Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 15: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:03, 17 October 2006

< October 14	October 16 >

October 15

Category:Architectural glossary

Category:Architectural glossary to Category:Architecture terms

Rename. This category is no for articles that are or are about glossaries, rather it is called a glossary because the category itself contains architecture terms. This isn't how we name categories, and it should be renamed to "architecture terms" per common convention. See the many subcategories already at Category:Terminology. Dmcdevit·t 22:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remark see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture/Categories#Architectural_glossary. It's not clear why this category exists at all. Maybe it should be deleted. Some of the more egregious articles have been removed which were included in it when the linked discussion took place; however the subcategories included still seem random. For comparison, there is a Category:Musical terminology. jnestorius^(talk) 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Rfrisbie^talk 00:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete altogether per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete altogether per above and talk:WikiProject Architecture —dogears (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per nom. (I prefer "terms" over "terminology", for this usage.) - By the way, there is a difference between a glossary and a dictionary... - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glossaries

Category:Glossaries to ~~Category:Wikipedia glossaries~~ Category:Glossary articles

Rename. Right now, this category contains mostly Wikipedia articles that are glossaries, like Glossary of American football but, as well, articles about glossaries, like Atlas of the Supernatural and The Abrogans. This makes the categorization useless for the articles about glossaries. I propose that this category be renamed to "Wikipedia glossaries" (unless there's a better name) for the articles that are glossaries, and then I'll migrate the handful of articles about glossaries back to Category:Glossaries. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Glossary articles and Category:Individual glossaries (as proposed for gemstones below)? >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current name seems self-explanatory to me. Article space glossaries should not be in a self-reference category. The only "Wikipedia glossary" I know of is Wikipedia:Glossary. That's in Category:Wikipedia FAQ and Category:Wikipedia help. List of glossaries is neither a "glossary article" nor "individual glossary." Feel free to creat a new category for "articles about glossaries" and move those. Rfrisbie^talk 22:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as violation of WP:SELF. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for WP:SELF. But shouldn't most of those glossaries be deleted for violating WP:NOT? Resident Evil glossary? Seriously? Doczilla 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my intention to create a sel-reference, I was just struggling to come up with a better name. The point is to differentiate two very different meanings, so tha the category actually has a meaning. Otherwise it's broken. I can't navigate using the glossary category from Atlas of the Supernatural. Please reconsider with one of Radiant's better suggestions. Dmcdevit·t 03:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Create the new category, Category:Glossary articles for articles like Atlas of the Supernatural and The Abrogans. Then recat what goes there and drop this nomination to rename a perfectly good category for the actual glossaries. Rfrisbie^talk 03:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't help. The point I'm getting at is that glossaries's articles should be at Category:Glossaries, just like atlases are at Category:Atlases and encyclopedias are at Category:Encyclopedias. Articles that are glossaries shouldn't be, but those are nearly all of the hundreds of articles already there. This is the category that should be renamed. Is Category:Articles that are glossaries clearer? Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree and still oppose. Look at Wikipedia:Contents. Category:Glossaries, Category:Lists, Category:Portals, Category:Chronology, and Category:Graphical timelines are parallel constructions. Category:Glossaries is part of a high-level set of pages about "Wikipedia's contents." It should be left as is. Rfrisbie^talk 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Glossary articles should be a subcategory of Category:Glossaries. Rfrisbie^talk 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um. Glossaries would likely be categorized as reference works and lexicography. They have nothing to do with Wikipedia articles that are designed as glossaries. That makes no sense. Dmcdevit·t 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So, we disagree. It's time for someone else to decide. Rfrisbie^talk 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure I understand the structure and evolution of Categories well enough, or the intricacies of the subject itself, but I'm confused by the overlap of Category:Lexicography, Category:Terminology, and Category:Glossaries. Perhaps merging something with something in those 3 would help?
~~The only other suggestion I have is to create a new Category:Topical glossaries for those listed at List of glossaries, but that doesnt help the overlap problem.~~ --Quiddity 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's like saying we need Category:Topical lists, etc. Glossaries are inherently "topical." Rfrisbie^talk 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave this category the way it is, and create a new one called "About glossaries". I believe this is the most efficient way to present Wikipedia's glossaries as well as articles about glossaries. Mixing the two detracts from both (when you want lists of definitions, the last thing you want is an article on a book; and if you are looking for book descriptions, it would be a pain to click on all of Wikipedia's glossaries to find them. --The Transhumanist 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename, and Keep - I think "Glossaries" is the better name. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For which class of article? You don't appear to have clearly understood the problem. Uncle G 10:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that there are two different things covered by this category: articles that are themselves glossaries and articles that are about published reference works that are glossaries. It is also clear that this mixture applies to the parents of this category. It is listed on Wikipedia:Contents alongside Category:Lists et al., in its rôle as a category of articles that are themselves glossaries; but it is also a sub-category of Category:Reference works, in its rôle as a category of articles that are about published reference works that are glossaries. Clearly the two need to be separate. The decision is which gets to keep the name Category:Glossaries.
Letting the category for the articles that are themselves glossaries keep the name has the advantage of there being less work to do, since that is the category of most of the articles currently in the category. It also has the advantage of keeping all of the category names at Wikipedia:Contents short.
Letting the category for the articles about published reference works that are glossaries keep the name has the advantage of consistency with Category:Atlases, Category:Almanacs, and the various other sub-categories of Category:Reference works.
Both choices have reasons for having the name "Glossaries" based upon self-consistency with other, parallel categories listed by a parent. Either way, the solution for the category that doesn't get to keep the name is inferior.
In the end, my choice came down to the actual article subjects themselves. Atlas of the Supernatural isn't really a glossary. (It isn't an atlas, either.) And Theosophical Glossary is a highly problematic article in its own right. That leaves Federal Standard 1037C, Free On-line Dictionary of Philosophy, and Abrogans as the three articles about published glossaries. Therefore my opinion is to keep the articles that are themselves glossaries in Category:Glossaries, and move the articles about published reference works that are glossaries to another category, such as Category:Published glossaries for example, which becomes the new sub-category of Category:Reference works. I have no objections to a better name. And I have no major objections to splitting the category the other way, letting the other class of articles keep the category name. But the category should be split. Uncle G 10:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Uncle G: Leave this category the way it is, and create a new one called "Published glossaries". John Broughton | Talk 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this solution. Dmcdevit·t 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support this solution. Well summarized Uncle G, thanks :) --Quiddity 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I also support his solution. - jc37 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Livingston dynasty in New York

Category:Livingston dynasty in New York to Category:Livingston family

Rename, in line with the other items in Category:Political families of the United States. Landolitan 19:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Dynasty" implies different things to different people, and anyway not all the members were prominent politicians. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom as I did not turn up any other notable Livingston families in a web search.-choster 18:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chief executive officers

Category:Chief executive officers into Category:Chief executives

Merge, into the much larger Category:Chief executives. It is possible to argue that there is a difference, and that chief executive officers are specific to companies/corporations (that position is hinted at by the inclusion of this category in Category:Corporate executives, but I don't think that distinction is generally understood or agree upon. Certainly up to this point Category:Chief executives has been a more popular choice for corporate CEOs with users. The merge category should be retained as a redirect as it will be a prime candidate for inadvertent recreation if it is simply deleted. Greg Grahame 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is a difference between a COO and a CEO, though both are chief executives. I also think that this category needs to be pared. There is a difference between the chief exectutive of a nation, and the chief executive of a corporation. I am rather leaning towards delete. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. In everyday English chief executive refers to a business role. The other uses are obscure and incorporating them into the category system will only confuse matters. Piccadilly 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio

Category:Suburbs of Akron, Ohio

We've deleted several suburbs categories in the past, so I guess these need to go, too. Delete and do not merge, because the articles are already in other subcategories of Category:Greater Cleveland. - EurekaLott 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Category:Suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio is being deleted too, I'm okay with a Delete for this category. - DangApricot 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom; whether or not a community is a suburb is a matter of opinion, so it is better to base categorization on Census/state/COG-defined metropolitan areas.-choster 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York School artists

Category:New York School artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Categorizing artists by exhibition, no matter how significant, is not a good idea. If replicated, it would quickly lead to category clutter on artist articles. I'm not opposed to a list, though. - EurekaLott 19:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and optionally Listify as this is inherently POV. There isn't any membership list. Surely somebody has classified somebody as "New York School" without their being shown at that exhibition. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "New York School" actually doesn't refer to a single exhibition, it refers to an art movement/style which arose in 1950s New York.[1] However, this group is better known as "Abstract expressionists" and we've already got a populated category for that at Category:Abstract_expressionist_artists. Should probably make sure that these are all included in that category before deleting this one. --Bookgrrl 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York State writers

Category:New York State poets

Merge both into Category:New York writers. The first category is a misnamed duplicate, and the second (while also poorly named) should be merged because Category:American poets is not subdivided by state. - EurekaLott 19:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Doczilla 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:New York State writers to Category:New York writers. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:New York State poets to both Category:American poets and Category:New York writers. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have proposed that, but there's no need, because all of the articles are already in Category:American poets. - EurekaLott 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illegal foods

Weak delete, could become very large. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - illegal where? When? According to whom? >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per >Radiant< Olborne 00:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vague category that will largely be unconfirmable and potentially includes every food on earth. Doczilla 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why not? Please reconsider — did you folks actually read the articles? I read all four currently listed, and they include fascinating food info, most of which I would never have heard of without a category. (Ok, reviewers may want to avoid the jumping larva infested cheese.) "Unconfirmable"? They were seriously referenced as I recall. "Vague"? There could be more articles including endangered species, elephant and tiger poaching for examples; cannabis brownies; Somali khat tea (bogus prohibition, Dr. Andrew Weil says it's like strong coffee); and maybe urban drug-laced foods like pre-1903 original cocaine receipe Coca-Cola, and Vin Mariani coca wine (photo endorsed by Pope Leo XIII). Also certain health foods like Stevia herb sweetener in the USA (partly suppressed because it safely competes with patented synthetic sweetners), L-Arginine in Canada (a major amino acid of meat, suppressed because it seriously competes with pharmaceuticals for dieting), and potent vitamins in Europe where big pharma controls several governments, and may globally control more due to the WTO's Codex Alimentarius. Since eating is not optional, I'd say folks even need to know how food laws are being used and misused. Yet this category couldn't be an unlimited list since most of the world's foods are uncontroversial. Milo 03:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first article does not even mention illegal in the article. Bottom line this is an ill defined cat. Vegaswikian 07:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh? The first article is Casu marzu (with the jumping larva). Quote: "...casu marzu cheese cannot be legally sold in Italy." • Rome wasn't built in a day, and I'd say rather than ill-defined, the cat is just not yet developed. Milo 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Radiant. Illegal? when? where? why? And even if renamed, and clarified, "Illegal" should require citations/references. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Say what? Casu marzu: 5 references; Dog meat: 7 references; Monkey brain: 7 references; Smokie: 5 references. Milo 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category is ill defined. The items listed are not illegal. They may be controlled for sale in some places as your reply above indicates. However that does not mean the item is illegal. It is possible that it is illegal in that one country but again is that only for sale or does it include possesing it? They may be illegal in a specific area, but that is not the same as saying illegal implying everywhere. However in the rest of the work they are legal. Yes, a category for each country that the food is illegal in could be created, but I don't see a need for that currently. Vegaswikian 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comment {Scratches head} Pardon if I'm missing something obvious, but if not, I propose this category: "Wikipedia editors who somehow can't get their delete vote reasons to align with the article facts." Milo 10:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name doesn't say "illegal someplace" and connecting things that are illegal in one country, perhaps only at one time, is too random. Piccadilly 14:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian-American organists

Merge into Category:Italian-American musicians, overcategorized. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessive categorization. This category is not as easy to confirm as you might think. Doczilla 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sumahoy 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian-American classical pianists

Merge into Category:American classical pianists, Category:Italian-American musicians, overcategorized. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for overly specialized category contrary to Wikipedia category guidelines. Also, category membership is not as easy to confirm as you might think. Doczilla 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom rather than simply deleting in case the articles have been taken out of the higher category. Golfcam 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ZZ Top singles

Merge into Category:ZZ Top songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. --Mike Selinker 22:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Throw Momma from the Train actors

Delete, appearance in a single film is not a distinguishing characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this film had sequels, then we'd have this category intact. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Daniel Case 05:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need to duplicate an actor's resume in category form. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of the series categories should go. The problem with them is that while being a Superman actor or whatever is a defining characteristic for a few of the relevant people, for most of them it isn't, but they get added to the category regardless. Golfcam 16:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Birthplaces of United States presidents

Delete. This category would be much better suited as a list. As a list it could list the presidents that were born at each place. Many articles put in this category do not even mention that any presidents were born there (New York City for example), A list would have much more information and in a better form. -- Samuel Wantman 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 19:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create List per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify & delete. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting list of places... Any idea which president was born where? - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Wildhearts singles

Rename to Category:The Wildhearts songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename.--Mike Selinker 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with barbed wire tattoos

Delete, somehow I don't see this as a defining characteristic. -- 16:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this trivia. Doczilla 01:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, props for reminding me of Tom Gugliotta though. Recury 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think this is interesting, it sounds more useful in a list (which would also allow for citations/references). - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero-interest trivia. Merchbow 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nazi Party Organisations

Merge into Category:Nazi organizations, probably enough for now... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite straightforward. Rama's arrow 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Though I think the final category should be split into two: pre-end of WWII and post-end of WWII (aka V-E day). Atm. no idea what the actual cat names should be, however. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors who have played gay characters

Category:Actors who have played gay characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is not a defining characteristic. There might be hundreds of categories for actors based on characteristics of the characters they have played (actors who have played romantic leads, actors who have played soldiers, actors who have played mothers-in-law, actors who have played French kings, actors who have played married women etc etc) but guess which one we have? Yes, the gay one. I am tired of seeing gay categories on article after article for the most marginal reasons. This systemic bias has to stop. Landolitan 16:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination. CovenantD 17:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a groundless slur and I view it as an attempt at intimidation. A bad faith nomination is one that is intended to harm or disrupt Wikipedia and this is a sincere attempt to improve Wikipedia. On the positive side this and unsupported vote below expose that there are no reasons to keep this category that can be mentioned as the only reasons that exist are breaches of Wikipedia:Neutrality. Landolitan 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's really hard for me to assume good faith when I read this sentence - "I am tired of seeing gay categories on article after article for the most marginal reasons." Not irrelevant categories, not pointless categories, but gay categories. CovenantD 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This category is pointless and irrelevant so far as achieving the objectives of producing a general encyclopedia with a tidy and consistent category system is concerned. If this category had the same level of pointlessness and irrelevance but related to any other theme, would you be here? It is true that it is relevant to LGBT-advocacy, but it seems to have escaped your notice that Wikipedia is not a gay-advocacy site. If you want, you can create Category:Actors who have played happily married heterosexuals, then nominate it for deletion, and ask me for my support. I will give it without hesitation. I would do the same for Category:Actors who have played characters with club feet and Category:Actors who have played Methodist characters. So I hope you can now see that your allegations are empty and just plain wrong. Landolitan 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I direct your attention to Batman actors and Superman actors (already up for deletion) and Category:Actors by series and all of it's subcats. Feel free to nominate away. CovenantD 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        See this CfD entry, for a proposal (and 2 additional suggestions) about this very idea : ) - jc37 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --DrBat 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While we do have many categories for the casts of TV series and movies which make sense, I can't see the benefit of having categories for the supposed personality traits of roles. Further, we don't know the actual proclivities of fictional characters who may appear on screen for only a few lines. So this category is really "Actors who have played characters that Wikipedia editors assume are gay", or "Actors who have played characters with a lisp". -Will Beback 17:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of characters out there who are actually gay. It's not just guessing, "Ooh, he's effiminate! He must be gay!"--DrBat 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Checking an early name in the alphabet, Jason Alexander, I don't even see any indication of which character is supposed to be gay. What's the useful purpose of this category? -Will Beback
    - The same could be said of Betty White and Category:Batman actors, yet that doesn't reduce the cultural impact of Batman in television and film. (BTW, Ms. White was one of the celebrities who leaned out a window during a "Bat-Climb" sequence in the 60s show. Hardly a noteworthy role yet there it is.) CovenantD 23:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a category for actors, not for characters. If an actor has played one cameo as a gay man and forty lead roles as a married heterosexual, why is the former a defining characteristic of his career but not the latter? (As already mentioned, if they both are we need to have hundreds of categories for types of role played, something which doesn't bear thinking about and so far as I know has not been contemplated in any other context.)Landolitan 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an essential characteristic. Greg Grahame 19:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Will Beback. And what's with all the violations of WP:AGF? Danny Lilithborne 20:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "actors who have played X" categories, as none of them are descriptive of the actors in question or of the roles that they play. -Sean Curtin 23:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sean Curtin Olborne 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metabaron5 00:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Landolitan and Sean Curtin. Rama's arrow 04:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. --musicpvm 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Piccadilly 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, this category states a trivial part of many actor's careers. Beno1000 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please it has been a useful tool for X-referencing various movies, plays, TV Shows etc. with LGBT characters. CyntWorkStuff 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may not be a defining characteristic, but it is an important characteristic. For a young person/teenager, being able to see the number and quality of actors and actresses that have taken on gay roles and whose careers haven't suffered can be eye-opening. "Serial Killers" doesn't offer the same virtue, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That says it all really. You want to keep this category to change people's attitudes. Non-neutrality can't get much clearer than that. Landolitan 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See this CfD entry for reasons. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bad faith. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read my above comments and have the decency to apologise for this groundless attack. Landolitan 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In line with any other such category. Wikipedia is not a movie database. Hoylake 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic. The keep arguments, such as they are, are just a demand for special treatment. Golfcam 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Back to front characterisation and a bad precedent. Actors are already in too many categories. Merchbow 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form

Category:Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Very specific category; the category Hugo Award winning works already covers this, and an article exists on the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form which details the award winners. Also:

Category:Hugo Award Nominee for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form
Category:Hugo Award Winner for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form
Category:Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
Category:Hugo Award Nominee for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
Category:Hugo Award Winner for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
Delete; The first two are subcategories of original nom; last three are nominated for same reason, covered by the parent category and the article Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. Shannernanner 16:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And the name is so long! CovenantD 17:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the problem with subdividing Category:Hugo Award winning works. If every work that won was in that category, it quickly would become unwieldy. - EurekaLott 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see the point of long form vs. short form. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference is in their length.. Long form refers unto films whereas short: television episodes. DrWho42 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Seeing the point" is not necessarily relevant here. Why? Because whether they're right or wrong to have split the award into long and short form categories is not our call to make. The fact is the Hugo people did make this division and the categories are just reflecting that. After 2001 the Academy Awards had two animation categories; Category:Best Animated Feature Academy Award winners and Category:Best Short Film Academy Award winners. Maybe they were wrong to do so as well, but they did so and the categories exist to recognize that. That's the reason to keep.--T. Anthony 01:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per T. Anthony and EurekaLott. The categories were created in order to distinguish betwixt the rest of the Hugo Award winning works (i.e., novels and short-storeys) with films/television awarded or nominated (which is why the corresponding categories were created and would only increase with the progression of time). DrWho42 03:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per discussion. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen comics

Category:Teen comics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Is this for comics featuring teens? Comics for teenagers? The description says it's for comics about teens/young adults, but the category title is too broad. It shouldn't exist anymore, too broad of a subject. There is comics for pre-teens and adults as well, that doesn't mean categories need to be made, it's just too general. RobJ1981 15:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Badly named for the intended purpose, which is overly broad anyway. Almost all mainstream comics have had a recurring character that fits into the age category. CovenantD 17:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly named, excessively broad category. Doczilla 17:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comics written by teens? Delete. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poorly named and potentially vague, e,g, is New Warriors a teen comic even though the cast weren't teens by the series' end? -Sean Curtin 23:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Valid category but people have been dumping all kinds of junk in there. Perhaps rewrite the definition? Palendrom 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change definition and clean up. I originally created the category to include articles about comics with a distinct focus on teenage characters such as Young Avengers, Teen Titans, Generation X, and Gen13 but it has kind of snowballed from there. I think if we drop young adults from the definition it may make things easier. Comics have had a long heritage of unique "teen comics" and I think the category is a necessary one.--Tuberculosisness 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Time and Age are two rather slippery concepts in comics, and as such, this topic really could use some references and time frames. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GA-Class country articles

Merge into Category:GA-Class Countries articles, or the reverse, no particular preference. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:GA-Class Countries articles. --- RockMFR 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge per nom (preferring the singular - "country".) - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bengali fictional characters

Rename to Category:Fictional Bengali, convention of Category:Fictional characters by origin. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fictional Bengalis. --musicpvm 15:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Real Person Fic

Delete per nom. --Bookgrrl 21:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above plus unclear name. David Kernow (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This sounds like an article waiting to happen : ) - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Players forced to retire because of an irregular heartbeat

Delete, or at least rename to Category:Ice hockey players forced to retire because of an irregular heartbeat. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic. It is difficult to determine the importance of health factors in when an athlete retires. Handle in articles. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not start the "by cause of almost-death" categories, please.--Mike Selinker 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; terribly specific and possibly suspect along the lines of Category:Politicians who retired in order to spend more time with their families.-choster 11:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs citations/references, which cannot be done with a category in this case. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. The category system should not be seen as an opportunity to regurgitate the whole of Wikipedia's contents. Merchbow 17:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ayrshire

Comment - I think that it might be better to withdraw this nom, and gather up all the Ayrshire categories can nominate them all at once. Category:Secondary schools in South Ayrshire, for example. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the categorisation of Scottish articles is by council area, eg. see Category:Schools in Scotland by council area, not the former counties abolished in 1975. --Mais oui! 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - all the categorisation of Scottish articles is by council area only because Mais oui! wants it that way, and he will fight to the death anybody who suggests otherwise. (Watch out he doesn't accuse you of sockpuppetry - that's one of his favourite ploys. Boy, don't the Orcadians know it!) 81.156.57.128 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glossary of Sikh Terms → Category:Sikh terms

This seems like the most correct wording. Calling a category of terms a glossary is redundant, and there's a capitalization error as well. Dmcdevit·t 10:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Calsicol 10:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ although I have doubts about the usefulness of this category. Terms/concepts can be subdivided into philosophy, history, etc. and thus allocated to other categories. Rama's arrow 16:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. An article only about a term would be nothing more than a [WP:WINAD|dictionary definition]], it seems, while every article title is a term already. If we could disband and rework this entirely, that would probably be better. Dmcdevit·t 19:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparently WP:NOT rules out Wikipedia as a dictionary. The articles themselves can be allocated to one of the subcategories of Category:Sikhism. Rama's arrow 01:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Glossaries are lists of terms with their definitions. Categories can't do that. Glossaries are perfectly valid Wikipedia articles. See List of glossaries. Rfrisbie^talk 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we convert it into an article? In that case why should we rename and not delete the cat? Rama's arrow

Rename per nom. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cape verdean-portuguese people

Category:Cape verdean-portuguese people to Category:Cape Verdean-Portuguese people

Rename, capital letters. Matt86hk talk 09:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per criterion 2. Picaroon9288 17:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous numbers to Category:Numbers used in pop culture

Rename to a more suitable name. This lists e.g. 007, 42 and 90210 and other numbers from popular works, and the title should reflect that. It also presently contains some numbers with important mathematical properties (e.g. Pi and -1) but we have different cats for that. >Radiant< 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, though I don't think you need "used."--Mike Selinker 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, Category:Numbers in pop culture. >Radiant< 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Significant numbers or the like, as I'm not sure all numbers in the category are used in pop culture... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per revised nom. A name like significant numbers would likely be confused with significant figures. - EurekaLott 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point... How about Culturally-significant numbers, as I don't think all the numbers in the category have pop culture significance...? Regards, David (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Karloff-Awards

Category:Karloff-Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
If Google is to be trusted these awards don't exist which is kind of bizzare for supposedly an "American award directed for Horror & Suspense Films since 1976.". I have left a message on the creator's talk page but got no response. IMdB does not seem to know about it either which leads me to think that the award is at best beyond obscure. Pascal.Tesson 06:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since we don't have an article on that. >Radiant< 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these may be some sort of fan award but aren't notable and certainly aren't verifiable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until somebody proves otherwise, they don't exist. HamishMacBeth 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found many results, but they all said the exact same thing. Here's one example: [2]. Seems to be a student award? - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alleged cults

There is a List of groups referred to as cults with the proper disclaimers and established criteria. Categorizing a groups as an "alleged cult", does not provide readers with the context necessary to understand who and when that group was referred to as a cult, and thus violates WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't worry so much about POV pushing since it states that groups must meet the criteria at List of groups referred to as cults, but I do think that (a) that makes it redundant with the list (which results in extra work keeping two substantially identical pages up-to-date), and (b) the List does it better since, as Jossi points out, the category doesn't provide any context and the List article does. --Bookgrrl 21:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this speculative, poorly defined category. Wryspy 05:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure POV-pushing and poorly defined; pretty much everyone could be an alleged cult leader LaszloWalrus 08:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, pretty sure I've seen this one before. Inherent POV, at any rate. >Radiant< 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, didn't this come up before? This is an example of POV-pushing through categorization, not a good idea. Puppy Mill 09:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV. -Sean Curtin 23:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. We've gone through this before. It's speculative, unnecessary, and undefined. Doczilla 01:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it is not undefined. The criteria requires that an allegation of being a cult be registered in List of groups referred to as cults. -Will Beback 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That obscures my issue with "alleged" - the criteria at List of groups referred to as cults are consensed as "referred to", not "alleged" from which criminality is typically inferred by readers. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no encyclopedic value. --Tbeatty 06:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like all categories, there should be a reference to the characteristic in the article. The "List of groups referred to as cults" also contains links to the allegations. Categories serve the purpose of allowing readers to navigate among similar articles, which lists do not. This category is already a compromise, created as a child of category:cults. That category survived a CfD recently Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_28#Category:Cults. -Will Beback 04:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closing was "nearly a consensus to keep". There was no consensus to keep. The category should have beed deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We require a consensus to delete, not a consensus to keep. -Will Beback 04:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin could have ruled 'keep but he did not. He chose a pretty ambiguous statement, IMO. I have asked the closing admin for clarification. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A key point which I agree with Jossi on is that categories don't allow for annotation so there is no way to answer the 'alleged by whom' question that WP:AWW would require. The header at Category:Alleged_cults is one imperfect solution (imperfect due to the inherent limitation of categories which don't allow for annotation). Simply labeling organizations as 'cults' is problematic since the definition is subjective in the usage the vast majority of WP readers would bring to the article--the academic literature on cults is sparse and in disagreement so Category:Cults and by extension Category:Cult leaders will be constantly in flux. List of groups referred to as cults has a codified approach to this problem and the Alleged cults category header leverages this by requiring membership there, which would apply to 'alleged cult leaders' by extension. See also deletion nomination for Category:Cult Leaders by same nominator and I'm pretty sure Category:Alleged cults also has an AfD history if someone can dig it up. Antonrojo 18:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suggest that Category:Alleged_cults not only leverages the codification at List of groups referred to as cults, a good idea; it also abuses it by attaching to that page a POV label of "alleged" not consensed there. List of groups referred to as cults went through a "purported" name stage that was changed to "referred to" be more NPOV. "Alleged" is worse since it is routinely associated with arrests and indictments in most newspapers. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Will points out, this category was created as a compromise, something I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many of those voting "Delete" knew already but neglected to mention. Here's the question I have, and that I always bring up every time someone tries to delete one of these lists, categories, or series: What do you want? In which form will you find it acceptable that the POV that there are cults out there which merit concern is represented? Per WP:NPOV it must be represented, being hardly a minority view, yet I swear I see the same names voting to delete List of groups that have been referred to as cults and then voting to delete Category:Cults because it doesn't do what a list could; voting to delete Category:Cults because it supposedly pushes the POV that the groups are cults, rather than reflecting the verifiable fact that they are often alleged to be, then voting to delete Category:Alleged cults because -- because what? Because it is somehow inherently POV-pushing to acknowledge that a great many people do in fact believe a group to be a cult, and somehow it's not POV-pushing to try and squash any mention of that POV? I'll ask again, because I ask this question every time, and strangely enough, no one ever offers an answer: If you're not happy with how Wikipedia currently reflects these real-world concerns about cults, what will you be happy with? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Respectfully, I suggest that you present a sincerely-felt but logically-false dicotomy. My understanding is that you are saying there is only a choice between "is/are"ing particular cults (when cultic NRMs want to officially deny that label), or "alleging" particular cults (making all of them sound like criminals when only a small percentage are). The reference, aka "referred to", makes for a viable third option, and (so far) it has tested as NPOV-enough at List of groups referred to as cults. (Page find down for my answer to your question "What do you want?" in a comment below.)

Comment No one is stating that there are no such a thing as "cults". The problem is that there is no criteria for what warrants an inclusion in such category. For example, if there is only one source that asserts that groups X is a cult, would this be sufficient for generically categorizing group X as a cult? If the criteria is tightened, so that only groups about which there is wide consensus that they are a "cult", then maybe the category can stay with an appropriate disclaimer and criteria. The second problem for such categorization is that there are disputes about what a cult is annd there are conflicting definitions of the term cult. As such, this category does not specify which definition is used. The article Cult lists five competing definitions of the term. So, which one of these is used to categorize a group as an "alleged cult"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that if this "alleged" category is changed to a category of references, and remains linked to the rules at List of groups referred to as cults, no additional criteria would be needed for what warrants an inclusion in a category. I supposed folks could still complain about the rules at List of groups referred to as cults, but the "Category:Alleged cults" editors bought partly into that idea on their own. I think they need to buy in the rest of the way, and see if it works as well for the category as at the list itself. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure about the appropriateness of rearranging other people's votes. Rearranging them like this fails to capture the direction of the discourse and could make it look like the trend over time changed from delete to keep. Doczilla 19:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Or, alternately, could over-emphasize the delete votes by presenting all those to the reader first. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The closers know how to read a discussion. This was just made into a vote count. Please refrain from doing this again. --Kbdank71 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reset tab) Comment I think categorization is helpful and more than a vote count because it points out an important split which I think contributes to this CfD repeatedly returning. By grouping the votes in categories tied to specific edits that can be made (and notifying the editors that this has been done to confirm the groupings), it will be easier to figure out what everyone is suggesting. Some delete-vote editors seem to be suggesting relying on consensus to define cults while others argue that it is an inherently subjective category...this is a fundamental difference in deciding how to categorize these groups. I agree that the order of the comments could affect voting...putting comments first is one approach and another is adding a vote count at the top. Antonrojo 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate for one person to decide how everyone else's comments should be arranged. For one reason (among many), some people's remarks may be in response to other people's responses. My "vote" is not yours to play with. (And adding a "vote count" at the top would fly in the face of Wikipedia's overt statement that this is not a vote.) Your enthusiasm and conscientiousness are appreciated, but please leave other people's remarks alone. Wryspy 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another approach is leaving the discussion as is. This is not a vote, so categorizing or adding vote counts is not appropriate. --Kbdank71 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is indeed a difficult case. I'm very impressed by Antonrojo and Feldspar's reasoning, and I'm inclined to agree with them - Clay and Webster in the offing? Rama's arrow 23:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "alleged" version, or Keep/recreate with rename, like Category:Cult References. I think there would be nothing wrong with a "referred to" or "references" categorization — it's the "alleged" that's most unfairly POV right now. • My other comments on various issues are placed under votes above. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comment Antaeus Feldspar also asks everyone (page find his vote section above), "What do you want?" and my answer is: I want a dynamic balance (a bicycle-like analogy) between: reporting of cults using a general terminology that's benign (typically they are a new religious movement (NRM) practicing devotions in locations x and y); and, providing reporting of them that's sufficiently detailed in the current context (say, if ex-members report mind-control or other cultic abuse), while resisting a variety of unbalancing pressures from overzealous anti-cultists and harshly competitive major religions. • Yes, it can be done. Interested editors can educate themselves in both NRM religious tolerance and government/police cultwatch journalism, from the references assembled at Cult and List of groups referred to as cults. Milo 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, "alleged" - citations/references, which cannot be done in the case. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Cult" is a term used to describe a reilgious group that one doesn't like. Since every religious group has someone who doesn't like them, this category is essentially identical to Category:New religious movements. We don't have a seperate category for "allegedly false religions" – that's because it is similarly identical to Category:religions. The only reason that these inherently subjective lists and categories have lasted so long on Wikipedia is that very few adherents to new religous movements happen to be Wikipedia editors. What do I want? I want you to keep your religious beliefs on your own website. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Inherently: POV, undefined, subjective. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh GX categories

Delete. The Yu-Gi-Oh! GX character category is sufficient. --Benten 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant fancruft. Wryspy 05:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 15:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African Female rappers

Category:African Female rappers to Category:African American female rappers

Rename, These are all African-Americans, there's no room to categorize female artists born in Africa or Europeans of African heritage.Cleversnail 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, I don't think it's a good idea to include race, gender, and occupation in one category. Also, Category:Female rappers itself is not very large, so there is no reason to subcategorize. --musicpvm 01:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, merge back into Category:Female rappers as they seem to have been removed from this category when added to the other one. --musicpvm 02:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Musicpvm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryspy (talk • contribs) 05:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete as overcat. >Radiant< 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Calsicol 10:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per musicpvm. -Sean Curtin 23:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:African-American female rappers (note the hyphen), per a similar discussion on a previous CfD. - jc37 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 267: / Line 267: @@
 *'''Oppose''' for now. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 09:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - all the categorisation of Scottish articles is by [[council area]], eg. see [[:Category:Schools in Scotland by council area]], not the former counties abolished in 1975. --[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Strong keep''' - all the categorisation of Scottish articles is by [[council area]] only because [[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] wants it that way, and he will fight to the death anybody who suggests otherwise.  (Watch out he doesn't accuse you of sockpuppetry - that's one of his favourite ploys. Boy, don't the Orcadians know it!) [[User:81.156.57.128|81.156.57.128]] 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[:Category:Glossary of Sikh Terms]] &rarr; [[:Category:Sikh terms]]====