Nominator's rationale:Rename. Adding "state" will make name less ambiguous and will mirror formatting of parent Category:United States state law enforcement agencies. Also removing superfluous apostrophe (the singular is not "correction's department"). Snocrates 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & convention though perhaps some searching for a global less-wordy variant should be made for all of these...Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Use full name of organization for clarity and consistency with parent category. Article is at United States Secret Service. Snocrates 23:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename/Merge to convention of academics by nationality, and the categories explain thusly: "In Wales/Scotland/etc. scholars refer both to tradisitonal scholars as well as modern academics. While a fine distinction can be drawn between scholars within and outside of academia, but these categories are basically duplicative. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these four nominations were merged by me to facilitate discussion. --EliyakT·C 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Scholars who are not academics cannot be called academics. --EliyakT·C 19:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, a subtle distinction could be made, but none of these categories is making it. Indeed, the 3 British Isles cats explicitly say they are not making that distinction, so they are meant to subsume the "academics" cats. If that's the way the term is generally understood in those places, then a reverse merge of the Irish academics may be in order and these 3 will have a different nomenclature and criteria than the other academics categories and probably should be dropped from that tree. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and put thinking caps on for how to recategorize those such as Sulien who can't be called an academic. No reason why academics in these categories shouldn't be called "academics", but the scholars pre-university days shouldn't be in with them, really. Ideas? BencherliteTalk 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't lets split them like that, whatever we do. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole problem with many of the Category:Academics by subject categories -- it's split from scholars unnecessarily. --Lquilter 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep both or merge the other way to "scholars". The distinction is that academics typically include teaching as well as scholarship; while scholars need only include scholarship. So academics is narrower than scholars. But must academics are frankly known on campus and in the world for their scholarship, not their teaching, and some fields have scholars going back and forth between academia and practice. So "scholars" captures the most defining aspect of academics, and is inclusive of scholars who are not in the academy -- which is what most people who are not interested in the nuance will expect to see. --Lquilter (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are a great many of academics who only teach, but they are not usually notable. DGG (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my thinking at present is that it is more harmful for scholars to be unnecessarily and meaninglessly separated into Category:Academics and Category:Scholars than it is for some of them to have to have both Category:Scholars and Category:Educators categories. For that matter since some academic/scholars move in & out of academia, if we had both A & S categories, we would have to apply both to those scholars. It would be a mess. And of course the main reason anyone would use either a scholars or an academics tree would be to see the scholars/academics -- and they would have to go to two separate categories to do what they could do with one. --Lquilter 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that I've discovered Category:Educators with all of its sub-cats -- which I was unaware of previously -- I am starting to come around to Lquilter's view of things. I'm going to have to give this some more thought before I endorse that proposal; however, I will say that it would be very desirable to integrate the categories for scholars and academics in some fashion. Cgingold (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete all - ill-defined and inherently POV categorization scheme. The lead article Adventurer, itself tagged for lacking sources for the last ten months, defines "adventurer" as: 1) One whose travels are unusual and often exotic, though not so unique as to qualify as exploration; 2) One who lives by their wits; or 3) One who takes part in a risky or speculative course of action for profit or position. The first definition demands that editors make a judgment call in determining if someone's travels are "unusual" but not sufficiently "unique" to qualify them as "explorers." The second is so vague as to be for all intents and purposes meaningless. The third could describe tens of thousands of people in business, sports, entertainment or pretty much any other field of human endeavour. Otto4711 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least listify These categories appears to have been cleaned of the "social adventurers" that were there before, and the older ones in particular would be a difficult collection to re-assemble. Nearly all seem to fall under 1), often with a strong dash of 2) and 3). Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one person's "adventurer" is another's drug addict, pirate, explorer, or person of loose morals. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete A list consisting of games UNOFFICIALLY translated by ROM Hackers. It is not notable and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Newspaper98 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyrighted works that have been hacked or pirated are not for that reason notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Snocrates 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are actually several notable Colombian soft drinks. Albeit populations might be slow, there is a potential. --Soman (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, we don't seem to divide beverages (hard or soft) by nationality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Six items is enough to justify category, and chances are the category could grow in the future as new products are marketed. Snocrates 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add the 12 full-of-sugar types to make a more robust sub-cat. The main Category:Coca-Cola brands would still have over 80, which seems big to me. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad suggestion, but what would such a category be called? Category:Coke? Snocrates 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete First of all the whole subject seems very broad and secondly the many characters listed here seem to here solely on the basis of being a playable character in a spin-off game or mini game from thier original series.
Delete some of these are usually connected with race car driving, but alas, any character who has driven one race car in any of its canon seems to fit the cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purge, but do not delete. This is a fine category for people like Dick Dastardly, Speed Racer, and even Anakin Skywalker (a podracer seems like a car, anyway), but not for Crash Bandicoot and other video game characters who only incidentally drive fast cars. So it should get a thorough scrub and a new header.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and fix capitalization. Snocrates 09:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Central Intelligence Agency awards which is broader than medals. That way if something comes along that is not a "medal", per se, we won't have to create a separate "awards" category. --Lquilter (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand abbreviation in title per WP:NCCAT. Snocrates 09:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename otherwise confusing with Banque Nationale Paribas. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:British National Party, 2 articles only and the BNP cat isn't overly populated and we can get rid of the seemingly POV "front organization" label. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Carlossuarez46, but if the category is kept and renamed then use "organisations" for, erm, British organisations. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category doesn't follow naming conventions. Contains only two articles both of which up for CSD. Sting_auTalk 07:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the speedy deletion tags were removed by someone who disagreed with that, so I've added Prod tags to them both. I don't believe that junior rotc organizations within individual high schools are notable enough for wikipedia articles, I'll AfD them if the prod tags are removed. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the prods were removed, but I've saved you the trouble of afd'ing them - did it myself. It really strains the community that we went through much angst coming to the conclusion that (generally) high schools are notable per se while elementary and middle schools aren't. Such was letting the camel's nose in the tent. Now, someone seems to be trying to get the whole camel through the tent flap by creating sub-articles about high school clubs. Aargh. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Surely it is convention to call a category "biographies" if it contains biographies? Using "people" for the title is inexact and potentially misleading. The Ghost 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think "people" is correct because the category describes the people in the category, not the article types in the category. It's a subcategory of Category:Sportspeople by sport, so "people" seems like a logical choice when it involves players, coaches, umpires, selectors, etc. Snocrates 09:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose actually, the articles should be the biographies - which is why articles lacking major biographical details should be quickly expanded or deleted because it's silly that someone would read a biography of Joe Blow only to read "he played cricket for Devon" or "he voiced the monster in one episode of Scooby Doo" without biographic details normally to be found in an encyclopedia article: dates and locations of birth/death, some context of why the person merits note, but I digress.....why oppose? "people" is the norm for most activities, cricket doesn't seem to require a deviation from that norm. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Convention is as it is now, per all above. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to be for compounds that, when ingested, result in a masking of the taste known as "bitter". I would have suggested Category:Bitter-masking compounds, but some of the similar categories in the parent Category:Flavors use the term "flavor", as in Category:Cooling flavors, Category:Pungent flavors, or Category:Astringent flavors, which makes me think this one should be called Category:Bitter-masking flavors. However, this doesn't seem quite right to me, since it is the flavor "bitter" that is being masked. Is "bitter-masking" or "anti-bitter" a flavor? Willing to go with consensus on either of these or any other good proposals. Snocrates 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Bitter-masking flavors. While it may not be totally correct, it would be clear what the intent is and it would appear to follow established conventions. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perhaps I have read too many Agatha Christie books, but bitter-masking to my mind is not making your medicine taste good, but to mask a bitter taste (say, Strichnine) with something stronger but also likely to be bitter (a la Christie: oysters, coffee, and "tinned fish paste" have all worked). So while it's hard to describe "Oysters" as a flavor, "Coffee" could be (there are candies and cakes with that flavor), it wouldn't want to restrict it to "flavors" because the current contents aren't flavors in the normal meaning of the word: ever ordered a Homoeriodictyol ice cream? Coffee ice cream, yes, but not Homoeriodictyol. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do these compounds block the bitter taste receptor, or tie up the bitter agonist on bitter compounds? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over-specific category, dedicated to a single game, that only contains three articles. (It used to be larger before many articles were merged or redirected in the process of cleanup.) All three member articles are otherwise sufficiently listed under more general categories, and linked to each other in-text, so this category doesn't add much except clutter. — TKD::Talk 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion - The category has lost its original use. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless someone can come up with a reliable (preferably an official government) source showing that the Delegates and Resident Commissioners are "members of the United States House of Representatives" which our article -lacking any in-line sources- says means congressman or congresswoman, that they are elected from various districts apportioned by census, yadda yadda none of which seems to apply to the Delegates or Resident Commissioners. We cannot call them members unless they are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (changing vote) Carlossuarez46's point is a good one. In the U.S. Code, title 2, section 25, it distinguishes (by implication) between members and delegates: "At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present ...". Title 48, section 1715 says this about the delegates from Guam and the Virgin Islands, "...the Delegate from each territory shall receive the same compensation, allowances, and benefits as a Member of the House of Representatives...". I think it may be best to leave things as is, but remove Resident Commissioners from the delegates category, since from what I can see in the U.S. Code they are very different positions, with delegates especially assigned "to" the House of Representatives but with Resident Commissioners assigned to the entire U.S. federal government. Snocrates 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
