Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 7

< June 6	June 8 >

June 7[edit]

Category:Primates of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and of All Africa to Category:Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The title ~~"Orthodox Patriarch of Africa"~~ "Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria" is much more commonly used for these people, and the corresponding Wikipedia article is ~~List of Orthodox Patriarchs of Africa~~ List of Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean List of Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria? If so, rename so category name matches lead article and common use. Bencherlite 09:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I meant "Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria". I edited my nomination accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to either solution - "Primate" is redundant. Over-long category names are to be deplored. The full title can easily be given in the cateory's main article. Peterkingiron 09:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per amended nom. Johnbod 14:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per amended nom. Category names should be succinct where possible. -- roundhouse0 16:42, 12 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Exotic matter[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Exotic matter

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't match the article Exotic matter. And bona fide exotic matter has not enough articles to be usefull as category. --Pjacobi 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep On the contrary, the article and the various articles in this category do indeed cover the subject in physics of 'exotic matter' Hmains 03:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Carbon nanotube?

Also Exotic matter should strictly speaking be a disambig between [[]]Non-baryonic matter]] and Non-positive-mass matter, the latter being the common usage in physics. And even articles belonging to one of these should be not lumped together, because they are vastly different.

--Pjacobi 09:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article Exotic matter

“

Exotic matter is a hypothetical concept of particle physics. It covers any material which violates one or more classical conditions or is not made of known baryonic particles. Such materials would possess qualities like negative mass or being repelled rather than attracted by gravity. It is used in certain speculative theories, such as on the construction of wormholes. The closest known real representative of exotic matter is a region of pseudo-negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.

The term is also casually attached to any material which is difficult to produce (such as metallic hydrogen or a Bose-Einstein condensate) or which exhibits unusual properties (such as fullerenes or nanotubes), even though these materials have been created and are relatively well understood. It can also refer to material composed of some form of exotic atom.

”

☺▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 18:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm having a hard time making sense of this request. I can see where the category needs some cleanup (for example, no "exotic matter" exists in white dwarfs and Bose-Einstein condensates) and the article may need some expansion, but to me that seems to be a poor reason for removing the category. --EMS | Talk 04:10, 11 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church metropolitan bishops[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church metropolitan bishops into Category:Metropolitans of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church

Propose merge Category:Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church metropolitan bishops into Category:Metropolitans of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Both the "metropolitan bishops" and "primates" category refer to people who use the title "Metropolitan". Moreover, the "metropolitan bishops" and "primates" categories are redundant; they contain virtually the same articles. Hence, the two categories should be merged into Category:Metropolitans of the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church. Dr. Submillimeter 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible if they are essentially the same. Peterkingiron 09:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on this and several following items. I am no expert. However these are relatively small churches, and probably do not require extensive categorisation; certainly duplication is to be deplored, as are over-long titles. Peterkingiron 09:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is at Mar Thoma Church, would it make more sense to use that instead of the longer 'Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church' in the category names? Mairi 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of the Wikipedia articles and the navigation boxes use the longer name. However, if you can demonstrate that external sources use the shorter title, then maybe we should go with it. Dr. Submillimeter 21:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, or to the shorter name. Johnbod 14:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the shorter name, which seems to be widely used (eg Mar Thoma in Scotland). Short is good (unless ambiguous). -- roundhouse0 16:52, 12 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Assyrian Church of the East Christians[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Assyrian Church of the East Christians into Category:Assyrian Church of the East

Nominator's rationale: Merge - Category:Assyrian Church of the East Christians only contains Category:Bishops of the Assyrian Church of the East, so it is effectively an unnecessary layer of categorization between Category:Assyrian Church of the East and the bishops category. The extra layer of categorization should be removed to streamline navigation. (Also, "Assyrian Church of the East Christians" is a strange phrase.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible Peterkingiron 09:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Johnbod 15:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom - unless there are 'Assyrian Church of the East non-Christians' to be considered. -- roundhouse0 17:00, 12 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Assyrian Church of the East[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Primates of the Assyrian Church of the East into Category:Catholicos Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East

Nominator's rationale: Merge - The "Primates" category is basically an extra layer of categorization between the Catholicos Patriarchs category and the parent categories. The "Primate" category should be merged into the "Catholicos Patriarchs" category. Dr. Submillimeter 22:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Sensible However I note that the list is List of Patriarchs of Babylon, might the category be better described as Category:Assyrian Patriarchs of Babylon? Peterkingiron 09:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The List of Patriarchs of Babylon appears to refer to the Catholicos Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East; some of the people in the list have articles that are in the Catholicos Patriarchs category. Also, the text in the List of Patriarchs of Babylon seems to indicate that it refers to people who are called the Catholicos Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East. Dr. Submillimeter 10:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Johnbod 23:09, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Syriac Orthodox Church Patriarchs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Syriac Orthodox Church Patriarchs into Category:Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch

Nominator's rationale: Merge - These two categories are both being used for the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. One of the categories is a subcategory of the other. The two categories are not needed and could be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree merge - it looks like they are the same thing. Peterkingiron 09:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm sure there are other Syrian O churches anyway. Johnbod 15:01, 10 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kievan Patriarchate[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kievan Patriarchate to Category:Patriarchs of Kiev and All Rus’ - Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The title used by the two people in this category is "Patriarch of Kiev and All Rus' - Ukraine", not the title that begins with "Primate". The category should be renamed to not only use the common name for these people but also to avoid the confusions that could be caused by the alternate title. Dr. Submillimeter 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - titles actually used are best. Primate is a word of Latin origin and inappropriate to an eastern church. Peterkingiron 09:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Rename per nom Johnbod 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a nomination to rename, not delete. Dr. Submillimeter 23:26, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Church of Greece[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Primates of the Church of Greece to Category:Archbishop of Athens and All Greece

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The primary title used for all of the people in this category is "Archbishop of Athens" or "Archbishop of Athens and All Greece", not "Primate of the Church of Greece". The category should be renamed accordingly. Keeping the "primate" name will probably just confuse people. Dr. Submillimeter 21:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - reasons as last item. Peterkingiron 09:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Rename per nom Johnbod 23:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a nomination to rename, not delete. Dr. Submillimeter 23:27, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Romanian Orthodox Church[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Primates of the Romanian Orthodox Church

Nominator's rationale: *Delete - This is redundant with Category:Patriarchs of the Romanian Orthodox Church. All of the people in the Primates category are also in the Patriarchs category. The term "Patriarch" is much more frequently used to refer to these people. The redundant "Primate" category is not only unnecessary but could cause confusion. Dr. Submillimeter 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - reasons as two previous items. Peterkingiron 09:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod 23:17, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Football/Basketball nominations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Grambling Tigers men's basketball players to Category:Grambling State Tigers men's basketball players

Propose rename Category:Grambling Tigers football coaches to Category:Grambling State Tigers football coaches

Propose rename Category:Grambling Tigers football to Category:Grambling State Tigers football

Propose rename Category:Grambling Tigers football players to Category:Grambling State Tigers football players

Nominator's rationale: Rename, university's proper athletic reference is Grambling State, not Grambling. It's close, but it's still wrong. fuzzy510 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added all of your nominations to one section, hope you're happy. TheBlazikenMaster 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to do it myself, actually, but I got drawn away. Thanks! --fuzzy510 00:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. I'm surprised I didn't notice this before. Good catch, fuzzy. ×Meegs 12:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Surprised I also missed that.--Mike Selinker 13:51, 10 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Several ninja categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Ninja to Category:Ninjas and rename Category:Historical ninja to Category: Ninjas per discussion here and prior dicussion renaming fictional ninja to fictional ninjas --Kbdank71 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Ninja to Category:Ninjas

Propose rename Category:Historical ninja to Category:Historical ninjas or Category: Ninjas (depends on final results)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, recently fictional ninja was up for deletion. Now it's time to take care of rest of the related categories. Click here for the old discussion.

TheBlazikenMaster 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is your proposal to merge Category:Historical ninja to Category:Ninjas ? 132.205.44.134 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nopes, sorry about that fixed now. TheBlazikenMaster 21:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge historical ninja to ninja. "Historical" is pretty much a synonym for "dead" and we don't categorize people based on living or dead status. Otto4711 22:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, we do!!!!! TheBlazikenMaster 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living people is maintained for WP:BLP purposes. To be more precise regarding dead people, we do not categorize people by living status and occupation. Notice the absence of such subcats of Category:Dead people. We have deleted categories for dead Playboy Playmates, dead rappers and the like. So, since this is categorization by living status and occupation, it should be merged into the general category. Otto4711 23:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al right, I will edit that part tomorrow after I've seen a movie. I'm not doing it now because I'm gonna wait to see if someone agrees first. TheBlazikenMaster 23:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and the outcome of the prior debate. Carlossuarez46 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I updated. TheBlazikenMaster 19:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "historical" into the main category. However, if the category "ninja" is moved to "ninjas," then any ninja-related article will no longer be able to be classified as such. Leave Cat:ninja as is. —ScouterSig 19:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fictional ninja has been recently renamed to fictional ninjas, I made this nomination because I see no point of having one category with ninjas while the rest of them is ninja. TheBlazikenMaster 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this what I protest. This should be "Fictional ninja". See: all the serious sources (practicioners, dedicated books, magazine articles not from the 1980s). Google Books example: "ninja" 880 [1], "ninjas" only 692[2] (and look at them listed - most on page one already are just a children books, and several on the page two by the unrelated "Ninjas" death squad in Indonesia - AND the number one, Ninjas: Masters of Stealth and Secrecy is described as "Written in easy-to-understand language and uses consistently familiar vocabulary to encourage reluctant readers." - in other words, "ninja for dummies"). And actually, that's it - "Ninjas" should be the death squad, Japanese ninja warriors should be "ninja" (like the samurai warriors are "samurai"). And actually, the "ninja" word itself is a colloqualism enough (famous "historical ninja" were probably not called "ninja" even once in their lives, but it's an another thing). --HanzoHattori 06:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Historical ninja into Category:Ninja and Keep "ninja" - Masaaki Hatsumi uses "ninja" as the plural form of the word in his books, so "ninja" should be used for the category name. Wikipedia makes no distinction between "historical" and modern people, so the two categories should be merged together. Dr. Submillimeter 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Category:Ninja is much more than a mere list of the "historical ninja" - it's everything ninja-related. --HanzoHattori 07:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO on both - Leave the Category:Historical ninja AND Category:Ninja (which is more than this - click and see). "Ninjas" is an American popculture colloqualism with no place in the encyclopedic titles. Category:Fictional ninjas was JUST renamed (after years), and I STRONGLY[3][4][5][6] disagree with this. Why "historical"? Because of this.[7] Historical=documented. (But if you really need, you would also consider changing into the Category:Shinobi or alike - just NOT "shinobis" or anything this style.) What I stand for, simply, is the continued use of the encylopedic language vs the English-language colloqualisms - in encyclopedia. --HanzoHattori 06:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'd like to note that the search on the "historical ninja" (oustide wikipedia) returns 1,470 hits[8], while "historical ninjas" only 462[9] Morever, in the example of Oniwabanshu from the category (a ninja group, meaning plural by default), it's 2,380 for "ninja" and only 1,320 for "ninjas".[10]

TheBlazikenMaster, what is your problem with version of "ninja"? It's both gramatically correct and just more commonly used. In addition to mentioned before: more professionally (for example, the Ninja: Warriors of the Night episode of the Ancient Warriors series by the Discovery Channel). --217.97.233.30 10:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem? I don't have a problem with that, the only reason I nominated was because "fictional ninjas" was recently renamed. I have no problem at all. TheBlazikenMaster 12:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "ninjas" per previous discussions. As for "historical," it's okay with me if that stays. We have Category:Famous horses because we don't want category:Horses to have Seattle Slew in it. (Capitalization note: The nominator has it as "Historical Ninjas," when, if it is renamed, it should be "Historical ninjas".)--Mike Selinker 13:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. TheBlazikenMaster 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Propose rename Category:Ninja to Category:Ninjas" No. Axl 18:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Propose rename Category:Historical ninja to Category:Historical ninjas or Category: Ninjas" No. Axl 18:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mega comment What "previous discussions"? What are your arguments? Whatever some silly American films or badly-dubbed CHINESE kung-fu movies and comedies (quote:"[11] "3 Ninjas, Surf Ninjas, Ninjas and Superspies, New Haven Ninjas, Teen Ninjas, Ninjas in Pyjamas, Five Element Ninjas, Cheerleader Ninjas, Monkey Ninjas in Space, Ah! A Goddess's Love Can Save the Ninjas!...") are to do with the category of "historical ninja"? Because these were the arguments in the original discussion - so, anything else? Because mine are: "ninja" is (100%) grammatically correct AND much more encyclopedic, as this is exclusively used by experts on the subjects. So why even changing this at all? Seriously, because of some stupid unrelated movies? Like what the HECK 3 Ninjas has to do with Sanada Ten Braves? I have no idea - you tell me. Or maybe you just write: "Ninjas are totally sweet mammals who flip out and kill people... Monkey Ninjas in Space!", be like http://www.encyclopedia-obscura.com/genninjas.html and get over this. Just stop pretending you write a serious encyclopedia by doing this.

But, this was only ONE discussion.

However, (IMPORTANT) TheBlazikenMaster just lost and "withdrew" his nomination - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_27#Category:Fictional_ninja (after he was told the form of "ninja" is in fact fully correct) - and then he just kept trying (all the time quoting about these unnamed movies for the reason) until he eventually won. Now, maybe we should use this one of the "previous discussions", eh? It was just 13 days ago. Seriouly, TBM, what is your problem? And still also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_13#Category:Fictional_ninjas (yes, it got renamed from the form of "ninjas" two years ago) "Per previous discussions", you say?

Could you please be polite? Asking "what is your problem" isn't very polite. Please keep your cool, I withdrew it, someone else re-nominated it, I didn't "keep trying", it isn't my fault if someone else renominated it, I did NEVER make the person re-nominate it. And again the only reason I'm nominating this was because of the change of category:fictional ninjas change. TheBlazikenMaster 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer still the question just below. What were these seemingly authoritative movies you kept quoting in TWO different "previous discussions" which were just mentioned? Were these a dubbed Hong-Kong movies from the 1970s, or the English-language Phillipino movies from the 1980s? According to Mike Selinker, these are highly revelant to the subject now named "historical ninja", so possibly some documentary biographies I guess. --HanzoHattori 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example Taxi, but I might be wrong, since it was long since I saw that movie. The only things I did was nominate, and I withdrew. Someone else re-nominated, you may be right about the plural, but I did never say that I was against your remarks. I only nominated it because one of the categories got changed. ~~Can we please discuss this is more polite manner? I'm asking nicely.~~ Nevermind, it seems that you are getting more polite. TheBlazikenMaster 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so. Mike Selinker, would you please explain why do you think Luc Besson's Taxi (which I've never seen, but the word "ninja" isn't even in its article) is an authoritative source on the subject? --HanzoHattori 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I might be mistaken. If you want me to admit it that I was wrong to nominate Category:Fictional ninjas, I will happily admit it. And and I think I confused that particular movie with one of the French movies. I can't think of any movie, few movies use a ninja anyway. I have no source, I hope you're happy about that I just say that I was wrong about nominating Category:Fictional ninjas. TheBlazikenMaster 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should watch more anime ;p Btw, Taxi article says it's an American movie, and just a remake of the French one or something (but with Besson being stil producer). --HanzoHattori 06:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will still call it ninjas while in plural and always will. But I can understand perfectly it's not right for an encyclopedia, I will try to undo the nomination that the person that renominated mine made. TheBlazikenMaster 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, how is it "Fictional ninjas" even got restored just like this, after being already deleted? Shouldn't be the deleted articles and categories NOT restored? Why one can try repeatedly to promote "ninjas" (until eventually succeeding, so this ONE becomes "previous discussions"), while my attempt at review of the "ninja" deletion is immediatelly arbitraly closed[12] (by the very same "previous discussions" person, by the way - that is Mike Selinker)? This is very fair, I see.

TBM: What are these authoritative movies of yours? And documentary among them, at least? Already mentioned here was Ninja: Warriors of the Night - and actually, here you can see this yourself:[13] What's better source: Discovery Channel or Cheerleader Ninjas?

Oh, and btw the bad translation and something else - mentioned as a source (I didn't do this) Ah! A Goddess's Love Can Save the Ninjas! is a Japanese movie (not US or Chinese or Phillipino, like the rest of them) and actually used "shinobi" (Aa! Megami no ai ha shinobi o sukuu!) - I already proposed the title of the "historical ninja" may be substituted by the category of "shinobi", because according to my knowledge this how they were called and called themselves when they lived (there was probably no term of ninja until the XXth Century, if you didn't know - there was ninjutsu, but no ninja).

On a sidenote, I should write or expand some articles in this category, because it's quite pathetic (silly things like Ninja Burger have better articles, but this is typical, as seen from this very discussion too). --HanzoHattori 19:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rename. From my perspective ninja seems to be a more respectable plural than ninjas. I have no opinion on merging Historical ninja into Ninja. -- Lilwik 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for reasons already given here and in previous discussions. -Sean Curtin 02:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No on both, as per HanzoHattori's comments. --JadziaLover 05:20, 11 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Okay, can we get this closed yet, AND "Fictional ninja" restored? --HanzoHattori 14:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages monitored by bots[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Pages monitored by bots to Category:Wikipedia pages monitored by bots

Nominator's rationale: Per the convention that categories related to the encyclopedia begin with the term "Wikipedia". If individual articles at some point become monitored by bots, a metadata category may be added to the talk page of those articles. Iamunknown 19:28, 7 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Andy Griffith Show[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:The Andy Griffith Show

Nominator's rationale: Delete - absent the several dozen improperly categorized actors, the remaining handful of articles for such things as guest stars and cast list don't need a category for navigation. Otto4711 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, there are guest stars that really don't belong there, but many of the other articles are important topics about the show (like the more important actors, Mayberry, Mount Pilot, and Return to Mayberry). Also, there is precedence: see Category:M*A*S*H --rogerd 21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the actors should be categorized under the show per very strong consensus against categroizing performers by their performances. The remaining articles can and should be linked through the text of the articles. The category for M*A*S*H, which contains the film, the novel on which the film is based and its sequels and other material, is more complex than this category and the comparison is a poor one, and regardless the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument for keeping this category. Otto4711 13:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Otto explained above, you don't need this category for actors, and when you remove the actors not much is left. My guess is that the remaining articles about fictional locations are sufficiently navigatable from the main article on the show. And, of course, note that Category:M*A*S*H covers multiple three multiple media types for a single franchise, meaning that it's probably more difficult to navigate the M*A*S*H related articles just using one of the main articles. That's why M*A*S*H is presumably an ok exception but this isn't. Dugwiki 17:13, 11 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mixed-gender musical groups[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Mixed-gender musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Too trivial, not a defining characteristic. Lugnuts 18:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't consider this a trivial characteristic. As the majority of groups are usually all-male or all-female, it is an important and defining characteristic. And when Wikipedia has similar gender/music group categories (Category:Bands with female lead singers, Category:All-women bands, Category:Girl groups, Category:Boy bands, etc), I don't see how this is any more "trivial". --musicpvm 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I found the category regarding bands with only one constant member (now deleted) to be an important and defining characteristic, but baffled as to why this one even exists. In my experience, it's quite common to have bands with a mixed-gender lineup, albeit if this underpopulated category doesn't reflect this. Lugnuts 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining and possibly as overcategorization by sex. If kept, rename to Category:Mixed-sex musical groups because "mixed-gender" is a horrid construction. Otto4711 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete when did gender matter in a band? Possibly at first when, say, Maureen Tucker or Tina Weymouth opened doors, but nowadays it's irrelevant. Totnesmartin 11:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 12:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Mixed-sex musical groups - Because female and male vocals are different, the music produced by a mixed-sex band will sound different from the music produced by an all-male band or all-female band. This is a case where an exception should be made for categorization by gender. Dr. Submillimeter 15:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the music produced by a mixed-sex band will sound different from the music produced by an all-male band or all-female band. How so? What about the countless metal bands, for example, that have a token female bass player? How do they "sound different" from a metal band with an all male lineup? Lugnuts 16:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I am thinking about a comparison between, for example, Scissors Sisters and Coldplay or between Fleetwood Mac and R.E.M.. Bands like Scissors Sisters and Fleetwood Mac can perform music with male vocals, female vocals, or a combination of the two. R.E.M. and Coldplay cannot. Dr. Submillimeter 21:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's only in relation to vocalists. What about bands like Sonic Youth or The Corrs? Totnesmartin 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Youth and The Corrs in the same sentence?! What about Swans or STEPS... ;-) Lugnuts 05:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Admittedly, if only women sing or if only men sing, then the composition of the band does not matter (as would be the case for No Doubt). Dr. Submillimeter 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & per Otto; if sex (if kept this ought to be renamed per Otto) were a defining characteric then all bands would be put in any of 3 categories: All male, all female, and mixed; and how would that help? And as a band went though different incarnations, added members, lost them, or if any of their members changed sexes, they get put in multiple categories; like that helps even more... Carlossuarez46 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that categorizing singers by gender makes a certain amount of sense, but for musical groups, I think it's exessive, and too prone to ambiguity. Groups often hire backup singers for a particular recording session or tour: should Pink Floyd be considered a mixed-gender group? Many, many groups have had multiple line-ups, some of which were mixed gender and some of which weren't. Would the Grateful Dead or the John Coltrane Quartet be considered a mixed-gender group? What about orchestras and other classical musical groups? At most, I could see a case for Category:Musical groups with both male and female lead singers, and even that I'm pretty dubious about (most opera companies and choirs would qualify, for one thing). I think this is a non-defining characteristic in general, even if you can point to a few specific cases and say, "I think it's defining for them!" (Which is a subjective judgment.) Xtifr _tälk 11:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's precisely becuase we have categories such as boy bands and girl groups that we don't need a mixed-gender category. Similarly we have a category for black and white films but there is no need for a category for films that are in colour. Malla nox 14:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mallanox and Otto4711. Pavel Vozenilek 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per [[User:Mallanox Craig.Scott 23:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Axl 17:08, 12 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Pre-statehood territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives to Category:Delegates to the United States House of Representatives

Nominator's rationale: Rename, "Pre-statehood" is too much. This category should include all non-voting delegates even for those territories that did not (or may not in the future) become states, such as Minnesota Territory (became Minnesota); District of Columbia (current, but has not become a state); Phillipines (obsolete, never became a state). I think we don't need "non-voting" in the category name because that would excessively long. This should also include Puerto Rico's delegate even though he/she is a Resident Commissioner; and I think we don't need to add "Resident Commisioner" to the category name either.—Markles 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename to 'Territorial delegates to the United States House of Representatives'. Just 'delegates...' does not show where they are from and we lose the category connection to the 'officials from territories' category if non-territorial delegates end up in this category. Hmains 03:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some delegates are from non-territories such as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Simplification is better, I believe. "Territorial" would just make a long category name even longer.—Markles 10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then there should be two categories: 'territorial delegates..' so it can still be a subcategory of 'officials from territories', and 'delegates...' as as a super cat containing the 'territorial delegates...' category as well as all other delegates such as those from D.C. etc. and which would be inclusive. Length of category names is not an issue; clarity and good organization is Hmains 14:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - What is this 'officials from territories' cat you're talking about? Maybe it doesn't even need to be a sub-cat of 'officials from territories'? Why is this becoming difficult? —Markles 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as last item - present title is unnecessarily wrong, even Territorial Delegates to USA House of Representatives. Mind you, I am an Englishman and know little of the matter. Peterkingiron 09:50, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories:Football (soccer) families of note[edit]

Category:Kappa Sigma[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Kappa Sigma

Nominator's rationale: Similar category to many prior deletions. —Scouter Sig 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 19:54, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kaun Banega Crorepati?[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Kaun Banega Crorepati?

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for these two articles. Otto4711 14:58, 7 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kath & Kim[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Kath & Kim

Nominator's rationale: Delete - this material doesn't require a category. All linkable through the show's article. Otto4711 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:African curators[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:African curators

Nominator's rationale: Delete There was only one article in this category, and it was about an American. Biographical articles are sorted by nationality, not by continent. Osomec 14:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete categorization by continent is this? Bulldog123 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as empty cat and per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a little dubious about speedying this, since it seems to have been emptied during the course of the discussion. And I have to wonder if it wasn't intended as an ethnic category ("African American" could be seen as an intersection of ethnicity and nationality). But if so, the name is too ambiguous. And it raises a host of other issues that I don't want to get into here (like the great genetic diversity of African peoples). Xtifr _tälk 21:36, 9 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mister Rogers' Neighborhood[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Mister Rogers' Neighborhood

Nominator's rationale: Delete - minus the improperly categorized performer articles (and the categorized redirects), the remaining articles for the show and aspects of the show are heavily interlinked and don't need the category for navigation. Otto4711 13:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Phua Chu Kang[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Phua Chu Kang

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for the show article and ep subcat. Otto4711 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ron and Fez[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Ron and Fez

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance categorization. Otto4711 13:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Opie and Anthony[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Opie and Anthony

Nominator's rationale: Delete - the bulk of the categorized articles are either performer by performance which is improper or articles for radio stations which carry or carried this radio show, which strikes me as a very poor way to categorize as well given the fluidity of radio programming. Minus those article there are it looks like three articles other than the show article, on tours and the fan club, all of which are easily interlinked through the main show article. Category isn't needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 13:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was originally hesitant on the basis that there might be some hope of usefulness for this one, but after seeing that more well-known counterpart Howard Stern doesn't have a need for a category for his show, I'm pretty sure this is unnecessary as well. --fuzzy510 22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & a reasonable application of ample TV precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be a plethora of people in this cateory who are only remotely connected to Opie & Anthony. ExRat 14:55, 9 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German-speaking Community[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:German-speaking Community to Category:German-speaking Community of Belgium

Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. Based on the article German-speaking Community of Belgium, it seems that this term should be regarded as a proper noun and categorised accordingly. Haddiscoe 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Perebourne 17:25, 9 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Dog House[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:The Dog House

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is for a radio show. Minus the improperly categorized performer by performance articles the remaining material does not require a category for navigational purposes. The show's article serves as a hub for getting to articles about the various stations. Otto4711 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional hillbillies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons we shouldn't have Category:Hillbillies either. It's an insultnig term with vague inclusion criteria. >Radiant< 11:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure how a fictional character can be insulted or why one can't properly categorize, for instance, the Hillbilly Bears as fictional hillbillies. Otto4711 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - prehaps rename as Category:Fictional sons of the soil as per Julius Hibbert's description then? Lugnuts 18:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term "hillbilly" is too vaguely defined to be used for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbilly defines it as an American from a rural mountainous area. That seems a workable definition. Otto4711 19:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The definition is relatively vague. A sizeable portion of the United States could be called rural and mountainous. Dr. Submillimeter 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it included only characters that their creators have labelled Hillbillies (as in Beverly Hillbillies) not just anyone from a rural mountainous area of the US; if we cannot clealy define who's in and who's out, it ought not be kept. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Query can we have a better name for that? >Radiant< 11:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fictional characters are often cliches in a way that real people are not, and it is impossible to hurt their feelings. Haddiscoe 20:09, 10 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:DC Comics mutates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:DC Comics mutates to Category:DC Comics metahumans.

Nominator's rationale: Rename, the orginal title did not fit the intended use, the new title was arrived at via consensus. --Basique 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - unless things have changed recently, "metahuman" is the term DC uses. Otto4711 12:56, 7 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in the UK[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in the UK to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Great Britain

Nominator's rationale: Rename, like other churches in Ireland, the Anglican Church of Ireland covers the whole of Ireland, so "UK" is not an accurate description of this category. Renaming to "Great Britain" removes that anomaly, but since the category currently includes only England and Wales (omitting the Scottish Episcopal Church), it might be better called Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in England and Wales.

Alternatively, upmerge to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese.
Note that Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in the UK raises similar issues. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No Scottish archbishops listed as they have a regularly elected Primus instead. Broadly similar in function, though not in style or status, to an archbishop. Neddyseagoon - talk 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also a good idea as this squares the circle with regards to not being able to Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Ireland in the UK, but could be put in Great Britain. Though rename a la "British Isles" perhaps? - "Great Britain" might (wrongly) be taken as still synonymous with "UK".Neddyseagoon - talk 12:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It might be appropriate to divide this category into England and Wales subcategories. Dr. Submillimeter 19:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the Church in Wales not also independent? Since this is a small category of categories, the "British Isles" suggestion is sensible, and should include the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and the Primus of the Episcopal Church of Scotland. The object of categories is to facilitate navigation, and I would not have known that the Episcopal Church of Scotland has a presiding Primus; but then I am a mere Englishman, not a Scot!

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

Category:Transport in City of London[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename Category:Transport in City of London to Category:Transport in the City of London

Nominator's rationale: Rename - The word "the" should be added to the category name, partly to improve the readability and partly to match the other categories in Category:City of London. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the City of London is an awkwardly-named political subunit within Greater London. The City of London is effectively similar to a London borough. Since categories exist for other London boroughs, the Category:City of London category tree should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter 09:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per nom and per Dr S's observation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per nom and per Dr S's observation. Kbthompson 16:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree for reasons given above. - Peterkingiron 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for grammar Johnbod 15:03, 10 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quantum Leap episodes[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Quantum Leap episodes into Category:Quantum Leap

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Category is sparse, no reason to add an additional level. Should be upmerged. Oren0 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is part of the larger Category:Television episodes by series structure. Otto4711 12:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Underpopulated cat, but with good potential for growth and as per Otto4711. 86.150.164.54 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category has the potential for growth in the future. It is also part of a hierarchy of television shows by series. Dr. Submillimeter 22:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto; if either should go, it should be the main cat. Xtifr _tälk 11:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recommend nominating Category:Quantum Leap for deletion As above, the episodes category is valid since it's part of Category:Television episodes by series. But the parent category Category:Quantum Leap appears to be an unnecessary eponymous category and should probably be deleted (although it will have to be nominated separately). Dugwiki 17:16, 11 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quantum Leap characters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Quantum Leap characters into Category:Quantum Leap

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Same as above. Additionally, since there are basically two characters on the show, it's unlikely that any other pages will ever be added to this category. Oren0 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Category:Quantum Leap characters is underpopulated with virtually no room for growth. Doczilla 06:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the extensive Category:Television characters by series structure. Otto4711 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is part of the Category:Television characters by series hierarchy, so it should be kept even if its potential for growth is limited. Dr. Submillimeter 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto and Dr. Sub. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Doczilla. The literal form of overcategorization. There's no reason people couldn't be categorized into the latter, in fact, it makes more sense. Sleep On It 16:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto. Actually, though I was never a huge fan of the show, I seem to remember there being at least one other leaper who clashed with the protagonist more than once. But in any case, if any category should go here, it would be Category:Quantum Leap itself, which only has three articles, one of which is currently at AfD (and looks unlikely to survive). Xtifr _tälk 21:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recommend nominating Category:Quantum Leap for deletion This category is a valid part of the Category:Television characters by series scheme, which subdivides all fictional television characters by series. Note that in such schemes category size is not a factor (much as category size isn't a factor in things like Category:Books by author that completely subdivide and index a large parent category.) The parent category Category:Quantum Leap, however, doesn't look to be necessary and should be nominated for deletion. Dugwiki 17:19, 11 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Chinese University of Hong Kong faculty[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese University of Hong Kong faculty to Category:Academics of Chinese University of Hong Kong in order to comply with other Hong Kong university people categories. I created the category before I realised this. T@nn 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please tag the category for a proper nomination. Otto4711 04:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination was fixed. Vegaswikian 22:23, 7 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Keeping Up Appearances[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Keeping Up Appearances

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category not needed for the single article and ep/character subcats. Otto4711 04:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 04:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Historical US Republicans[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Historical US Republicans

Nominator's rationale: Every dead Republican could qualify as "historical", not a useful categorization. jwillbur^talk 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good point and strange use of sub-division. Bulldog123 02:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 04:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question what about Category:Stalwart US Republicans, which is a sub-cat? It has no other parent category, and would be left isolated by a deletion. Also, one of the articles in the nominated category has no other Republican-based category. So, should Category:Historical US Republicans be upmerged instead? (Question, not !vote, as I know little about the nuances of US politics!) Bencherlite 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Category:Stalwart US Republicans could always be moved to Category:Republicans (United States). However, I really wonder if the subcategory is needed. Are the Stalwarts a well-defined faction, and did they do much in politics aside from support Ulysses Grant for a third term? Dr. Submillimeter 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. As for Stalwart Republicans, I don't see the need for it since it's small and has no chance of growing, and the list in Stalwart is more than adequate (though the article could be expanded). If not, it should be in the Republicans category anyway. --Colage 00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Category:Stalwart US Republicans has been nominated for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 12:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 8 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.