Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14

< September 13	September 15 >

September 14[edit]

Category:International Anti-Apartheid activists[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 to Category:Non-South African anti-Apartheid activists --Kbdank71 14:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:International Anti-Apartheid activists to Category:Anti-apartheid activists outside South Africa

Relisting following inconclusive outcome here. David Kernow 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom.
Abstain; see below. David Kernow 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC), withdrawn 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The meaning of "international" depends on the context so a more precise term should be used. Brammen 09:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per ~~nom~~ Golfcam, or if lack of consensus per David Kernow. -choster 17:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (amended choster 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Rename to Category:Non-South African anti-Apartheid activists as per original proposal. The amended proposal makes no sense as many South African activists spent the Apartheid years in exile. Golfcam 22:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the approach to categoriz/sation taken here is flawed. Category:Anti-apartheid activists with subCategory:South African anti-apartheid activists, with, in turn, subCategory:South African anti-apartheid activists outside South Africa...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Non-South African anti-Apartheid activists. Please keep this one open until it is resolved as no-one has supported the current name. Twittenham 19:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept or no consensus, at least amend capitaliz/sation to Category:International anti-apartheid activists. David Kernow (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Non-South African anti-Apartheid activists which best describes the purpose of the category. Greg Grahame 01:55, 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:Louis Brandeis[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 --Kbdank71 14:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, This category only has two articles: the main article, Louis Brandeis, and an article about the Brandeis Medal. The category has existed for over a month, and it doesn't appear to be gaining any additional articles. Seems like an unnecessary bit of extra categorization that can be better handled by including a "see also" entry in the main article Dugwiki 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Brandeis University and a few other things were named for him as well, and could be added to the cat. But since theyre linked from the main article, I dont know how useful the cat could be. Hornplease 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:If a few other articles can be added, keep; if not, delete. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree with that, if the word "few" is replaced by the phrase "10 or 20 or more". If there are only two or three or four articles, just put "See also" in the associated article(s). Dugwiki 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "10 or 20 or more" is arbitrary. There's enough categorized articles now, so I say Keep. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added some articles (and have specifically not added articles which are in Category:Brandeis University). I think that it may also be appropriate to add some additional cases for which he is noted, such as Whitney v. California -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Changed Delete vote to Keep - Thanks, it looks much better now that there are about ten articles and a subcategory. I adjusted my vote to Keep in light of the newly included articles. Dugwiki 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Excellent After Midnight job done in improving this so that it is a meaningful category. Williamborg (Bill) 21:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that there's a good bit of meaningful content. — Dale Arnett 12:27, 20 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:State security[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 Merge --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State security into Category:National security

Merge, Both categories are very similar, in many cases cover the same topics (such as intelligence and sensitive information), and the boundary between them is extremely blurry. I propose to merge these categories in order to prevent confusing redundancies. Since the term "national security" is broader, more popular, and there is a main article with the same name, I think that the category resulting from the merger should be named National security. Tankred 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but state security is an older, less trendy word it should be used, its also the parent cat of national security. C mon 21:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not sure about this, but since National security has an article that seems to cover what I think of when you say State security which does not have an article but redirects to National security. Maybe this merge is OK if you give Category:National security the same parents that Category:State security has. Some of the sub cats, like Category:Border guards, don't seem to meet the definition of the main article if we do this change, so some article cats probably need updating. Vegaswikian 17:30, 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:2006 in LMS[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 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2006 in LMS to Category:2006 Le Mans Series season

Rename, Expand abbreviation and match the title of the main article. Tim! 19:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The LMS was amalgamated with Britain's other railways in 1948. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Category:2006 in ALMS should be renamed as well at some point. Recury 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:25, 20 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:Israel Defense Forces Operations[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 --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obsoleted by Category:Military operations of Israel and its various sub-categories, which follow the guidelines for categorizing military conflicts and operations. Kirill Lokshin 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:14, 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:War timelines[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 --WinHunter ^(talk) 23:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War timelines to Category:Timelines of military conflicts

Rename; the category contains wars, battles, and other types of military conflicts, so this would be a more correct name. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 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:Canadian army brigades of World War 2[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 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian army brigades of World War 2 to Category:Canadian World War II brigades

Rename, in line with naming of other similar categories such as Category:Canadian World War II divisions. GregorB 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency and per primary usage in Canada. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Easy decision—let's do it. Williamborg (Bill) 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Choalbaton 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 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 Punisher video games[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 14:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, He has had a total of 2 games and they aren't that popular. He will be one of many in Marvel Ultimate Alliance (but that still isn't certainly enough for a category). RobJ1981 18:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best it will go up to three, say four elements. Not needed. Pascal.Tesson 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Two does not equal category. Three or four would hardly justify one. Doczilla 00:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into its parent categories to avoid orphaning. I think we should strip all "Marvel vs. Capcom" and "Ultimate Alliance" group titles out of all these subcategories and put them into the main categories. Then, if anyone has more than, say, two entries left over, they get to keep their own category. I'd say this will leave us with Spider-Man, X-Men, FF, and Hulk categories, and that makes sense to me.--Mike Selinker 15:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mike. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 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:Daredevil television series[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 14:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, He has had no series of his own, just minor cameo roles in several other Marvel series, that's not enough for a category. RobJ1981 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong, strong delete. Unbelievable. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and marvel at the cruftiness of it all. Pascal.Tesson 00:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There has never been a Daredevil TV series. Doczilla 00:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pascal. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cruftastic. Adamkik 07:08, 22 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:Blade video games[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 14:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Blade has had a grand total of one video game. He appears (among many others) in the upcoming Marvel RPG: Marvel Ultimate Alliance. But that certainly isn't enough to have a category. RobJ1981 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 00:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the Punisher nom above.--Mike Selinker 15:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Definately not worthy of its own catagory. Mattyatty 16:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mike. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 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:Consumer advocates[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 14:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Consumer advocates into Category:Consumer rights activists

Merge The "advocates" cat is currently at the top-level of Category:People by occupation while it seems more logical to me that these people should be one of the many subcats of Category:Activists. Redirects to the article on Consumer protection already include consumer rights and consumer advocate so there doesn't seem to be much difference of meaning. Mereda 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge per nom. Definitely makes sense as a subcat of Category:Activists. Recury 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 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:Individual lawyers[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 Merge --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Individual lawyers into Category:Lawyers

Merge, Cat:Individual lawyers has a few problems. First, it contains too much potential overlap with Cat:Lawyers and its subcategories. Presumably Cat:Individual lawyers would encompass ALL lawyer articles, regardless of what other categories they are in. So this would be a very unwieldy category. Second, the stated purpose of Cat:Individual lawyers is to help subdivide Cat:Lawyers. But, in fact, there are already existing subcategories that do the job better, such as subdividing lawyer articles by nationality or US state. Theoretically all lawyer articles that include the lawyer's country of practice should be placed instead in the corresponding national subcategory, for example. Therefore I recommend merging the handful of articles already in Cat:Individual lawyers into Cat:Lawyers or an appropriate national subcategory. Dugwiki 16:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Wimstead 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as I note that Category:Law firms is completely separate anyway. Tim! 18:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Brammen 09:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each individual lawyers to all the other lawyers hehe :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:15, 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:Companies based in Orange County, California[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 --Kbdank71 14:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in Orange County, California to Category:Companies based in Orange County

Rename, Not in keeping with the rest of the county business categories listed at Category:Companies based in California evrik 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Orange County, Florida has a population of over 1 million. Wimstead 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no Category:Companies based in Orange County, Florida. --evrik 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The names of categories should anticipate future issues so it is not necessary to firefight when problems areise. Brammen 09:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see Orange County, there are at least eight places with that name. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- None of them have a sub-category for business. --evrik 20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But they might have one day. Brammen 09:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG oppose. Not only do you have eight Orange Counties in the U.S., there are also businesses with Wikipedia articles based in at least three of them—the counties in California, Florida, and New York (Orange County Choppers is in New York). — Dale Arnett 03:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no Category:Companies based in Orange County, New York. --evrik 03:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose evrik's stance is hard to fathom. Brammen 09:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The current standard for naming the more than fifty sub-cats "Companies based in..." in the Category:Companies based in California has been solely the county name. I would not oppose deleting the Central Valley category and farming those articles to the appropriate category. I would also not oppose doing one mass change renaming all the sub-cats to one standard name. At this point though, this is the only county not in the format as the rest. --evrik 14:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that standard was never approved as far as I know, so it is just the common form. Creating categories that are dab issues is not a wise move. Vegaswikian 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Approved? Where is one supposed to go to get the names of categories approved? In any case, I am more concerend with uniformity than the actual format. --evrik 18:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm sure there are plenty of notable companies based in and around Orlando, Florida that may one day require a category. I'm all for consistency, but it seems too likely that other similarly-named categories will be created. Recury 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, overly aggressive simplification. Help users and editors out, otherwise you will have misuse of the category. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—We have a clear consensus here, no? The logic that other orange counties do not yet have categories is specious; Wikipedia grows daily; they will come. Isn't it time to snowball it? Williamborg (Bill) 21:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Companies based in Orange County, California is fascinating to browse through. There do appear to be a number of businesses in Category:Companies based in Orange County, California that might have some difficulty meeting the current guidelines in WP:CORP. Since California sets trends; I'd suspect we're going to include less strict criteria for WP:CORP in the future. Williamborg (Bill) 22:06, 16 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.

Orthodox Christian categories[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 no consensus --Kbdank71 14:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orthodox vestments to Category:Orthodox Christian vestments
Category:Eastern Orthodoxy to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Category:Eastern Orthodox liturgical days to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christian liturgical days
Category:Romanian Orthodox clerics to Category:Romanian Orthodox Church clerics
Category:Greek Orthodox clerics to Category:Greek Orthodox Church clerics
~~Category:Eastern Orthodoxy stubs to Category:Eastern Orthodox Christianity stubs~~Improper forum - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oriental Orthodoxy to Category:Oriental Orthodox Christianity

~~Category:Oriental Orthodoxy stubs to Category:Oriental Orthodox Christianity stubs~~ Improper forum, please take to WP:SFD - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename these categories because they only deal with the Orthodox Christian and variants and they therefore need to be clearly differentiated from Orthodox Judaism subjects and categories, a very different religion! We have had this problem in the past when editors who are editing Orthodox Christian topics overlook that they must keep in mind not to confuse unsuspecting readers with .headings and names that are not specific enough. Most categories like this have the words "Church" or Christian" in them, but these still need them added. Thank you. IZAK 15:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all as per above reasons. IZAK 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the category is simply renamed, it should probably be Category:Orthodox Christian vestments to match the article title, if that would work. However, another possibility would be to rename to Category:Eastern Christian vestments, corresponding to the article Eastern Christianity. (This is the title I argued for on the category talk page months ago, and would allow removal of the redirected Category:Eastern Catholic vestments.) Gimmetrow 16:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is corrected to Category:Orthodox Christian vestments now. IZAK 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~No objection. Rename all per nomination. Dahn 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)~~ Rename all with the exception of the "vestments" category (keep it as "Eastern Christian vestments", as suggested by Gimmertow). Dahn 12:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would much prefer the first category listed above be named Category:Eastern Christian vestments, as long as it is being moved anyway. The first one needs to be moved. However, for the "Eastern Orthodox" categories, I wonder how ambiguous they really are, and how much they "need" to be moved. A google search for "Eastern Orthodox Judaism" finds mostly links in lists of religions separated by commas: "..., Eastern Orthodox, Judaism, ..." Gimmetrow 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom, although I share Gimmetrow's reservations about the vestment category. There's no real way to distinguish between Orthodox and Uniate vestments. We are also going to have to ensure that the articles are comprehensive enough to encomapss both the EO and OO vestment traditions. They're clearly related, but can differ considerably in form. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I favour a rename, the two stub categories should defer to WP:SFD and should be listed there, not here. Grutness...wha? 23:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the proposal doesn't make much sense. "Eastern Orthodox" normally designates Christinity, not Judaism. The proposed names are longish; most contributors will still label their articles as they are wont to do; enormous confusion will ensue. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghirla: "Eastern Orthodox" definitely needs clarification and renaming because many of the Sephardi Jews (about half of all Jews in Israel) are known as Mizrahi Jews or Eastern Jews (see opening paragraph: "...(מזרחי "Easterner", Standard Hebrew ... sometimes also called Edot HaMizrah (Congregations of the East) are Jews descended from the Jewish communities of the Middle East. Included in the Mizrahi category are Jews from the Arab world, as well as other communities from other Muslim countries, including the Georgian Jews, Persian Jews, Bukharan Jews, Mountain Jews, Baghdadi Jews of India and Kurdish Jews."). Most of these Jews come from, and still practice, Orthodox Judaism so it's therefore very necessary to differentiate between "Eastern Orthodox" Christians and "Eastern (Mizrahi) Orthodox" Jews. Your final lament that "The proposed names are longish; most contributors will still label their articles as they are wont to do; enormous confusion will ensue" is simply not true. An extra word like "Christian" does not make a name "longish." Indeed, "contributors" will write as they wish, and then articles will be edited over time, many, many times. There will not be any "confusion" on the contrary, this adds clarity. IZAK 11:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a small problem with the Greek Orthodox and Romanian Orthodox clerics changes. I'm not against them I'm just not sure I see the reason. Do Orthodox Jewish people in Greece and Romania really refer to their clergy as "Greek Orthodox clerics" or "Romanian Orthodox clerics?" I suppose it's possible, but somehow it kind of seems unlikely this would be a confusion. There is a Category:Greek Jews, but I'm not sure this is needed. The other changes I favor and I'm not against those two I'm just uncertain.--T. Anthony 11:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the 8 categories: for the vestments one, alternate rename to Category:Eastern Christian vestments. For the categories involving "X Orthodox cleric" I'm not opposed. However, for the categories involving "Eastern Orthodox", keep until it is demonstrated that the Christian meaning is not the Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic; my google search found only two distinct links using "Eastern Orthodox Judaism" and three for "Eastern Orthodox Jew" (and one of those is a forum post saying "I've never heard of Eastern Orthodox Jews"). The categories involving "Oriental Orthodox" likewise seem to have a primary topic that is Christian, but the phrase is an odd English disambiguation to begin with. Gimmetrow 19:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate rename vestments to Category:Eastern Christian vestments, keep the rest per Gimmetrow and T.Anthony. There is no need to create longish confusing names as the trems like Eastern Orthodox Judaism or especially like Romanian Eastern Orthodox Judaistic clerics]] are almost never used in English scholarship. abakharev 02:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the proposed changes (which have in fact been made unilaterally in advance of discussion) regarding Greek Orthodox clerics and Romanian Orthodox clerics, on the grounds that the expressions 'Greek Orthodox Church clerics' and 'Romanian Orthodox Church clerics' are bad grammar. Firstly, it should be 'clergy' not 'clerics'. But that aside, whilst 'Greek Orthodox' and 'Romanian Orthodox' are adjectival expressions, 'Greek Orthodox Church' and 'Romanian Orthodox Church' are not. Thus, to say 'Greek Orthodox clergy' or 'Romanian Orthodox clergy' is grammatically fine; but to say 'Greek Orthodox Church clergy' or 'Romanian Orthodox Church clergy' is grammatically poor. Beyond this, I agree with the addition of 'Chrisitanity' to vestments, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy. However, I also oppose the revision of 'Eastern Orthodox liturgical days' to 'Eastern Orthodox Christian liturgical days', on the grounds that it is unnecessary, since, in English, 'Eastern Orthodox' refers normally to Eastern Orthodox Christianity; 'Eastern Orthodox' is not a title commonly used to designate any branch Orthodox Judaism. Best, Maxim662 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maxim: The changes proposing the renaming of categories has not been done here yet, that is why there is a vote being discussed here. I had made changes to some articles, something that I had done without objection in years gone by when evidently you were not on the (Wikipedia) scene yet, so it is good to have your views now. To answer your above points. There is no difference the way "clerics" and "clergy" can be used here. Just a question of style. It is only your evaluation that something is "grammatically poor" but you are overlooking the main point of my argument: The need to differentiate in titles between Christianity's and Judaism's "Orthodox" segments. Your tolerance for the ill-defined and loose usage of "Eastern Orthodox" is surprising given your attention to the other details you bring up. My only concern is to create unambiguous clarity in the titles so that no-one and nothing, especially Wikipedia's and other non-human search engines, should not dredge up and confuse "Orthodoxies" of different religions (as they surely will given the current ambiguous names for some articles and categories.) Sincerely, IZAK 04:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have changed the titles of a great number of articles, as your contrib history shows. The issue is not about how long you or I have been editing wikipedia, but whether or not these changes are appropriate and whether or not they reflect consensus. It is clear both from here and from the Eastern Orthodoxy wikiproject that there is not a consensus supporting your changes. In this light, it would be good if you would revert your changes of Orthodox article-titles to their previous titles, pending consensus. Also, 'Eastern Orthodox' is a very specific usage in English - it designates that, and only that, which pertains to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Check the OED. (Lastly, the proper collective noun for a group of clerics is 'clergy'. This is the word to use in an Encyclopedia article title.) Best, Maxim662 14:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A mixture. I'm pretty much with Maxim662 here. "Romanian Orthodox" and "Greek Orthodox" are unambiguous: no problem. "Orthodox vestments" should caange. " Eastern Orthodox" / "Eastern Orthodoxy": probably not a problem, I've never heard this wording in a Jewish context. "Oriental Orthodox": should probably be reworded, because it could be used to refer to the relegion of Orthodox Oriental Jews. - Jmabel | Talk 03:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While related, the names must be discussed one by one. About the argument of "Orthodox Jews": try and suggest to rename Category:American people or turn American people into a disambig page, saying that Chile is also in America, and see what will happen. I tried once a year or two ago... (Who knows; times change...) `'mikka (t) 07:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's irrelevant so long as there is no such thing as "Orthodox Jewish vestments;" it's unnecessary disambiguation, like naming the France article France (semi-presidential republican state in continental Europe. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Gimmetrow. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnecessary.--Eupator 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. -- Clevelander 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see a real problem here and the resulting names will be pretty cumbersome. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 07:43, 22 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.

ESRB, PEGI and CERO categories[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 14:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer and video games rated by the ESRB

Category:Computer and video games rated by the PEGI

Category:Computer and video games rated 3+ by the PEGI

Category:Computer and video games rated 7+ by the PEGI

Category:Computer and video games rated 12+ by the PEGI

Category:Computer and video games rated 16+ by the PEGI

Category:Computer and video games rated 18+ by the PEGI

Category:Computer and video games rated by the CERO

Category:Computer and video games rated Z by the CERO

Category:Computer and video games rated B by the CERO

Category:Computer and video games rated C by the CERO

Category:Computer and video games rated D by the CERO

Category:Computer and video games rated A by the CERO

Category:Computer and video games rated Ages 12 and up by the CERO

Category:Computer and video games rated Ages 15 and up by the CERO

Category:Computer and video games rated Ages 18 and up by the CERO

Category:Computer and video games rated All Ages by the CERO

Genral consensus at the CVG project talk page for deletion of these categories. Also note other similar ones for PEGI and CERO game ratings, which will be under CfD soon. Thunderbrand 14:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with many of the points made at the talk page. I don't see why just mentioning the rating in an infobox isn't sufficient. Recury 14:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sure the info's already in the infobox but so is the year they were made and the system they were on and I don't see anyone trying to delete those categories. N. Harmonik 15:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant information that isn't needed. If it's listed in the article, it doesn't need a category. When the game was made and other things are actually more useful than what a game is rated. RobJ1981 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above statement is the opposite of how categorization works. For something to be included in a category, the article must include the corresponding information within the article. For example, you shouldn't include a biography under Category:Lawyers unless the article actually mentions that the person was a lawyer. Information that doesn't appear in the article shouldn't be used for categorization. Thus a statement being included in an article is a requirement for it to be included in a corresponding category. Dugwiki 22:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only applies in the U.S. and Canada so inappropriate for a global encyclopedia. Wimstead 18:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are also categories for the PEGI and CERO too. N. Harmonik 18:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not done for films... Tim! 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and forgot one. Category:Computer and video game content rated by the ESRB. Thunderbrand 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe these categories do have some use. I can definitely imagine some users wanting to compare games with similar ratings. For example, a reader doing an essay involving laws restricting Mature rated video games would probably find it useful to have a category listing Wikipedia articles with Mature ratings. Simply having the Mature rating listed in an actual article would not allow you to easily figure out which articles have that rating. Rather, you need the articles listed within a single category in order to compare them. Another example would be parents interested in the ratings shopping for games for their kids would have a convenient way to compare games within the same rating. Also, as to Tim's comment above about films, just because films aren't currently categorized this way doesn't mean they too couldn't be categorized by rating. So, just my opinion, I'm voting to keep. Dugwiki 22:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Listify - Makes it easier to compare games with similiar ratings. Pikawil 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, trivia, arbitrary and systemic bias, WP:NOT a game guide. >Radiant< 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reasons above. Whereas they can easily be ccategorised by year (like films), adding only 1 category. Categorising them by rating would introduce a lot of category-bloat for very little payoff. - Hahnch e n 00:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as the rating system, and rating for games has been under much scrutiny by everyone the past years, I don't see any problem with keeping these. And a question; Why does everyone automatically scream Gamecruft and Game guide when there is anything game related being put up for deletion? This is absolutly NOT a game guide situation, it's not even a cruft situation. You don't learn to play any games by using these, and everything that is listed is fact. So even using that as a reason for its deletion is exceedingly stupid in my opinion. Havok (T/C/c) 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is trivia (not important in the long run), systemic bias (written from an American point of view) and overcategorization (the more categories an article has, the less meaningful they become). It would be far more informative to write a "List of games by ESNT rating". >Radiant< 15:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To reply, the ratings system are not simply trivia; this can confirmed by a brief review of how many news articles there have been in the last few years regarding whether or not sales of Mature rated games, for example, should be restricted to minors, or what changes if any the ratings system should undergo. It is an important topic in entertainment related news. Nor is there any systemic bias. Whether or not a game belongs to a category is completely objective; it either has a certain rating or it doesn't. There's no author bias involved. (You might argue that the ratings board itself contains bias, but the question of whether a category is objective is related to determining how Wikipedia supports its information and not the internal process the ESRB uses to determine ratings.) Finally, note that given the number of potential computer games involved a list would be potentially much more unwieldy than an automatically updated category system. Dugwiki 15:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I think you misunderstood me. By "systemic bias", I do not mean that the information itself is biased in itself, but that the information comes from a single direction (in this case, America) and does not reflect the entire world (WP:CSB). By "trivia", I do not mean the information is unverifiable, but that it is unimportant. A game can have dozens of ratings, e.g. 91% at PC World, or "age" ratings in a dozen countries, and it is simply not useful to categorize for all of them. If you were to start this scheme, every CVG article would get over a dozen extra cats. Not good. >Radiant< 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understood what you meant by "trivia"; I just disagree with your assessment. The Mature rating and similar ratings in particular are of particular importance within the gaming industry and in gaming news. Whether or not a game has a Mature rating has a major impact on the game's sales, whether or not certain stores carry it, and "adult" ratings in general are in news stories regarding what role government should play, if any, in regulating sales of computer games to minors. I'm not advocating including reviews like "91% at PC World", but I am saying that the industry ratings, especially adult ratings, are not trivial.Dugwiki 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a shopping site. Brammen 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see anything wrong. Verifyable, factual, and not all that much different than a year something came out on. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories are not poor man's database. Pavel Vozenilek 22:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as category clutter. These are not universal (international) ratings, anyway, nor do I see a rating applied by a third party as a defining characteristic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These categories have nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. Golfcam 22:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to List of computer and video games by ESRB rating, etc., and Delete. While these cats definitely shouldn't be a cats, how is this any different from List of best-selling computer and video games? --DavidH Oz Au 12:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic per above. Twittenham 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please; Cvg categories are already quite cluttered and this would add an uninteresting cat to almost every modern commercial release. What's next, Category:Computer and video games with mild suggestive themes? Marasmusine 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous comments. Greg Grahame 01:57, 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.

Ingria[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 13:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such country. However, these categories are in the "by country" hierarchy as is Ingria were a present-day sovereign nation. Conscious 06:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not a country, and never has been, and the relevent categories should not have "by country" parents. It looks like someone was a little over-enthusiastic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has never been such a country as Ingria. For all practical purposes, it is called Leningrad Oblast. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this bad faith flood. - Darwinek 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 18:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused, move those useful as "History of Ingria" to proper place. Pavel Vozenilek 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete revisionist fork stuff - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:18, 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:Fauna by country[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 Relisted here, because the subcats were not tagged. --Kbdank71 13:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Adding these categories to the ends of articles would be incredibly unwieldy. For an animal occurring in every country on the list, the article for the animal would need 132 categories listed at the end of the article. Creation of these categories cites a CfD that I can't find.—Chidom ^talk 05:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The category that you nominated was created per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 20#Category:Animals by country. Do you mean that one or all the subcategories? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - My nomination was intended to include all the subcategories of [[Category:Fauna by country]] in the nomination for deletion; why keep subcategories of a category that's gone? I'm not sure what the purpose of the creation of these was; instructions for their use would have to be explained over and over and over to avoid someone putting scads of them at the end of an article; that explanation is unlikely to happen, thus creating more cleanup tasks.—Chidom ^talk 04:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I would propose the Azerbaijani solution: make articles out of these instead of categories. Great topic for an article, but having categories on all of these would either get unbelievably unwieldy or require somewhat arbitrary inclusion criteria ("OK, this animal is in 180 countries, but lets just put it in Fauna of X because its important to X" or something to that effect). Recury 14:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of these are essential, eg Australia, Madagascar. Wimstead 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Is this a mass nomination? If so, you need to tag every single subcategory (many of the subcats are also further subcategorized). These categories are not for animals that can be found in every country (and I don't think anybody has used them that way). They are for species (subspecies in many cases) that are native to only one or two countries. I think the issue you mention is nonexistent. If somebody has added an animal that can be found across the world to loads of these categories, then the cats should just be removed from the article, but I don't see any reason to delete all these useful categories. --musicpvm 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm unaware that all the subcategories of a category nominated for deletion need to be nominated individually, the instructions for nominating a category seem to indicate otherwise, but aren't very clear on this point.—Chidom ^talk 04:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is just the worst. I deleted all items from "Czech Republic" as either completely nonsensical or not endemic. This is unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grossly misused - look at this example. If kept add text requiring that the animal must be endemic for this or that country into every subcategory. Also add information where to put animals that could be found over several countries. But even with this I expect poor to absurd results.

Possibly working would be classification by large region like Sahara or North Asia or Madagascar, not by political entities. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deleting this category is innaproproiate without discussing the subcategories first. If you want to delete the subcategories, tag all of them and start over with a new nomination. Also, per musicpvm, if they are being misused, address that through culling, instead of deleting the category. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful part of each country's menu. Brammen 09:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to Category:Endemic animals by country for the use of Madagascar, Australia, etc. Some animals are found in more than a hundred countries, we really shouldn't have 100+ categories for each of these animals. bogdan 13:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rename could be also solution. Pavel Vozenilek 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly Category:Endemic animals by region. In some cases, the region is the same as the country, but not always.

House mouse would have to be in virtually *all* the country categories, because they can be found in almost all places inhabited by humans. (currently, that article is just in Category:Mammals of Estonia...) bogdan 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, bring back the appropriate ones for renaming to "endemic" and then reconsider. Note that the Biota and Fauna categories need to be looked at in the same way. Golfcam 22:28, 16 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:FIFA World Cup-two time winning 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FIFA World Cup-two time winning players to Category:FIFA World Cup-multiple time winning players

Rename, so that Pelé, the only player to have won the FIFA World Cup three times as a player, can be added to this category. Chanheigeorge 05:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but perhaps something less unwieldy like Category:FIFA World Cup players with multiple wins or Category:Football players with multiple FIFA World Cup wins ..? --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Category:Multiple FIFA World Cup-winning players? Chanheigeorge 06:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. Conscious 09:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was a reliable way of grouping the greatest players this category would be valuable, but it isn't. Wimstead 18:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what category gives you a "reliable" way of grouping the greatest players, since it's POV anyway. Those in Category:FIFA World Cup-winning players are not necessarily great either. Players who've won the World Cup multiple times are certainly exclusive and notable, so I don't see why we can't have a category for them. Chanheigeorge 22:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These can be covered by a list. Brammen 09:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Listify. interesting, I guess, but categories don't seem like the best way to handle this. Recury 18:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wimstead Golfcam 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wimstead. — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 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:Football (soccer) players by international team[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 --WinHunter ^(talk) 00:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football (soccer) players by international team to Category:Football (soccer) players by national team

Rename, for correctness, as the players play for national teams. Chanheigeorge 04:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Recury 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 12:25, 20 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:Canadian Football League kickers[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 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Football League kickers to Category:Canadian Football League placekickers

Rename, per the main article, which is at placekicker, and the recent rename from Category:American football kickers to Category:American football placekickers. Alai 03:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.--Mike Selinker 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 05:21, 20 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:Roman Consuls[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 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It seems to me this is covered by Category:Imperial Roman consuls and Category:Roman Republican consuls. If we keep it I recommend we change the name to Category:Roman consuls. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cat is unecessary, per nom. Mallanox 01:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We also do not need it as a parent to the Republican and Imperial cats, as they both fit well directly in Category:Political office-holders in Ancient Rome and Category:Ancient Roman titles. ×Meegs 05:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Meegs. Tankred 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as useful parent category. The period 44BC till the formal declaration of the principate in 29(?) demands it, in my opinion. Hornplease 23:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The office did change in that period, but I don't think it is worth the complication to segregate its consuls. I am content including those in the years after Caesar in the Republican cat, as is done in List of Republican Roman Consuls. My feelings are not strong, though. My main objective is to not push the populous categories (Republican and Imperial) down a level. ×Meegs 22:35, 15 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:Wonder Woman films[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 13:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only occupant of this cat was the upcoming Wonder Woman film. Article moved up a level to Films based on DC Comics. Mallanox 00:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One film isn't enough for a category. RobJ1981 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a film yet. CovenantD 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a TV movie or two, which evidently didn't qualify for inclusion for this category for an as-of-yet-unmade film. Badbilltucker 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smell the fancruft! — Dale Arnett 12:37, 20 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.