Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 8

< January 7	January 9 >

January 8

Category:Erotic magazines

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

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Erotic magazines into Category:Erotica magazines. Erotic has 4 magazines in the category and was established in Nov 2006; erotica has three and was established in June 2006. Erotica is better because it describes content rather than a subjective judgment that the magazine itself is erotic. --lquilter 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as it makes sense --- Safemariner 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. Pinoakcourt 10:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Influential pre-modern women

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Influential pre-modern women What constitutes "influential"? Is "influential" the same as simply being notable? Should all articles about pre-1750 women be in this category, since 1750 is when the modern era began? This category is far too broad and far too general. Asarelah 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There were unfortunately not that many influential notable women before 1750 --- Safemariner 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, double whammy of ambiguously defined terms. >Radiant< 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 10:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely named category. Doczilla 06:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete partly because Safemariner's reason for deletion is incorrect. Nathanian 15:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I am confused. My reason may be incorrect but how did my reason lead you to state that it is incorrect and also support deletion? --- Safemariner 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he means that there were many influential notable women before 1750, Safemariner. Asarelah 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Futurama episodes: Season 1

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

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Futurama episodes: Season 1 into Category:Futurama episodes

Category:Futurama episodes: Season 2 into Category:Futurama episodes

Category:Futurama episodes: Season 3 into Category:Futurama episodes

Category:Futurama episodes: Season 4 into Category:Futurama episodes

Merge, Limited categories with a maximum of about 20. No reason why they can't all be in the same supercategory. If this sticks, then before we know it all TV series will have seperate categories for each season. The exact season isn't really a defining characteristic of the articles either, so it see it as overcategorization. (Note. these are currently at "speedy rename", due to capitalization issue. That's how I found them) TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. No reason not to have a list as well if people want to identify episodes by season. --20:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't have a problem with this, actually. In fact, it looks like a convenient way to organize episode categories that have more a season or two worth of episodes. The alternative of merging everything into the main parent would mean the parent would have about 80-100 articles, with no way to tell which episode was in what season or how they come together chronologically. I don't see a problem with too many categories per article either, since each episode article will have exactly one corresponding category listing. So all in all I think this is a good idea of a way to subdivide episode categories for shows which have three or four or more seasons worth to organize. Dugwiki 21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While categorization by season may sound useful, a list article which is the main article for the category is the proper way to handle that. Most people will not care which season an episode occured in. They will be forced to go through four categories to find what they are looking for. --- Safemariner 02:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I think the question comes down to whether one wants to look at one category of about 80 members, or 4 categories of 20 each. If I was looking for a specific show, I'd probably remember the name, or at least recognize it when I saw it ... but I probably wouldn't remember which season it was. I greatly prefer one big cat to lots of little ones. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no need to subcat by season. Note that in Futurama, the term "season" is ambiguous since the seasons in production do not match up with the seasons in broadcast. >Radiant< 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. I think it would also be possible to include a chronological list on the category page. Then you could have your cake and eat it too! Alphabetical and chronological. Also would mean no need for an episode list. (We should do this sort of thing more often with categories, have the general category for the alphabetic listing, and an organized list on top.)-- Samuel Wantman 11:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Implemented per your suggestion ... It's sorta big, but I could get used to it ... what do people think? -- Prove It ^(talk) 19:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reading the above comments I agree that having a list article for episodes is also quite useful. The only thing I'm not sure of is which is easier for most readers using the category system - to find an episode alphabetically by name, or to find an episode by original air date. Me, for instance, I don't usually remember or even know the name of an episode I like, but I do usually remember approximately when it aired in the chronological order of a series. I'll defer to the consensus, though, that if what you guys consider easiest is to list all episodes alphabetically and to have a complimentary episode list article sorted in chronological order, then that's probably the way to go. Dugwiki 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, overcategorization IMO. Recury 20:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla 09:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Safemariner et al.-choster 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. List of Futurama episodes already exists, no problem.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Alleged illegal copies of major motor models

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "alleged" and "copies" both border on POV. Even as a list, I don't think this trait would be interesting or common enough to be encyclopedic. --Vossanova ^o< 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alleged does not belong in Wikipedia --- Safemariner 02:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it is really as controversial as the name implies, categories are not the way to handle it. Recury 20:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... unless someone comes up with a better name that would make it neutral (like "automobile models which have been sued for patent violations") In any case, only one of the three models in the category has an article actually talking about such complaints and that story is unsourced. Pascal.Tesson 08:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Esoteric and biased. Looks like it was largely created as an attack on Chinese auto companies. The intro sentence to the category makes it pretty clear that original research is a factor here as well. Kafziel ^Talk 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roads in York Region

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. Timrollpickering 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads in Aurora into Category:Roads in York Region

Category:Roads in East Gwillimbury into Category:Roads in York Region

Category:Roads in Georgina into Category:Roads in York Region

Category:Roads in Township of King into Category:Roads in York Region

Category:Roads in Markham into Category:Roads in York Region

Category:Roads in Newmarket into Category:Roads in York Region

Category:Roads in Richmond Hill into Category:Roads in York Region

Category:Roads in Vaughan into Category:Roads in York Region

Category:Roads in Whitchurch-Stouffville into Category:Roads in York Region

Category:York Regional Roads into Category:Roads in York Region

Uperge, Overcategorization. WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads has laid out an ambitious plan to create and categorize all of the roads in a small part of Ontario. I have mapped the current structure of the Category:Ontario roads at User:BigrTex/Ontario_Roads. At this time there are not enough road articles to justify the categories that have been created. After merging these categories, Category:Roads in York Region would only have 33 articles. ~ Bigr Tex 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom as overcategorization, but without prejudice to recreation if there are really enough notable articles on these roads (which seems unlikely). --20:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep WP:GHR is about separating regional roads into regional categories. If you notice at WP:GHR's news room, Category:Roads in York Region will be moved eventually into Category:York Regional Roads, because at the Category:York Regional Roads, regional roads would be sorted according to their assigned numbers.

Also, if you notice WP:GHR, the categoris separated into municipality levels, for example Category:Roads in Markham, are retained for future development of the wikiproject. See WP:GHR for further references. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge or Delete altogether I think a simple list of roads in each area, or perhaps even just a list of the roads in the whole "Golden Horseshoe" region, divided by area, would suffice. This is not a huge number of entries, nor does this information change rapidly. If we must have categories, let's have ones with a decent number of entries. Brianyoumans 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough pages in categories like Category:Roads in Markham, Category:York Regional Roads, and Category:Roads in Vaughan. And as per Smcafirst, and WP:GHR, I think we should keep it for further developement. --Stephy100--A person who loves music! 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further development is just what I am afraid of. Some diligent user will think that a Category:Roads in Whitchurch-Stouffville means that we want articles on all the roads, and we will get articles on local streets. --Brianyoumans 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just so it is easier to find the roads! --- Safemariner 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for comprehensiveness. >Radiant< 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I greatly prefer looking at one big category over having to check many tiny ones. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roads in Simcoe County

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. Timrollpickering 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads in Clearview into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in Essa into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in Barrie into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in Bradford-West Gwillimbury into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in Collingwood into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in Innisfil into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in Midland into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in New Tecumseth into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in Oro-Medonte into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in Penetanguishene into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Roads in Springwater into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Category:Simcoe County Roads into Category:Roads in Simcoe County

Uperge, Overcategorization. WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads has laid out an ambitious plan to create and categorize all of the roads in a small part of Ontario. I have mapped the current structure of the Category:Ontario roads at User:BigrTex/Ontario_Roads. At this time there are not enough road articles to justify the categories that have been created. Merging these categories (and the ongoing Roads in Orillia CfD), Category:Roads in Simcoe County would only have 12 articles. ~ Bigr Tex 18:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom as overcategorization. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GHR is about separating regional roads into regional categories. If you notice at WP:GHR's news room, Category:Roads in Simcoe County will be moved eventually into Category:Simcoe County Roads, because at the Category:Simcoe County Roads, regional roads would be sorted according to their assigned numbers.

Also, if you notice WP:GHR, the categoris separated into municipality levels, for example Category:Roads in New Tecumseth, are retained for future development of the wikiproject. See WP:GHR for further references. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 21:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge or Delete altogether I think a simple list of roads in each area, or perhaps even just a list of the roads in the whole "Golden Horseshoe" region, divided by area, would suffice. This is not a huge number of entries, nor does this information change rapidly. If we must have categories, let's have ones with a decent number of entries. Brianyoumans 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough pages in categories like Category:Simcoe County Roads. And as per Smcafirst, and WP:GHR, I think we should keep it for further developement. --Stephy100--A person who loves music! 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just so it is easy to find the roads! --- Safemariner 02:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for comprehensiveness. >Radiant< 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I greatly prefer looking at one big category over having to check many tiny ones. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roads in Durham Region

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. Timrollpickering 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads in Ajax into Category:Roads in Durham Region

Category:Roads in Brock into Category:Roads in Durham Region

Category:Roads in Clarington into Category:Roads in Durham Region

Category:Roads in Oshawa into Category:Roads in Durham Region

Category:Roads in Pickering into Category:Roads in Durham Region

Category:Roads in Scugog into Category:Roads in Durham Region

Category:Roads in Uxbridge into Category:Roads in Durham Region

Category:Roads in Whitby into Category:Roads in Durham Region

Category:Durham Regional Roads into Category:Roads in Durham Region

Uperge, Overcategorization. WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads has laid out an ambitious plan to create and categorize all of the roads in a small part of Ontario. I have mapped the current structure of the Category:Ontario roads at User:BigrTex/Ontario_Roads. At this time there are not enough road articles to justify the categories that have been created. After merging these categories Category:Roads in Durham Region would still only have 4 articles. ~ Bigr Tex 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom as overcategorization, but without prejudice to recreation if there are really enough notable articles on these roads (which seems unlikely). --20:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep WP:GHR is about separating regional roads into regional categories. If you notice at WP:GHR's news room, Category:Roads in Durham Region will be moved eventually into Category:Durham Regional Roads, because at the Category:Durham Regional Roads, regional roads would be sorted according to their assigned numbers.

Also, if you notice WP:GHR, the categoris separated into municipality levels, for example Category:Roads in Pickering, are retained for future development of the wikiproject. See WP:GHR for further references. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 21:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge or Delete altogether I think a simple list of roads in each area, or perhaps even just a list of the roads in the whole "Golden Horseshoe" region, divided by area, would suffice. This is not a huge number of entries, nor does this information change rapidly. If we must have categories, let's have ones with a decent number of entries. Brianyoumans 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And as per WP:GHR, I think we should keep it for further developement. --Stephy100--A person who loves music! 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just so it is easy to find the roads! --- Safemariner 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for comprehensiveness. >Radiant< 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I greatly prefer looking at one large category over many tiny ones. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roads in Peel Region

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

The result of the debate was upmerge. Timrollpickering 20:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roads in Caledon into Category:Roads in Peel Region

Category:Roads in Mississauga into Category:Roads in Peel Region

Category:Roads in Brampton into Category:Roads in Peel Region

Uperge, Overcategorization. WikiProject Golden Horseshoe Roads has laid out an ambitious plan to create and categorize all of the roads in a small part of Ontario. I have mapped the current structure of the Category:Ontario roads at User:BigrTex/Ontario_Roads. At this time there are not enough road articles to justify the categories that have been created. Merging these three categories (and the ongoing Peel Regional Roads CfD, Category:Roads in Peel Region would only have 14 articles. ~ Bigr Tex 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom as overcategorization, but without prejudice to recreation if there are really enough notable articles on these roads (which seems unlikely). --20:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep WP:GHR is about separating regional roads into regional categories. If you notice WP:GHR, the categories separated into municipality levels, for example Category:Roads in Mississauga, are retained for future development of the wikiproject, when all aterial routes of the city would have its own article. See WP:GHR for further references. --Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or Delete altogether I think a simple list of roads in each area, or perhaps even just a list of the roads in the whole "Golden Horseshoe" region, divided by area, would suffice. This is not a huge number of entries, nor does this information change rapidly. If we must have categories, let's have ones with a decent number of entries. Brianyoumans 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Smcafirst, and WP:GHR, I think we should keep it for further developement. --Stephy100--A person who loves music! 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just so it is easy to find the roads! --- Safemariner 02:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for comprehensiveness. >Radiant< 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I greatly prefer looking at one large category over many tiny ones. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People of Buckinghamshire

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

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 20:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Buckinghamshire into Category:Natives of Buckinghamshire

Merge, This was nominated last month also, but that discussion started out as a discussion of changing "of" to "from". I am down as opposing the change, but the more important merger issue was not given a proper airing and there should certainly not be two categories for Buckinghamshire, when there is only one for other counties. The convention for English counties is "Natives of", so let's please remove this anomaly before considering whether all the county categories should be renamed in line with the wider "people from" convention. I have an idea that there were two separate discussions befoe which got merged, making the flow of argument in the archived version less than coherent; certainly my own comment as presented in the record doesn't represent what I think and I don't believe I ever meant what prima facie I said in the previous debate. Chicheley 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where the two cats intersect. Xiner (talk, email) 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after listifying, otherwise merge per nom. I am afraid that a merger could lead to some people being labelled as "natives" when they were born elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list --- Safemariner 02:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People from Buckinghamshire. Currently Category:People of Buckinghamshire is a subcat of Category:Natives of Buckinghamshire. It seems to me this is completely wrong; since the People of includes non-natives. Natives of should become a subcat. I don't see any pressing need to distinguish between natives and residents, however some people seem to care about such things ... See also previous discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk)
- Why is there a Category:People from London, but no Category:Natives of London? Note that the guideline says place of birth is rarely notable. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People from is probably better than "natives". >Radiant< 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Pinoakcourt 10:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The overall issue should be dealt with separately. Nathanian 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because it is non-standard. There is little point in quibbling about the precise form of these people by place categories, as people seem to use them freely whatever they are called. Thus the British county categories should be renamed, but all in one batch. Osomec 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Humorously named people

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

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just a viscious attack category with no redeeming value. Dr. Submillimeter 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this category and would have appreciated being notified of the CfD nomination. It was not intended as an attack category. Some people are especially notable because their name has a funny alternate meaning. It's not an attack to list people's real names. —Dgies^t c 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a step above "People whose names make me giggle." --Iriseyes 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete humurous to whom? One man's laughter is another man's tears. Always going to be POV. Budgiekiller 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing humorous is the category. Xiner (talk, email) 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt it was intended as an "attack" category, but either way the category has POV issues and also categorizes based on a fairly trivial aspect of a person's article. Dugwiki 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - humorous is POV & also trivial. --lquilter 18:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What defines a name as being "humorous"? It's certainly not an attack category, just an unnecessary and poorly-defined category. -- Kicking222 18:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, how does Robert Richford Roberts count as humorous? It's just a name. There have been tons of people named Robin Roberts or Willy Williams or Tommy Thompson or whatever. But anyway, this is immaterial... -- Kicking222 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to delete, is there any way of userfying it for my own immature amusement? —Dgies^t c 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, create a list in user-space. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nasty humour. Laughing at people's names is not nice, and this sort of humour is inherently POV and unencycolpedic. --20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nasty humour. Laughing at people's names is not nice, and this sort of humour is inherently POV and unencyclopedic. Also the copy in Dgies user-space User:Dgies/Humorously named people. - Kittybrewster 22:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original category creator may have good intentions but this category never belonged in Wikipedia --- Safemariner 02:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The category is simply too subjective. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 10:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV category. Doczilla 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only Howard Stern would seriously agree that people in this category are "especially notable because their name has a funny alternate meaning". Offensive, unnecessary, unencyclopedic, hopelessly subjective. Pascal.Tesson 08:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, no need to be mean. Rusty Kuntz is certainly better remembered than his professional record would suggest, due to his name. You could say the same for half the people in that category. —Dgies^t c 08:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw this a while back and thought it was cool, but there's really no value to it and some of the more recent names added aren't even that humorous. --Wizardman 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:External Link

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per below. David Kernow (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Category" newcomer apparently created by accident trying to create an external link. Skysmith 15:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is an obvious mistake. We need a speedy delete mechanism for these types of categories. Dr. Submillimeter 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Let it snow. Budgiekiller 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Dr. Submillimeter. And yes, we do need a speedy deletion mecanhaism for this stuff. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. - Kittybrewster 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Why is this category still here? --- Safemariner 02:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Baby Digimon

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baby Digimon to Category:Fresh Digimon

Rename, "Baby" and "Fresh" in the context of Digimon mean the same thing. Baby was used originally, but Fresh was used in the official english Dubs of Digimon. The Digimon Wikiproject (and also all Digimon articles on Wikipedia) use the term "Fresh". All the other digimon by level catergories use the english level names, not sure why this one ended up in jap but we should change it to avoid confusing readers. Saintmagician 13:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, although Baby has been used in the anime, the anime has made several mistakes with levels, for example in episode 28 of Digimon Adventure several mistakes were made including Agumon, Gomamon being called In-Training, besides Fresh is more well known for English speaking fans who do not use the Japanese names for levels. Nightmare SE 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, the category (however worded) needs to remain. --Iriseyes 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Chicheley 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Video Game consoles

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 13:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incorrectly capitalized, newly created category that is redundant to other video game categories. Wryspy 10:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant due to already extensive use of Category:Video game consoles. Budgiekiller 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amply redundant --- Safemariner 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as misspelled and superfluous. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I was about to say "why is this up for deletion" until I noticed the wacky spelling. Destroy. -Ryanbomber 12:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As above. --Scottie theNerd 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Days of our Lives villains

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

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 20:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category that has been deleted in several previous forms. Very few soap opera characters are 100% heroes or 100% villains. Even supervillain Stefano DiMera went straight at times. Category is essentially undefined. Unlike comic book villains, a soap opera villain is not defined by specific criminal acts and opposition to superheroes. Calling a character a "villain" is a soap opera is subjective and therefore violates WP:NPOV. (Is anyone surprised that a brand "new" user is creating even more soap opera categories, beginning with those that focus on "Days of our Lives"?) Wryspy 10:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Days of our Lives characters, see also a related discusssion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ProveIt. Xiner (talk, email) 17:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Proveit above Dugwiki 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see the utility of a merge. If category is POV then how will merging clear it up? --- Safemariner 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is the same as deletion ... except in the case where an article isn't already a member of the target category, in which case it gets added. In this case, they're probably already there, but I haven't checked so I voted Merge. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK --- Safemariner
Merge into Category:Days of our Lives characters Chicheley 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Uttaranchal

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

The result of the debate was {{category redirect}}. If there is no objection, I will also {{category redirect}} the subcategories too as suggested by Recury. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Uttaranchal to Category:Uttarakhand

Rename, Official change of state name as of January 1, 2007 Ceti 09:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 09:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and add redirect from old to new. -choster 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and redirect as per Choster. Budgiekiller 17:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and redirect --- Safemariner 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and redirect Pinoakcourt 10:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its subcategories will have to be renamed as well. Recury 20:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this can be done by a bot without someone needing to tag the categories and/or compile a list... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AWB does it, so do other bots. Once the CFD is complete, it is quite easy to do this. --- Safemariner 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This category discussion has prompted me to start a discussion of a new speedy rename criterion at the Village Pump. Please comment. Dr. Submillimeter 20:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:High school sports conferences in Ohio

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:High school sports conferences in Ohio to Category:Ohio high school sports conferences

Rename. To match form for most other entries in parent cat. Vegaswikian 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:High school sports conferences in Maryland

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

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:High school sports conferences in Maryland to Category:Maryland high school sports conferences

Rename To match form for most other entries in parent cat. Vegaswikian 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Subversive artists

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contains no NPOV criteria for inclusion. Doesn't even give a good description of what the category is about. LGagnon 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does the new description help at all? i very much think it's an important category to include. there are a lot of artists out there who's art revolves around their politics, and are generally identified with them. Murderbike 05:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's entirely subjective, eg subversion in the modern West should be seen as opposing political correctness. Osomec 09:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly subjective judgement, a judgement which varies wildly with time and place.

Xdamr^talk 15:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, purely subjective. Budgiekiller 17:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As it stands, I don't think this works, and although I think that there is a case for a cat of "artists whose work is politically, socially or artistically subversive" in the culture in which they work, I can't see any way of defining either a concise title or a clear definition. The category currently includes both Banksy and the Dead Kennedys, who don't have much in common, and think that this sort of confusion will affect any modified version of the category. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
while i'm obviously outvoted here, i'll add that i think there is definitely a similarity between Banksy and the Dead Kennedys. Both use(d) humor in their art to make political statements. check out Dead Kennedy's appearance on some awards show wearing dollar signs on their shirts doing a parody of "My Sharona" as "My Payola". Murderbike 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep But only if category definition is changed to allow only those artists that are not only subversive according to WP:V and WP:CITE but who also identify themselves as subversive to prevent POV and in the case of living artists to protect threatened artists from harm by society or an oppresive government. --- Safemariner 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with that. it certainly presents difficulties, but i can definitely see the reasoning behind it. Murderbike 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete Safemariner's proposal is unenforceable. Pinoakcourt 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too subjective. Recury 20:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure POV. Nathanian 15:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Safemariner makes a good suggestion, but it would be unrealistic to try to enforce it. There's no reasonable way to ensure that the category contains only articles that can cite reliable sources confirming the artist's self-identification as subversive. It could get out of hand very easily. Kafziel ^Talk 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Left communism categories

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Left Communism to Category:Left communism
Category:Left Communists to Category:Left communists
Rename, left communism is not a proper noun and need not be capitalised. A move will be in line with our article on left communism. This move might be uncontroversial, but as it has existed for two and a half years, I thought it would merit discussion. Warofdreams talk 04:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Prolog 09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this could be speedied in my eyes TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Peruvian Movie Theaters to Category:Cinemas in Peru

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Cinemas in Peru. Timrollpickering 20:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peruvian Movie Theaters to Category:Peruvian movie theaters Prolog 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Cinemas in Peru to conform with other categories. (moved from speedy) Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. The parent category, Category:Cinemas and movie theaters, could be renamed to Category:Movie theaters or Category:Cinemas. The Wikipedia article is titled "Movie theater". Prolog 09:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Peruvian can mean own by Peruvians. Xiner (talk, email) 17:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Pinoakcourt 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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