Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11[edit]

Category:African-American/Black film directors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this categorization could be useful, but it's poorly named and poorly defined. I think creating Category:African-American film directors as a subcategory of Category:Black film directors would be more logical. Not a bot job, obviously, as the present category might also contain black British, black Canadians, etc. — CharlotteWebb 21:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about Caribbean and other non-African black American directors? Are they to be included or filed under another category? ColourBurst 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we have more than a couple of articles to put in each category, and we can agree on a correct name for each category, yes. — CharlotteWebb 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:African American film directors. We don't categorise by skin colour. Choalbaton 22:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't? — CharlotteWebb 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recategoriz/se per nom if "Black" is considered to subsume "African-American"/"African American"/etc. Regards, David Kernow 04:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:African American film directors and remove any inappropriate entries. Pigmentation based categorisation should be comprehensive or non-existent and we don't have Category:white people (which is a welcome thing). Brammen 11:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Brammen. No need for a "Black" container cat, either.--Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Brammen. Wimstead 18:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:African-American film directors as a subcategory of Category:American film directors. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:African-American film directors as a subcategory of Category:American film directors, and cleanup category. - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Italian Crime Families[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete as empty --Kbdank71 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, category already exists under Category:Mafia crime families MadMax 18:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, likely confusion even if the distinction is meaningful. --Dhartung | Talk 20:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above (and faulty capitaliz/sation) assuming all Italian crime families identify with the Mafia. David Kernow 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The category is empty at present, but not all Italian crime familise are Mafia. the Mafia is specifically from Sicily. Wimstead 18:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as empty). Also, does "Italian" in this case imply citizenship of Italy, or that you're a decendant of someone from Italy? If the former, then category:Crime families of Italy might be more appropriate, if any article turn up needing such a category. - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Scottish nationalists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Same reasons as the Unionists category nominated below. Mais oui! 16:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Scots are nationalist to some degree, but some like the label more than others. Choalbaton 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this category not solely for politicians, but for people in all walks of life in Scotland - hence The Proclaimers.

Also, there have been politicians in Unionist parties who have affirmed their commitment to independence -John McAllion being one example.AlenWatters 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alen, I respect your motives, but I really do feel that the category is fundamentally mis-named for the purpose you set out. In normal usage, "Scottish nationalist" has a particular meaning: it means a member, supporter or active politician of the Scottish National Party. But Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians already exists. Maybe The Proclaimers are both members of the SNP, maybe not, who knows? But John McAllion certainly is not, nor are hundreds of thousands of other people who support Scottish independence but not the SNP! As Choalbaton says, if you scratch the surface of nearly any Scot, you will find a bit of a nationalist, although most people would differentiate between Scottish national identity (which we nearly all subscribe to) and support for independence (which only 44% subscribe to, according to the latest poll).

If you want to keep the cat (and I'm not sure that that is such a good idea) then I strongly recommend a change of name to Category:Supporters of Scottish independence. How about all the Scottish Green Party politicians for example? They all support independence, but I am certain that every one of them would reject the label "Scottish nationalist" as pejorative. --Mais oui! 19:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys for your understanding: categories created after a wee bottle of vino would be better done on sober terms! I respect your judgements, it possibly should be renamed, that is what all this wiki stuff is about. I wouldnt think Scottish nationalist would necessarily indicate membership of the SNP, although I stand prepared to be corrected. Your alternative cat is well named, if somewhat unwieldy. Good point about the Greens tho.

And just to clarify, The Proclaimers were actively campaigning on the party's behlaf at the start of the 90's, left and then tagged along with most Scottish arty-types and joined the SSP for a bit, and then havent said much for a while. One of them is incedentally married to Margo MacDonald's daughter so I believe, so draw your own conclusions from that. And finally, you prodded me with that little stick, I'm sure you did, but the same poll that came out with only 44% of Scots in favour of independence saw a massive 42% in favour of the status quo. 2% less on my (I only got a C in Higher Maths) calculations.AlenWatters 02:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The definition problems are insurmountable. Wimstead 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting read, I must say : ) - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds too similar to the "critics of" / "supporters of" categories. Listify if wanted, but only with specific citations. - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous comments. Greg Grahame 02:06, 19 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Unionists (Scotland)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category is a neologism, and could be filled with all Scottish politicians from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. The use of Unionists in this context is confusing due to the Unionist party still being part of the Scottish Conservatives, so it is confusing to see the likes of Jack McConnell, Gordon Brown and George Galloway in this category, and because of the well-known use of Unionists in Northern Ireland politics, which has had a much greater significance in recent Scottish history, when Unionism was a vote winner for the Conservatives and Unionists. Catchpole 16:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Mais oui! 16:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I created this category, as with the Natioanlists one, to reflect the views of scottish people, not only politicians, with regards to its status within the union - Many people have spoken out in support of the union in their status as private citizens - Billy Connolly being the best example I could think of at the time. As with my post on the Scottish Nationalists category deletion page, not all members of unionist parties are unionists themselves.

As for the reference to Northern Ireland, I have made it quite clear in the articles that the category is linked to that the category is for unionist purely in a Scottish contextAlenWatters 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas thing aren't as simple as that in Scotland as fans of the Old Firm could tell you. Catchpole 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Catchpole, but categories such as this are created purely to highlight the differences between the two strains of Unionism. I've used George Galloway as an example: He is an unavowed Irish Republican, but at the same time a Unionist in the Scottish context. Micheal MacMahon MSP was on the news the other day defending the right of Celtic fans to sing Irish Nationalist songs, admitting he sang them himself. He is a UK Unionist at the same time. So in lies a paradox that would be well served by this cat.AlenWatters 02:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would fully support this category. Advocates of Scottish Unionism deserve a voice as much as any other group
AHHHH Delete this would include just about every Scottish political figure who isn't a nationalist. 'Unionist' is also a hideously ambiguous term in Scotland - it simply mean 'supporter of Scotland being in the UK' or it can have to do with sectarian politics and views on Ulster Unionism. Hopeless and will lead to endless POV wars. --Doc 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds too similar to the "critics of" / "supporters of" categories. Listify if wanted, but only with specific citations. - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the previous categories. By party categories are sufficient. Greg Grahame 02:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify again, I did not create this category purely for politicos - the Grand Master of the Orange Lodge of Scotland is not,I am aware, a member of any particular party (well maybe the DUP, and that's a different type of unionism!)AlenWatters 11:22, 19 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Level Editors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Level Editors to Category:Level editors

Rename, The usage of caps in second word violates naming conventions. The word, "Editor", is not part of a proper noun and should not be capitalized. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as this is a capitalization fix. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use the word "game" as a part of the name. Pavel Vozenilek 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename, no need to say "game". Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Level-editing software for computer and video games as (1) the category seems set up to carry articles on software alone, not editors as in people; (2) other categories in this area use the "C/computer and video games" disambiguation. Regards, David Kernow 04:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC), amended 04:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC), 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC), stricken 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that it be changed to Category:Level-editing software for video games since (a) it has been identified that the term "video game" includes computer games as well as console games and arcade games, and (b) people who design levels are called level designers and not "level editors". We can add a note to the category to this effect. However, I think that "Level editors" is much more likely to be found than "Level-editing software for video games", so I would still prefer the category to be renamed "Level editors" just as a caps fix. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, except I believe "computer and video games" has become the general descriptor/disambiguator for categories in this area...? Thanks for your input, David 10:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I was hoping no one would bring this up. A while ago, a discussion came up (started by me) on The Project that argued that the term "video game" actually refers to any game that uses a video device as its primary form of output. It was generally (though not universally) agreed taht, according to that defintion, computer games, console games (what are often referred to here on the wiki as "video games") and arcade games are all video games. Work commenced on changing all references from "computer and video games" to video/console/computer game (depending on the case). But it was cut short for a variety of reasons. There is still a desire to move away from "computer and video games" to just "video games," but the work is held up by those previous reasons.

Furthermore, if "video game" is meant to refer to console games, level editors are completely inapplicable, since console games can't be modified. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to call this new category Category:Level-editing software for computer games. But if "video game" is understood to mean "games that use a video device as their primary form of output," then Category:Level-editing software for video games is more appropriate. But, it is my understanding that categories and articles are only disambiguated when their is a possible conflict in names (such as with Monopoly and Monopoly (game)). But since no other category is named Category: Level editor, I don't see a problem with just naming it such (as a caps fix). Adding more descriptors would just make it unweildly and less likely that interested users could link to it successfully (you've got to admit, it's not intuitive). The only problem I've heard voiced is that it doesn't include Level designers, but I've addressed that—it can be fixed by adding a note in the category text. Plus, it is very unlikely that anyone will want to create a category on level designers—most aren't very high profile at all, and those that are, are more notable for acheivements other than for designing levels for video games (e.g. John Romero). So, I change my vote from renaming to something unweildly to just the simple, intuitive Category:Level editors. Can we agree on this now? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight into the discussions at WP:CVG. Whatever the outcome there, I suggest Category:Level editors is too vague as regards Wikipedia's categories overall; perhaps something like Category:Game-editing software will suffice as it implies (computer and) video games...? Yours, David 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that name implies that it would cover software that might allow one to modify assets and modify code as well. But that's fine with me. I'd prefer it without the dash, however, Category:Game editing software. To make matters even more confusing, here's another suggestion: Category:Game level editing software. I wonder why no one else has chimed in on this? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it's not the most important category in Wikipedia... Less tongue-in-cheek, though, perhaps you might prod the folk at WP:CVG if you think it's likely they'd be unhappy with the outcome. Re the hyphen, I believe this is standard syntax when a two-word phrase (such as "two word", "game editing", "level editing" etc) is used as an adjective. ~~To return to something closer to the earlier suggestions, how about Category:Level-editing software for games...?~~ ~~Let's go with Category:{Computer and} video games level-editing software~~...? Thanks for your input, David (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC), amended 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC), 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Category:Level editors as well. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...except that, unfortunately, it carries no indication of context. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, um, either you are kidding, being saracstic or something else. Category:{Computer and} video games level-editing software is the worst suggestion I've heard. Not only does it violate the naming standards (with the curly brackets), it's unweidly with grammar. I still vote to go with Category:Level editors and refine it later if people complain. I doubt anyone will. Just MHO. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The curly brackets are meant to indicate that "Computer and" is optional. Although it doesn't mention games, at least Category:Level-editing software indicates that the category involves software and Category:Game-editing software indicates both, though I agree it implies that (lower-level) code may be editable. (Maybe that's not a fatal problem...?) I'm just trying to implement the "Choose category names that are able to stand alone..." convention here. Fix now; include rationale for name on category page if necessary; and then – hopefully! – move on. Regards, David (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to category:Level editors for computer and video games as per the first line of the article. (Which, btw, is apparently up for deletion as well. I'll have to go and suggest renaming : ) - jc37 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - to category:Level editors, not the stupid ridiculously long examples as per above. Anyone familiar with computer games knows that a level editor isn't a person. - Hahnchen 00:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! My main concern is what is intuitive. Who in the world would guess at some of the longer suggestions? Disambiguating such as those suggestions is only necessary when a conflict exits. For this category, there isn't a conflict. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies if folk might believe I've been wasting everyone's time. I thought it best that whatever the name chosen, it didn't beg a context; or, to put it another way, it is a category name "able to stand alone". Unfortunately, "Level editors" carries no indication of context. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the suggestions raised above seem to indicate category names along the lines of Category:Newspaper editors who are people. Nothing else can possibly refer to level editors outside of the category of software. I'm actually kind of mystified why this absolutely trivial move had to be taken to CFD in the first place, I'd have just got a rogue admin to sort it out. - Hahnch e n 03:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, cat renames generally need to be handled by bot. That said, this could have been a speedy rename. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Level editors", not any unnecessarily longer. There's no other context in which "Level editor" is used. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean we can finally get this taken care of now, or do we need to wait for some time criteria to expire? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, ten days have passed, so I've closed the discussion. Thanks to all for their input! David Kernow (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Fictional characters by secret identity[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters by secret identity to Category:Fictional characters by alter ego

Rename, Slightly more accurate. For instance, Kal-El is Superman's real but at the same time not secret identity. The whole world knows Tony Stark is Iron Man etc. It would still contain all the same entries. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~. The word "secret" causes problems--secret from whom? --Masamage 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mike's comments below. "List of fictional characters by alter-ego" would be a much more appropriate way to do this. --Masamage 06:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Sounds good to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is a horrible idea for a category, because it is all redirect pages. Redirect pages should not have categories, as if it's followed out, every category will grow to two or three times its size. Kill the contagion now, sez I.--Mike Selinker 04:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Rename" , alter-ego sounds more interesting and more how it is (however if it is a horrible idea because of above, think of using it as an article name rather than a category name)Goldenrowley 05:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought of saying delete yesterday (because of the redirect issue), but a random sampling showed a couple were not redirects (Clark Kent, for instance). But since someone else has brought up the redirect issue, I will add in my agreement that this should go. And if it does not go, then all redirects should be pulled out, leaving only those few items that are actual articles. Redirects should not be given content categories, though I do not have a problem with categorizing redirects in technical categories. - TexasAndroid 13:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no real reason for one fictional character to have more than page about him. Whatever data might be included on one of the pages about an "alter ego" could be merged inon the character's main page, with perhaps a redirect to that section under the name of the alter ego. Badbilltucker 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, this is just a fancruft category that isn't needed. A good percent of characters don't have seperate pages for their secret identity, so this category is basically pointless. And the fact that alot of the names in the category now are just redirects, further proves this category doesn't need to exist. RobJ1981 15:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only Clark Kent is a separate page from its main article. Some characters like the Sailor Scouts, Power Rangers, and the female Captain Marvel are written under their "secret identity" rather than their superheroic names, but they still only have one article each. (Kent's article categorizes under category:Superman supporting characters! Supporting whom?)--Mike Selinker 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category lists the characters' alter egos. You'd have to already know the character's alter ego to know to click that name, thus rendering the category pretty useless. Doczilla 16:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough characters have a seperate page for their alter-egos and as stated above, this is mostly redirect pages. I would not be against a category for characters who go by two or more diffrent identies, such as Category:Fictional character with secret ideneties. (Animedude 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Fictional characters with secret identities is a better idea. Or even Category:Fictional characters with alter-egos. It could contain the superhero categories and such. --Masamage 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not all superheroes have alter-egos... ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I personally have no problems with "Fictional characters with secret identities," as long as it doesn't contain any of this categories' redirect pages.--Mike Selinker 06:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all redirects. - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:The N channel shows[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep (what style guidelines call for a dash?) --Kbdank71 17:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The N channel shows to Category:The-N network shows

Rename per consistent style guidelines. User:Sevensouls 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment any reason for the dash between "The" and "N"? - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Perrier Award/if.comeddies winners[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:If.comeddies award winners, to avoid the slash and since the name change to if.comeddies. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 04:13, 12 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Jewish Argentina[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Argentine Jewish Institutions, which is being renamed to Category:Argentine Jewish institutions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Twittenham 14:50, 11 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:2000s news and subcats[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not Wikinews. All the actual articles in the subcats should be properly categorized for why they are noteworthy, not simply that they are News. And then there is the issue of when is something no longer "News". The subcats stretch back to December 2004, which IMHO is stretching the boundary of "News" and now reaching into "history". There are red-catted articles that are even older. Finally, this category's usage is fairly spotty. Only 3 months in 2006 have sub-cats, for instance. - TexasAndroid 14:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Found the remaining 2006 cats and added them. They were simply not parented by the 2000s News cat. - TexasAndroid 12:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as time-sensitive categories. This is better handled by the 200x in topic articles. Theoretically it invites categorizing the Declaration of Independence as July 1776 news. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 16:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate year categories. Tim! 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into appropriate year categories. I went to look over Category:2000s and various subcats, and that looks appropriate. - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Battles of Belarus[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it does not appear that we have any articles on battles in which any state identifiable as "Belarus" participated; the medieval battles that were previously here have been filed under Category:Battles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania instead. Kirill Lokshin 09:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as the one who started this discussion). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:13, 11 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Eritrean runners[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Created by someone who apparently mistook Category:Eritrean athletes for Category:Eritrean sportspeople and wanted to create a subcategory. As all the athletes have been moved to their appropriate category Eritrean athletes, and there's only four of them at the present time, the subcategory "runners" is redundant and should be deleted. It is also unprecedented: We don't have a Category:Runners by nationality. Punkmorten 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 11:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delist. Obvious newbie mistake. Pavel Vozenilek 15:12, 11 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Articles currently undergoing Wikification[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unused category besides those using the two wikification templates (by User:The Thadman and myself). The wikification process takes around three to five minutes for most articles. Why waste an extra edit (or two) categorising it within this time? Draicone ^(talk) 06:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pointless category. Doczilla 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Technically could/should include all of wikipedia : ) - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Children of Protestant Ministers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

Delete, I'm liberal about categories, but this is not a defining characteristic. Individuals should be categorized for things that make them notable, not for things that made their relatives notable. Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I strongly disagree. Being a minister's child is very revelant to one's identity and sense of self. One need only look at the biographies of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and Bernice King. The fact that they were children of ministers played a significant factor in their becoming ministers. Also, children of ministers often achieve a certain "celebrity status" not granted to others. For example, would Jesse Jackson, Jr. achieve his position on the U.S. House of Representatives had he not been Rev. Jesse Jackson's son? Igbo 06:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not all things that are interesting to note in articles are needed as categories. I can see a justification for a List of notable children of clergy, though, which could include some of the aspects of how this influences someone's life (skirting clear of original research and point-of-view would be good to keep in mind, though). A list could include sources showing how their parent's occupation tied into their own notability. Your argument about Jesse Jackson could apply to many people who are children of someone notable, for instance children of business leaders or children of sports figures. Such categories could propagate indefinitely. Are they useful? Not very. Ultimately the question about Jesse Jackson, Jr. is speculative original research, because we just don't know. Perhaps his father's Presidential run was more influential, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a List of famous children of Orthodox priests. If a general minister/priest kids list is created possibly it could be merged into that.--T. Anthony 11:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created List of noted children of clergy, but I leave it to others to annotate it. The Protestant section is far larger than this category.--T. Anthony 12:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obsessive and ended up annotating it myself.--T. Anthony 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete as a bad precedent per --Dhartung Casper Claiborne 11:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say KEEP! It is a good category. It helps define persons, and find similaries between them. Therefore it is helpful to the cyclopedia. Thanks! Pastorwayne 11:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is POV to suggest that this is an important influence on the lives of all such people. Twittenham 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if for giving bad precedent. If being such child is important it should be in the text. Pavel Vozenilek 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories should only be created for attributes which are defining in all cases, and not for those that are arguably defining in some cases. Choalbaton 22:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This may be good information for an article, but it's too trivial for a category. Not every feature of a person needs to be categorized. -- Cswrye 05:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Choalbaton and Cswrye Brammen 11:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a stupid category. I was the child of a Protestant minister, and even I think this is ridiculous. Doczilla 16:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classification by parental occupation is inappropriate, as has been discussed several times before. Osomec 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listify only if appropriate. - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (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 page.

List of Star Wars Dark Jedi[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy close as wrong venue. -- nae'blis 02:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

split List of Star Wars Dark Jedi creating list of sith since their is a difference between them as explained here Dark Jedi Irate velociraptor 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge Darth Xio Jade with list of sith Irate velociraptor 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CfD is for categories, not articles -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Japanese ice hockey players[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 15:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this category is for people from Japan, so actually Jamie Storr and David Tanabe don't apply (one's Canadian, the other's American). This leaves only 1 person in the category, and maybe 2 more that don't have articles yet. However, Yutaka Fukufuji would be orphaned but he could probably be put in some other category. ColourBurst 03:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course, the non-Japanese players should be removed. But no, Yutaka Fukufuji could not "be put in some other category". He is a Japanese ice hockey player and should be categorized thereafter. Punkmorten 09:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as there's at least one Japanese national who fits the category, it needs to stay. — Dale Arnett 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw then and I'll remove the two non-Japanese. There may be a few more Japanese national hockey players who don't have articles yet. ColourBurst 22:30, 11 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Inca religion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inca religion to Category:Inca mythology

Rename, to match how other ethnic groups have mythology categories, there is for example categories for Aztec mythology, and Maya mythology, in addition mythology links to it right now. Sorintg myths of the world this is the only ancient group (or only 1 that I found) that is NOT using mythology to head the category. Goldenrowley 03:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Suburbs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This could get really extensive. There are so many suburban cities in the world, especially in the US. And there's already Category:Metropolitan areas. —7.souls 02:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete Really broad category. Do we really need a list of suburbs anyway? There are better ways to compile one, and this is not the place to do so. --Draicone ^(talk) 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Australia there is absolutely nothing POV about "suburb" as it is the term used for all city districts (including central ones). This usage is based on the postal system. However the suburbs category for each city have been places in Category:Neighbourhoods in Australia, which is a subcategory of category:Neighbourhoods by country. Casper Claiborne 11:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For most countries, there is no objective, foolproof definition to go by. Doczilla 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too broad of a definition. - jc37 23:27, 18 September 2006 (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 page.

Category:Washington, D.C. suburbs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington, D.C. suburbs to ~~Category:Washington, D.C. metropolitan area~~ Category:Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area

Rename. Not long ago we went through a process to rename Category:Nashville suburbs to Nashville metropolitan area. And now this. In order to keep the encyclopedia consistent, I think we should refrain from using the word 'suburb' in categories. Lots of U.S. metro categories can already be renamed to include 'suburb' except they're not. It's "Cat:Greater Los Angeles area" not Cat:Los Angeles suburbs", "Cat:Denver metropolitan area" not "Cat:Denver suburbs". It's very redundant, if users keep doing this. —7.souls 02:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Rename to Category:Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area, which would conform to Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area. Admittedly this widens the scope of the category quite a bit from its current focus on the core suburbs. Trouble is, "metropolitan area" here doesn't correspond to the "United States metropolitan area" as there doesn't seem to be an official distinction between inner and outer suburbs—Wash-Balt-NoVa DC-MD-VA-WV CSA is divided along state lines: "Bethesda-Gaithersburg-Frederick, MD" and "Washington-Arlington-Alexandria." I don't object to maintaining the existing scope or widening it only slightly to MWCOG jurisdictions, provided we avoid MSA/CSA ambiguity with an alternative renaming to something like Category:Greater Washington, D.C. Area. -choster 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Choster. I also have a comment to add: For most metropolitan areas, including Baltimore-Washington, the distinction between central cities and suburbs is fairly obvious. But, there's one metropolitan area where the distinction completely falls apart, namely the Hampton Roads area of Virginia (also stretches into North Carolina). The most populous city in that area, Virginia Beach, and the city that will almost certainly be the second-most populous by 2010, Chesapeake, both function as suburbs. The largest urban core of the area is in Norfolk. (I should know; I went to law school in Virginia Beach.) The Hampton Roads area is the best argument I can think of for a "metropolitan area" category instead of a "suburbs" category. — Dale Arnett 21:31, 11 September 2006 (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 page.