson Browne were born on military bases in Germany, certainly not immigrants. These people are (or should be) categorized by place of birth already to tack on a by nationality, we'll end up with American-born Americans and Americans from Los Angeles type categories. Nip this in the bud. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are we then going to eliminate Irish-born Americans and the like? BobJones77 —Preceding comment was added at 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We shouldn't be categorizing people by where they were born ... where the mother happened to be when her time came is not a defining characteristic. See User:ProveIt/index -- Prove It (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Independence Movements
<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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge both into Category:Independence movements. Kbdank71 15:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Independence Movements to Category:Sovereignty movements
 * Nominator's rationale:

<hr style="width:50%;"/>
 * Comment. Given the subcats and article names in the target category, why not reverse merge?  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True — yes, either could work and the subs tend to use "independence" more commonly than "sovereignty". I only chose the merge the way I did b/c "sovereignty" had the majority of categories and "independence" only had one article. Whatever others think should be fine either way. Snocrates 07:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * reverse merge so the end result will be just Category:Independence Movements which is the more commonly used term I expect. Hmains (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverse Merge per Hmains. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (nominator) on reverse merge : if reversed merged, the target category should be changed to Category:Independence movements (caps change). Snocrates 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverge merge, with lower-case 'm' in 'movements'. --Soman (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, the consensus appears to be merge both into Category:Independence movements, but as Category:Sovereignty movements wasn't tagged for renaming, I've relisted this. --Kbdank71 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Category:Independence movements for the reasons above. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Category:Independence movements as best descriptor of the concept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Excuse me, but this entire discussion has completely overlooked the fact that there is another closely related category, Category:National liberation movements. It seems to me that any decision here needs to take account of all three of these categories. I am doubtful that there is a good case to be made for retaining more than one of these categories. So I strongly recommend relisting this CFD and starting over from the beginning. Cgingold (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction is there is probably a significant difference, though it probably hasn't been abided by too strictly. I don't think the movements of the Québécois or the Scots for independence would be classified as "national liberation movements", and Armia Krajowa wasn't fighting for independence, they were fighting for liberation from Nazi occupation of their already-sovereign country. I don't see a problem with closing this CFD and then you nominating a merge if you feel strongly about combining the two. This one has gone on for quite some time and it's really just combining two categories that are clearly duplicative. Snocrates 04:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Skateboarding events
<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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Skateboarding events to Category:Skateboarding competitions
 * Nominator's rationale:
 * You're the creator and only editor of this category, so you can just create the better cat, move the articles, and put a db-author tag on the old category. --Lquilter (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Fits better with other the other subcategories of Category:Sports competitions. Rigadoun (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom - The creator could of course follow Lquilter's suggestion.  Sting_au   Talk  12:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Basingstoke Bison (BNL) players
<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 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 relisted on jan 17. Kbdank71 15:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging


 * Category:Basingstoke Bison (BNL) players to Category:Basingstoke Bison players
 * Category:Basingstoke Bison (EIHL) players to Category:Basingstoke Bison players
 * Category:Basingstoke Bison (ISL) players to Category:Basingstoke Bison players
 * Category:Belfast Giants (EIHL) players to Category:Belfast Giants players
 * Category:Belfast Giants (ISL) players to Category:Belfast Giants players
 * Category:Cardiff Devils (BHL) players to Category:Cardiff Devils players
 * Category:Cardiff Devils (BNL) players to Category:Cardiff Devils players
 * Category:Cardiff Devils (EIHL) players to Category:Cardiff Devils players
 * Category:Cardiff Devils (ISL) players to Category:Cardiff Devils players
 * Category:Coventry Blaze (BNL) players to Category:Coventry Blaze players
 * Category:Coventry Blaze (EIHL) players to Category:Coventry Blaze players
 * Category:Edinburgh Capitals (BNL) players to Category:Edinburgh Capitals players
 * Category:Edinburgh Capitals (EIHL) players to Category:Edinburgh Capitals players
 * Category:Hull Stingrays (BNL) players to Category:Hull Stingrays players
 * Category:Hull Stingrays (EIHL) players to Category:Hull Stingrays players
 * Category:Hull Stingrays (EPIHL) players to Category:Hull Stingrays players
 * Category:Nottingham Panthers (1946-1960) players to Category:Nottingham Panthers players
 * Category:Nottingham Panthers (1954-1960 BNL) players to Category:Nottingham Panthers players
 * Category:Nottingham Panthers (1980-present) players to Category:Nottingham Panthers players
 * Category:Nottingham Panthers (BHL) players to Category:Nottingham Panthers players
 * Category:Nottingham Panthers (EIHL) players to Category:Nottingham Panthers players
 * Category:Nottingham Panthers (ISL) players to Category:Nottingham Panthers players
 * Category:Bracknell Bees (ISL) players to Category:Bracknell Bees players
 * Category:Guildford Flames (BHL) players to Category:Guildford Flames players
 * Category:Guildford Flames (BNL) players to Category:Guildford Flames players
 * Category:Guildford Flames (EPIHL) players to Category:Guildford Flames players


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Merge Splitting these categories up in the first place was ridiculous and should have been discussed prior to doing so. The defining characteristic is most definitely the team and not the league it was playing for at the time. The categories are small and unlikely to grow much past what they are. And players who have played for the team through the different league changes would have significant category clutter. -Djsasso (talk)
 * Keep. Right now, all of these categories are subcategories of Category:Ice hockey players by league.  Removing these categories will not make it cleaner.  I believe it will add clutter because players will be in the team categories and the league categories instead of just the team/league categories.  (e.g. Paul Adey is a member of Category:Nottingham Panthers (BHL) players, Category:Nottingham Panthers (EIHL) players, & Category:Nottingham Panthers (ISL) players.  If this merge proceeds, he will then become a member of Category:Nottingham Panthers players, Category:Ice Hockey Superleague players, Category:Elite Ice Hockey League players, Category:British Hockey League players.  With this example, this player is in more categories, and they are less defining than before.) -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No it wouldn't because you would put the Category:Nottingham Panthers players in each of those league categories like it was before the creator went on his spree causing havoc with hockey categories. So to use your example the player would only now be in one category instead of three. -Djsasso (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As Djsasso says the Category:Nottingham Panthers players would be a sub category of Category:British Hockey League players, Category:Ice Hockey Superleague players etc. so those categories wouldn't be used for the player. Which is how they used to be before they were all changed. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. So, if you do that, you will get players categorized into leagues that they have never played in.  e.g. K. C. Timmons has never played in the BNL, but would end up being in a subcategory of the BNL players because he played for Coventry Blaze in the EIHL.  Should we rename the category to be Category:Players of teams that at one time were in the British Hockey League?  That is what the definition of the category would become if you make such a change.  -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd rather have it clear what team/league each player played for.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should already be clear in the player stats section or, if there isn't one, by following the external link to either Hockeydb, Eurohockey or Legendsofhockey. Even the most basic of stubs needs to be referenced. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and remove all the league categories (per UK football, cricket, rugby, ...). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom KimThePanther (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with User:JamesTeterenko that the way it was was misleading, having players linked to leagues that have never played in.  Although I am sympathetic with the nominator's sentiment that naming by league as well is unnecessary, ice hockey is heavily North Amer. biased in the way its leagues are structured even in Europe (and likely for longer in the UK), moving away from a promotion/relegation system, so I think listing by league is necessary.  finally, there is no precedent for not having category pages because they are thinly populated.  as User:Mike Selinker, what is important here is accuracy Mayumashu (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: One of the main problems I see is that the top level league in, particularly the UK, has changed a number of times over the years. In fact there are reasonably strong rumours of another change in the UK structure in the near future. This could mean that a player who has played for one club could have three (or more if you count second level) categories for the team they've played for eg. team (ISL) player, team (EIHL) player, team (whatever next) player etc. To me, that simply causes clutter at the bottom of the article while not really helping to inform. In my opinion the league part of the current categories seems more relevant to the team than the player.--JD554 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:I wouldn t be against seeing players listed by league and club separately with no interlinking between the two for clubs in Europe, so long as User:JamesTeterenko's concern is addressed Mayumashu (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Intellectually impaired people
<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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Intellectually impaired people to Category:People with intellectual impairment
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Strong rename per nom. The proposed new name is much better, and follows the convention of Category:People with disabilities. Well done to Sting_au for persisting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, convention, and WP:CATGRS. LeSnail (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom - also clearer. --Lquilter (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom for consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom for consistency within the parent cat. Maralia (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as potential attack category with subjective inclusion criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "tested IQ test score or formal diagnosis as having any form of mental retardation" is anything but subjective. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Lists of J-pop artists
<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 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. Kbdank71 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * lists of j-pop artists


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete as empty.  Sting_au   Talk  11:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Category:Lists of Japanese musicians now suffices. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Grand Prix motorcycle races 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 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 relisted on jan 16. Kbdank71 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Grand Prix motorcycle races by year to Category:Grand Prix motorcycle racing seasons
 * Nominator's rationale:


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

Category:Open Society
<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 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. Kbdank71 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * open society


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Diego Grez songs
<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: speedy deleted by User:Ryulong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * diego grez songs


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Speedy close as it doesn't exist anymore. LeSnail (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2008 (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:Global NGOs
<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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Global NGOs to Category:International non-governmental organizations
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Musical Artists who have performed at The First Cathedral
<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 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. Kbdank71 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * musical artists who have performed at the first cathedral


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Delete overcategorization. –Pomte 12:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not defining. LeSnail (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as performer by performance. Maralia (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Unions
<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 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. Kbdank71 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * unions


 * Nominator's rationale:


 * redirect per well argued nom Hmains (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above.  Sting_au   Talk  11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. The nominator is quite right that this is categorisation by name, but I think that a redirect is a bad idea: if editors place a student union or a mothers union in Category:Unions, the bots will then recategorise it under Category:Trade unions, which woukd be wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Changed my opinion once reading BrownHairedGirl's reasons.  Sting_au   Talk  12:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per BHG. LeSnail (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * D&S is fine with me -- I didn't realize bots always trawled the cat redirects! --Lquilter (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't seem to trawl very frequently, but in theory they are on the job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per BHG. — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Christian companies
<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 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. Kbdank71 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Christian companies to ???
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Comment. Seems like the same question here. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename to Category:Christian goods or services providers. To be perfectly frank, I think this category is absurd. It seems like it was created solely for the sake of Christian cheerleading/scorekeeping. As stated though, I suppose it could serve some purpose if it categorizes providers of Christian goods or services, since there is something unique about that. - CheshireKatz (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no clear boundary of what should be included. There is no corresponding category for any other faith. Upmerge Make its subcat Category:Christian media companies a sub-cat of its parent, category:Christian organizations. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The proposed renames are well-intended, but are all problematic:
 * Category:Companies marketing to Christians would create a category of companies-by-target-customer, which makes sense only if we are gong to create a new Category:Companies by marketing strategy, which would be a very bad idea, because there are so many permutations of marketing strategy that it would generate massive category clutter
 * Category:Companies relating to Christian goods and services or Category:Companies producing Christian goods and services are better, but again make sense only if there is going be a wider categorisation of companies producing religious goods. I don't think that such a category is workable, because most companies in that line of business also produce secular goods &mdash; there was a lot of church-building in Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s, but the builders also constructed secular projects. Looking at the current membership of Category:Christian companies, only a minority of articles would qualify for this category: I think that only Family Christian Stores, and LifeWay Christian Resources would fit, and that even Christian Real Estate Network doesn't qualify. None of those three companies are clearly notable.
 * Most of the companies in the current category are merely companies where the owners are christian. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * comment - BHG is right about the contents of the cat & I should have summarized them in my nom. Delete is fine with me, too. The category as presently named is not workable. --Lquilter (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose replacing with Category:Christian media retailers or similar as a new sub-cat of Category:Christian media companies. Initial members from this category would be Berean, Family & Lifeway. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   —Fayenatic (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that "Christian media retailers" has the same potential confusion regarding the adjective -- I'm sure it's meant to apply to media not retailers, but "Retailers of Christian media" would be clearer. --Lquilter (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, Fayenatic (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * mini-comment - I think "Vendors" would be better than "Retailers" as it would also include wholesalers. Cgingold (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But there are also distributors and manufacturers; there's a whole "Christian economy". "Companies" is nicely generic because it incorporates everything. --Lquilter (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting, LQ? That these vendors should just be added into the existing Category:Christian media companies rather than making a new sub-cat called Category:Christian media retailers?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose that producers, distributors, retailers, wholesalers, and broadcasters of "Christian media" can all go into the same category. --Lquilter (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, agreed: no new sub-cat is required. I have down-categorised the three articles I mentioned. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete companies cannot be Christian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It does seem that "religion-related goods and services" (however described) is a potentially useful category that could include, for instance, halal & kosher food producers / certifiers / catering companies; religious media producers (of which there is an entire christian alternative economy, at least here in the states); retailers of faith-based goods & services (in the states there are a lot of jewish & christian retail stores). Would a generic category, Category:Religion-related companies, work? That could be a better parent category for Category:Christian media companies and any other relevant categories that are needed & developed over time. --Lquilter (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - There exists Category:Kosher restaurants but I'm not sure that a new head category would be useful. Practically all the food companies in the Muslim world would go into it, not that I can find articles on any. There are the likes of Qibla Cola, but I'm not sure that has a better claim to be a religion-related company than say Chick-fil-A or Alaska Airlines in the cat nominated here. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The whole structure of Category:Christian organizations is a mess. The category itself contains some churches as well as a grab bag of practically any other kind of organization, corporate or not, which has some vague connection to Christianity, up to and including the Ku Klux Klan. Then we have Category:Christian media companies, which contains a bunch of religious goods sellers, and Category:Christian publishing companies, which overlaps with media companies so much that people can't figure out which to use, and so sometimes use both. There's also a denominational hierarchy problem because there are denominational "organization" cats, but then there are other cats by kind (e.g. "religious orders") which then break down by denomination. There's something to be said for a category meaning "companies whose operation is affected by Christian precepts", but given the current chaos, that categorization is a footnote to the main problem. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:KPMG
<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 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. Kbdank71 16:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * kpmg


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete category;


 * Delete, implement suggestions of the nominator. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've redirected one merged firm, William Barclay Peat & Co. (no additional info to merge), and PRODded one of the bios. Everything necessary is already linked from KPMG. The football team's logo indicates that it is clearly sponsored by KPMG, but it's not material info in the context of the KPMG article. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
<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 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. Kbdank71 16:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * deloitte touche tohmatsu


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a firm. Contains 6 articles, one on the firm, three on its founders, and two on awards/league tables maintained by the firm. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The article on the firm already links to all the others. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:CBC Radio 3 programs
<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 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 keep/withdrawn. Kbdank71 17:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Procedural nomination because there was an out-of-process speedy on this. The backstory is that User:Breno personally emptied this category yesterday, and then immediately tagged it as a CSD C1 ("empty for four days or more") even though it had been empty for closer to four minutes, and so it promptly got speedied. I can find no evidence of any actual discussion to build a consensus for deleting this — and the original rationale behind its creation was that because CBC Radio consists of three separate radio networks (six if we actually had any articles on the French networks' programs!), it wasn't helpful to jumble all of the different networks' individual programs into the single Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio programs parent.

My personal preference would be to keep, since it serves to diffuse a parent category on the very criterion which differentiates the category entries in real life. However, even if CFD consensus decides to delete it, the process that was originally followed here was not acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm for Keep, too, but I'm still unclear as to why User:Breno emptied the cat and then tagged it for deletion. I see your request for his (or her) rationale on Breno's talk page, but no reply, either on his or yours. Was there one? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above opinions. Weird. Snocrates 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid category.  Thanks for the clean-up, Bearcat.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Definately should be kept the fact that it is on CBC Radio 3 is a defining characteristic compared to the other two networks being that Radio 3 is internet and satelite radio only and not conventional radio like the other two. -Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I now realise my merge into the broader category was done so without concensus so I do appreciate the nominator running the correct process for me. Further notes on my talk page. I'm now up to date on the CFD process, and all article changes relating to this cat have been reverted. My intention was that with such small category for this particular station, with four articles, they could be merged into the broader category. I also noticed a lot of duplication across station categories, for example Fuse article is listed in Category:CBC Radio One programs, Category:CBC Radio 2 programs, and Category:CBC Radio 3 programs which seems a little redundant. Hopefully I've explained my reasoning clearly for discussion to continue. --Breno talk 07:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A few of the shows (a small minority of the total) do air contemporaneously on more than one of the CBC's networks. With those rare exceptions, however, the networks are sufficiently different (Radio One = primarily news and talk, Radio Two = primarily music, Radio 3 = satellite-only indie rock) that their programming really does need to be sorted into separate categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to withdraw this procedural deletion nomination. --Breno talk 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Non-article Ireland articles
<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 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 nomination withdrawn. Kbdank71 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The category text clearly says"This category contains non-article pages within the scope of WikiProject Ireland. Articles are automatically added to this category by assigning the 'class=NA' parameter as part of the WikiProject Ireland banner."…so it is a great pity that the nominator did not have the courtesy to notify the either the category creator or WikiProject Ireland of the proposed renaming of a project maintenance template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Non-article Ireland articles to Category:Non-article Ireland pages per nonsense about current name of category. Georgia guy (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak rename  This is a maintenance category used by WikiProject Ireland, and populated by the project banner template WikiProject_Ireland. The proposed rename probably makes more sense, but if it is renamed, the template will need to be amended.
 * PS project now notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There are some similarly named categories in Category:NA-Class articles; these are mostly named NA-Class X articles, or Non-article X pages, or Non-article X articles.  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think all these WikiProject assessment categories should say "Wikiproject xxx yyy-class articles" instead... it's alot more clear. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, changing my !vote per 132.205.44.5's comment. I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn, and that a fresh nomination be made to rename all the Wikiproject Ireland categories to "Wikiproject Ireland yyy-class articles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Aboriginal goddesses
<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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Aboriginal goddesses to Category:Australian Aboriginal goddesses
 * Category:Aboriginal gods to Category:Australian Aboriginal gods
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename although this might be over categorization and they could both be merged into Category:Australian Aboriginal deities (see below). --Bduke (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom along the lines of Bduke's suggestion. Definitely overcategorisation, Category:Australian Aboriginal deities is all that is needed. See below.  Mattinbgn\talk 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (nominator) The reason I didn't suggest an upmerge is subclassifying by "gods" and "goddesses" is done for every other subcategory of Category:Deities by culture where gods and goddesses exist. Thus, it seems to be part of an overall system of categorization per WP:NCCAT. Upmerging the categories will remove the information from the parent categories Category:Goddesses by culture and Category:Gods by culture. This shouldn't be done unless Category:Goddesses is merged with Category:Gods, which is a proposal that has been recently rejected. Snocrates 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I would class all of these cases as overcategorisation and borderline sexist (can you be sexist about mythological beings?).  I would rename the Gods and Goddesses categories, Male deities and Female deities if there is an insistence on maintaining separate cats but this is not the forum so I will modify by suggestion above and leave it at that. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to Australian Aboriginal deities (or ... mythology) per Snocrates' regarding clarification of Australian and Bduke's gender-fix in conformity with current patterns. - We don't need to segregate fictional religious beings by gender. --Lquilter (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But Snocrates is suggesting segregating fictional religious beings by gender. --Bduke (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting a start to the segregation — it already exists. I'm just suggesting we add "Australian" to the pre-existing names. Jeez! My proposal has suggested no change to the status quo beyond that. Snocrates 03:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I should have said you were suggesting continuing with segregating fictional religious beings by gender. Nevertheless I believe a change to the status quo is required. See below. These names are not correct. --Bduke (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey that's OK. You're of course welcome to propose any changes; I just don't want to be associated with the pre-existing segregation at this time because I'm not positive what my position on it is apart from knowing the erasure of it was recently rejected in Oct 2007. Snocrates 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops - sorry, I just saw the notes posted by Bduke and thought they were part of Snocrates' original comment. Clarified my recommendation in italics. --Lquilter (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. On further reflection I am not sure that the term "god" or "goddess" means the same in Aboriginal culture as in other cultures. The terms "god" and "goddess" for example are not mentioned in Australian Aboriginal mythology. I note too that not all the entries in the two categories describe the subject of the article as a "god" or "goddess". As in many things trying to bring Aboriginal culture into the same framework as other cultures may be unhelpful and misleading. Many of the articles in these categories are poor as they talk of a general Aboriginal culture and do not link the being they are writing about to land and place. I think we should merge all the articles, including the three in Category:Australian Aboriginal deities, into Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology and stop trying to make distinctions that might be wrong. This modifies my response above. --Bduke (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment. See discussion at Category talk:Aboriginal gods which goes back some while and suggests that the names may be offensive to Australian Aboriginals. Category:Australian Aboriginal Dreaming Spirits is suggested as a better name. --Bduke (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose and comment Deities, Gods and Goddesses are inappropriate terms for use in Australian Aboriginal dreamtime and appear to have been introduced solely for consistency with categories from other places.  I'd prefer to keep the Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology as a catchall and remove the three subcats.Moondyne 04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Oppose for more thoughtful/careful care, discussion and agreement here:  My reasons for this position are given  here, and I also refer you to discussion  here Bruceanthro (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you opposing?—it's not clear from the comments you linked to. Are you opposing the nomination, which is to add the word "Australian" to the categories, or are you opposing the use of "gods/goddesses", or are you opposing the very existence of the categories, or what? With so many varying comments and opinions above it's important that subsequent commenters make it clear what they are opposing and why. I'd like to see votes on the nomination itself and then optionally voting/comments on other proposals. Snocrates 07:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK .. apologies if the above comments were not sufficiently clear and to the point. In casting my vote, I am opposed to any proposal to recategorise the lists of Aboriginal gods, goddesses and/or dieties until a little more thought, editing care and editing attention is actually given to upgrading the articles listed (making the content of the lists being discussed more meaningful.


 * I oppose the proposal, in favour instead of having further, more detailed, careful, thoughtful and possibly respectful discussion on the new WikiProject Indigenous Australians discussion page, as part of a possible project collaboration to begin the necessary work of contextualising and upgrading current small plethora of listed stubs and expanding from there across the whole of the approx. 400 (or more) distinct Australian Aboriginal groups of Australia, including some of their more significant (notable?) mythic characters/ancestoral beings?!


 * Perhaps yourself and others may be agreeable to supporting the later proposal ie holding off further categorisation or recategorisation of Aboriginal mythic characters, ancestoral beings etc .. until more detailed etc discussions can be held on WikiProject Indigenous Australians as part of a project collaboration to begin properly tackling the articles currently proposed to be listed as Australian Aboriginal gods and godesses. Bruceanthro (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support rename - the rename doesn't prejudice any further discussion (on which I have no views) but adds the essential info that the aboriginals in question are australian ones. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom; note that the comparable Greek & Roman categories are divided by sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The point at issue is that Aboriginal mythology is not in any way comparable to Greek and Roman. --Bduke (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. This discussion has become rather unclear. Let me try to clarify matters. Editors who appear to know about Aboriginal mythology (not including me although I have lived in areas with many Aboriginal people and worked with them) have argued strongly that Aboriginal mythology does not have the concept of gods or goddesses. Several editors have proposed that Category:Aboriginal gods, Category:Aboriginal goddesses and Category:Australian Aboriginal deities be all merged into Category:Australian Aboriginal mythology. I suggest that this be the substantial proposal. If everything here is too unclear, it could be closed and a new CfD proposal started. Alternatively it could be closed as no consensus or even the rename to just add "Australian" and left to the WikiProject Indigenous Australians to sort out. --Bduke (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (nominator) No, I am not withdrawing my nomination or asking that it be closed (if that's what you were suggesting)—I stand by the suggestions I have made. If there is a desire for further change after this CFD, another could be started, but I see no reason why consensus can't be gained on whether or not to make the change I suggested or to immediately make the more dramatic change you have proposed. Snocrates 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Qualified Rename, to enable consensus, acknowledging that 'Australian Aboriginal gods/godesses' is not much different (and no worse) than "Aboriginal gods/godesses" .. I have withdrawn opposition expressed above ..although I agree with Bduke (talk)clarification above, and would urge all/any interested contibutors/editors to later revisit the categorisation, the associated listing plus the articles listed at WikiProject Indigenous Australians Bruceanthro (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, if Aboriginal mythic characters or ancestoral beings are to be classed as gods and goddesses, then, if we look here,  Captain Cook might/could/would qualify as a GOD and a DEITY, described perhaps as "an Australian Aboriginal harbinger of English colonialism, sometimes a giver of unwanted English gifts, most often a villian bringing about dramatic and violent change to the pre-existing social order".  Captain Cook clearly qualifies, but might look a bit odd to some/many if identified/listed as either an Aboriginal God, or an Australian Aboriginal God (the real James Cook is not even Australian!!)!! Bruceanthro (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Further Comment - if Aboriginal mythic characters or ancestoral beings are to be universally divided into male and female (ie GODS & GODDESS), then what is to be done with that most prevalent, pan-Australian Aboriginal creator being, the Rainbow Serpent, which may sometimes, in someplaces be male, and other times in other places be female .. or be not quite either/or both?!! Plenty to talk about at WikiProject Indigenous Australians for those who're interested!! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Rainbow Serpent would go in Category:Australian Aboriginal deities and those of discernible gender in the 2 subcats. These categories all exist already. (It should perhaps be Deities of the Indigenous Australians, etc.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose- There is no basis whatsoever for referring to Australian Aboriginal 'gods' or 'goddesses' or 'deities'. The concept does not exist in the Dreaming. Aboriginals do not worship individual deities. They refer to ancestral spirit beings whom they might honour. But they do not worship gods. Similar,Native Americans honour spirits, not gods, as do African animists.--Gazzster (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Native American deities suggests otherwise, as do many of the African categories. Category:Aboriginal goddesses and the others have existed since June 2004 so this division is not new. (It would need a new cfd to upmerge everything as Category:Australian Aboriginal deities is not listed here.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then those categories are also wrong. We cannot use Wikipedia as a source for itself.--Gazzster (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Birrahgnooloo is described as a goddess in the article; so is Dilga; so is Eingana. The only exception in the entire goddesses category is Ungud. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to point out again, I suppose, that all the articles referred to are unauthenticated stub articles:
 * i. completely removed from context(who told of these 'goddesses' to whom, in what langauge, and where),
 * ii. wholly detached from their source language's and 'believers' (recall, again, the more than 400 Aboriginal 'tribes' or nations across the Australian continent),
 * iii. severed from their source landscapes;
 * iv. absent from any description or article on the religious beliefs and practices that have, presumably, raised them to their goodess status?!


 * It is highly unlikely Gazzster (talk) and .Moondyne could be persuaded to change their opinions and withdraw their opposition to the use of the god/goddess categorisation .. based on these articles, as they currently stand. It is in fact a list of articles that require serious, respectful care, attention, and work - perhaps at WikiProject Indigenous Australians (where there are the very beginnings of a possible discussion?! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The onus is clearly to prove that the term god/goddess is appropriate for Aboriginal and other Indigenous cultures. I am an Australian. I can tell you that the indigenous nations and non-indigenous academics hold the usage incorrect. I do not expect you to believe me on that. Let people go and do their research before contributing to Wikipedia.--Gazzster (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete outright, there are no gods or goddesses in indigenous culture, there are beings and people within events during the dreamtime. Even mythology is borderline but IMHO ok as a descriptive such that the general reader can understand the context. Gnangarra 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - It looks like a straw clutching issue here - it looks like that in this discussion there is limited  understanding of australian aboriginal culture or australian aboriginal anthropology or anywhere a single reasonable citation to backup their points. Delete - and - move on the whole thing is as useful as calling australian railways  - railroads. Support Gnangarra and Moondyne on this issue - but what a waste of time trying to adjust - just accept it the category is a no goer SatuSuro 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Category:Characters in Arabian Nights
<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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename to Category:One Thousand and One Nights characters. Kbdank71 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Characters in Arabian Nights to Category:Characters in One Thousand and One Nights
 * Nominator's rationale:


 * Rename to Category:One Thousand and One Nights characters. This naming format has the edge in the parent category Category:Characters in written fiction and is the clear standard in other similar categories housed in the various subcats of Category:Fictional characters by medium. Otto4711 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per Otto4711. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


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