Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 5#Category:Songs with Stuttering

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. the wub "?!" 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:Songs with Stuttering to :Category:Songs with stuttering ProveIt ^(talk) 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's really stupid. Delete instead. Recury 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::moved from speedy for discussion ×Meegs 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Stupid or not is an arbitrary judgment. The songs in question do in fact have stuttering in them. Why not have a category for it?--MARQUIS111 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and listify Stuttering is a pretty odd choice for a way to categorize song articles. Categories normally are supposed to represent notable, defining characteristics within the context of that subject matter. Whether or not a song includes stuttering seems to be more along the lines of song trivia, which is better suited to a list article. Dugwiki 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:LC.--Andrew c 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dugwiki Sumahoy 21:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. the wub "?!" 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:{{lc|Fictional heroes}}

Delete, for the same reasons Category:Fictional_heroines was deleted. —scarecroe 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; we wouldn't have :Category:Heroes either. -choster 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Too difficult to quantify "hero", upkeep would be difficult. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. "Hero" is either a POV label, or it refers to central characters in fiction (including antiheroes) ... in which case it should be called something like "central characters in fiction", although that category would run into other problems. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom — J Greb 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} don't rename. — CharlotteWebb 07:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:Gay porn stars to :Category:Stars of gay porn

• Rename. This category is about porn stars who appear in gay porn. Most of the porn stars in this category are probably gay, but as it says, some are gay-for-pay, and others are bisexual. All other subcategories of :Category:Porn stars appear to refer to the star (female, asian, transsexual, etc), rather than the type of porn. (Not sure "Stars of gay porn" is the best name for the category but I definitely think it should be renamed. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now: "Stars of gay porn" is awkward at best. Can't think of a better name myself. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, because "gay porn stars" does not mean "porn stars who are gay". No one's going to misinterpret this.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zythe. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are already enough different phrases used to refer to porn performers (there's one): porn performers, porn stars, porn actors, pornographic actors, etc., etc., etc. "Gay" is modifying "porn", not "stars". It is clearly stated on the category page and the List of gay porn stars article that the men on the list or in the category may or may not be gay.—Chidom ^talk  09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - shouldn't there be a way of distinguishing porn stars who are gay and porn stars who are in gay porn? If "gay porn stars" is going to refer to porn stars who are in gay porn, can we have a "porn stars who are gay"? Something that fits into :Category:Gay actors? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• If it's properly annotated in the category header as "may or may not be" it shouldn't need it. If someone really disputes it being a subcategory of Gay actors, than simply link to it from gay actors "For individuals who have acted in gay pornography, who may or may not be gay themselves, see gay porn stars" and then list them as gay by nationality if we know they actually are. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• While I understand the concern, it has to be said that there really isn't, for the most part, any easy way to distinguish gay stars of gay porn from bisexual stars of gay porn or gay-for-pay stars of gay porn. While it's true that there are some people who have been associated with both the gay and straight porn scenes, those people would be more appropriately classified in :Category:Bisexual porn stars anyway — and "gay-for-pay" is essentially a subjective assessment which has no place in Wikipedia's category schema. (It can be a lot of things — a deliberately misleading marketing strategy, a reflection of homophobia, a POV position of bisexual erasure — but it's not an objective classification.) And I don't see the distinction as being all that encyclopedic anyway — it appeals to people's prurient interests about their favourite fantasy studs more than to anything that's particularly central to what makes them notable. Oppose as (a) unnecessary, and (b) unlikely to be misinterpreted, and (c) not really that encyclopedic. Bearcat 22:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} category deleted as already empty. David Kernow (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:Unbarred dwarf spiral galaxies into :Category:Dwarf spiral galaxies

• Merge - A review of the scientific literature shows that dwarf spiral galaxies may be identified as containing bar-like structures (see the references within dwarf spiral galaxy, for example). However, no one has formally classified dwarf spiral galaxies as barred or unbarred. Therefore, placing galaxies into :Category:Dwarf barred spiral galaxies and :Category:Unbarred dwarf spiral galaxies requires original research. These two subcategories (which are currently empty) should be upmerged into :Category:Dwarf spiral galaxies until formal classifications are performed. Dr. Submillimeter 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (they're empty) or Upmerge per nom. ~ BigrTex 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge agreed. WilliamKF 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} category deleted as already empty. David Kernow (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:Dwarf barred spiral galaxies into :Category:Dwarf spiral galaxies

• Merge - A review of the scientific literature shows that dwarf spiral galaxies may be identified as containing bar-like structures (see the references within dwarf spiral galaxy, for example). However, no one has formally classified dwarf spiral galaxies as barred or unbarred. Therefore, placing galaxies into :Category:Dwarf barred spiral galaxies and :Category:Unbarred dwarf spiral galaxies requires original research. These two subcategories (which are currently empty) should be upmerged into :Category:Dwarf spiral galaxies until formal classifications are performed. Dr. Submillimeter 18:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: per nom. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge agreed. WilliamKF 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. I will also create :Category:Surenos as a {{category redirect}} per Neutrality, but it seems to me :Category:Sureno is singular, and would therefore qualify for deletion under CSD C2. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Sureno to :Category:Sureños

rename as main page name Sureños.Nosic 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename, keep original as soft redirect: Not all users have access to n+~ on their keyboards (ñ), as such adding to this category for those with only an English keyboard would be difficult at best. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge. the wub "?!" 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:Christian singers into :Category:Christian musicians

• Merge, There may be a theoretical difference between the two, as singers is a subset of musicians, but it's very subtle, and in practice, the two are just the same category, but split into two factions. They ought to be merged. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge not maintainabel as separate categories Arnoutf 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. the wub "?!" 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:Project Runway contestants to :Category:Project Runway participants

• Rename- "Participants" is the more widely-used descriptor, and changing this cat allows for the correct inclusion of participants (e.g. Tim Gunn) who are not "contestants." 205.141.247.28 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename' per above, more inclusive.--Andrew c 01:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming/merge; support creation of new category Support renaming, oppose merging of non-contestants into renamed category per my reasons in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 6#Category:Idol series contestants. Tinlinkin 08:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. the wub "?!" 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

:Delete as unneeded, only member is :Category:Indian bishops, already parented by :Category:Bishops by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Note :Category:Bishops by continent. -choster 16:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Delete, unnecessary for above reasons and categorisation by continent --Alynna 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Delete per nom. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep give a person time to populate a new category! Don't be so quick to judge!!Thanks! Pastorwayne 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, we go by country, not by continent. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge per nom, for time being at least. David Kernow (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into :Category:Brands of Germany, although :Category:Brands by country is inconsistant. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Obvious merge -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Merge for now but this entire branch is has many problems. If it's intended to tag every country where a product is found, Coca-Cola is going to grow by a couple hundred. If it's intended to tag the country where the owner of the brand is based, it's misnamed.-choster 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename. the wub "?!" 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:University of Birmingham people to :Category:People associated with the University of Birmingham

::Category:University of Liverpool people to :Category:People associated with the University of Liverpool

::Category:University College London people to :Category:People associated with University College London

• Rename all, in line with every other category in :Category:People by university in England (and also, in the case of UCL, :Category:People associated with the University of London). Timrollpickering 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all - I don't care what tod, but this is clearly not the notation you want. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all to place subjects at starts of names (and remove awkward adjectivals). David Kernow (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:University of Wales, Swansea Alumni to :Category:Alumni of Swansea University

• Rename, the main article name and institution branding is now Swansea University, also convention of :Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom. Timrollpickering 13:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} keep. David Kernow (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:{{lc|Germanic peoples}}

Violates neutrality and accuracy: category is being used for a political agenda, to promote the idea that modern ethnic groups and nations in north-west Europe are "Germanic", a claim typically associated with neo-nazi groups. The relevant legitimate categories are "Germanic languages' and "Ancient Germanic peoples".Paul111 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• keep Some cleanup maybe necessary but (IMHO) for this case the cure of deletion is worse than the ailment of inprecision. Neo-nazi allegations are not supported by any evidence of abuse of this category. Arnoutf 10:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep

One of the definitions of Princeton for Germanic is:

Teutonic: of or pertaining to the ancient Teutons or their languages; "Teutonic peoples such as Germans and Scandinavians and British"; "Germanic mythology"[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=germanic]

So I guess either accusing people supporting this category to be Neo-Nazis is exteremely stupid or Princeton is neo-Nazi as well. Too bad we dont have smileys rolling eyes here...Lukas19 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. I don't see any evidence of neo-nazi leanings here, but nonetheless ths is a deeply suspect POV category, which currently includes Danish people, Dutch people, Norsemen, Normans. There is an interesting discussion to be had around this, but the concept of "Germanic" is too vague to lend itself to neat categorisation in this way. It is essentially an anchronism, imposing a modern concept of "Germanic" on earlier periods; it might start to be more usable if carefully defined, but then it would fail the obviousness test of WP:CAT. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP. :As explained to you many times before Paul111, "Germanic" is a cultural and linguistic marker. I don't care if NeoNazis use it for some other goal, it is a much used scientific term and this category should not be deleted. Rex 13:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NPOV doesn't justify anti-every word the Nazis used paranoia. This is a valid concept in social sciences. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per -Amarkov Osomec 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rex. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: for the association of the term 'Germanic peoples' with Nazism, see Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Lebensraum, and for instance Hitler salute. The reason for deletion is neutrality and accuracy, since the list is being used to claim that the English, the Swedes, the Danish, the Dutch and the Flemings are Germanic peoples. Germanic is a valid category in linguistics, but that does not make it a valid category for modern ethnic groups or nations.Paul111 20:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The reasons given for this nomination are utter rubbish. The term "Germanic peoples" are by no means a political fabrication, or related to neo-nazism, as the nominator claims. In my opinion, and according to my personal judgement, this nomination in itself violates WP:NPOV, since it seems to be politically motivated, or at least has been nominated because of the nominators personal opinion. /M.O (u) (t) 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Never heard about any nazi-connotations before, but "Germanic" is commonly used to describe people in the part of Europe with Germanic languages. The whole idea of dividing Europeans into different ethnic groups is questionable, but "Germanic" seems at least as valid as e.g. "Danes" as a separate ethnic group (it is very hard to distinguish a typical Dane from a Swede or a German in anything but nationality and language). --Per Abrahamsen 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator seems to think that Germanic is some sort of Nazi concotion. This is not the case.Inge 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The reason given for renaming is spurious. Piccadilly 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The category reflects our article on Germanic peoples. "The Germanic peoples are a linguistic and ethnic branch of Indo-European peoples, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Germanic languages that are descended from Proto-Germanic. Migrant Germanic settlers spread throughout Europe, mixing with existing local populations (such as Celts, but also Slavs/Vends and Romans), forming the future basis of diverse nations, to various extents connected by linguistic affinity, as well as a common identity, history, and culture." By no means a National Socialistic definition. User:Dimadick

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete. David Kernow (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename :Category:Fictional Simpsons villains to :Category:The Simpsons villains. As far as I know, all Simpsons villains are fictional. There's no need for redundancy. After all, the category :Category:The Simpsons characters isn't called :Category:Fictional human The Simpsons TV characters created by Matt Groening. JIP | Talk 08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per September 25 discusion. Across all episodes, we can't objectively distinguish the villains from the heroes. ×Meegs 11:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Meegs. Most Simpsons characters are too nuanced to fit neatly into heroes/villiains ctegories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per Brownhairedgirl. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::Both? Luckily there is no heroes cat, if that's what you mean. ×Meegs 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename all per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:Sri Lankan business people to :Category:Sri Lankan businesspeople

::Category:English business people to :Category:English businesspeople

::Category:Welsh business people to :Category:Welsh businesspeople

::Category:Scottish business people to :Category:Scottish businesspeople

::Category:British business people to :Category:British businesspeople

• Rename by changing "businesspeople" to "businesspeople" (i.e remove space) per other subcategories of :Category:Businesspeople by nationality. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per discussion of November 9th, see also October 11th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename (hopefully no sockpuppets this time) Tim! 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all per above. David Kernow (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus / keep as not necessarily limited to people alone. Slated for rename to {{c|Unexplained disappearances}}. David Kernow (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:{{lc|Unexplained Disappearances}}

No apparent distinction versus :Category:Disappeared people. By definition a disappearance is unexplained. Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think that's necessarily true. The "disappearances" in Argentina during the period of miltary dictatorship were usually readily explained as the work of forces linked to the state, and the abductions were often witnessed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Better, then, would be a separate category for cases of forced disappearance. The existing category says for people who went missing and whose subsequent fate is a mystery, which is not substantially different from "unexplained". Forced disappearances, however, are markedly different from other types of disappearances. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reply Dhartung I think that you have mostly pesuaded me that a separate category for forced disappearance is the way to go, though here may be some definitional problems with such a category (a distinguishing feature of many forced disapperances is that there was no evidence, so the category would probabbly need to define itself as something like "both alleged and proven forced disappearances"). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to category :Category:Disappeared people per nominator. Per discussion above, if any separation is needed, it would be best to separate out forced disappearances: most diappearances are unexplained, and the sub-categorisation should be for the exceptions.--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment The discussed list also contains unexplained disappearances of plains and ships, hardly people. Arnoutf 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• If kept, it should be renamed to :Category:Unexplained disappearances. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Arnoutf, note that those members of the category e.g. the Mary Celeste already have categories they fit under. Perhaps not the best ones, but this cat adds nothing (and may have an agenda, if the inclusion of paranormal vanishing means anything). --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into :Category:South African doctors, or the reverse, one of them should become a redirect. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into :Category:South African doctors, which is correct in Commonwealth English. Osomec 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into :Category:South African doctors and keep as redirect. Piccadilly 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus, tending towards "do not rename". I will gradually try to untag the categories, and {{cfdend}} all the talk pages: might take a while. Help would be appreciated, please. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:Archdiocese of Los Angeles to :Category:Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California

::Category:Buildings and structures in Los Angeles to :Category:Buildings and structures in Los Angeles, California

::Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles to :Category:Cemeteries in Los Angeles, California

::Category:Companies based in Los Angeles to :Category:Companies based in Los Angeles, California

::Category:Los Angeles culture to :Category:Culture of Los Angeles, California

::Category:Education in Los Angeles to :Category:Education in Los Angeles, California

::Category:Government of Los Angeles to :Category:Government of Los Angeles, California

::Category:History of Los Angeles to :Category:History of Los Angeles, California

::Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles to :Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles, California

::Category:Mayors of Los Angeles to :Category:Mayors of Los Angeles, California

::Category:Los Angeles media to :Category:Media of Los Angeles, California

::Category:Los Angeles neighborhoods to :Category:Neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California

::Category:Organizations in Los Angeles to :Category:Organizations in Los Angeles, California

::Category:People from Los Angeles to :Category:People from Los Angeles, California

::Category:Sports in Los Angeles to :Category:Sports in Los Angeles, California

::Category:Transportation in Los Angeles to :Category:Transportation in Los Angeles, California

::Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago to :Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Cemeteries in Chicago to :Category:Cemeteries in Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Chicago opera companies to :Category:Opera companies in Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Chicago culture to :Category:Culture of Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Education in Chicago to :Category:Education in Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Government of Chicago to :Category:Government of Chicago, Illinois

::Category:History of Chicago to :Category:History of Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Chicago media to :Category:Media of Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Chicago neighborhoods to :Category:Neighborhoods of Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Parks in Chicago to :Category:Parks in Chicago, Illinois

::Category:People from Chicago to :Category:People from Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Sports in Chicago to :Category:Sports in Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Transportation in Chicago to :Category:Transportation in Chicago, Illinois

::Category:Buildings and structures in Houston to :Category:Buildings and structures in Houston, Texas

::Category:Education in Houston to :Category:Education in Houston, Texas

::Category:History of Houston to :Category:History of Houston, Texas

::Category:Mayors of Houston to :Category:Mayors of Houston, Texas

::Category:Museums in Houston to :Category:Museums in Houston, Texas

::Category:Houston neighborhoods to :Category:Neighborhoods of Houston, Texas

::Category:People from Houston to :Category:People from Houston, Texas

::Category:Radio stations in Houston to :Category:Radio stations in Houston, Texas

::Category:Sports in Houston to :Category:Sports in Houston, Texas

::Category:Television stations in Houston to :Category:Television stations in Houston, Texas

::Category:Transportation in Houston to :Category:Transportation in Houston, Texas

::Category:Buildings and structures in Philadelphia to :Category:Buildings and structures in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Companies based in Philadelphia to :Category:Companies based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Philadelphia culture to :Category:Culture of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Economy of Philadelphia to :Category:Economy of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Education in Philadelphia to :Category:Education in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Geography of Philadelphia to :Category:Geography of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Government of Philadelphia to :Category:Government of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:History of Philadelphia to :Category:History of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Landmarks in Philadelphia to :Category:Landmarks in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Media in Philadelphia to :Category:Media in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Philadelphia neighborhoods to :Category:Neighborhoods of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Organizations based in Philadelphia to :Category:Organizations based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Parks and squares in Philadelphia to :Category:Parks and squares in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:People from Philadelphia to :Category:People from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Religion in Philadelphia to :Category:Religion in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Sports in Philadelphia to :Category:Sports in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Streets in Philadelphia to :Category:Streets in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Transportation in Philadelphia to :Category:Transportation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

::Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Philadelphia to :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

• All cities other than :Category:New York City are of the form City, State, but there is much variation in subcategories. I recommend renaming to XXX in/of City, State, although the other way would be possible. This nomination is massive, so I started with the four largest cities other than New York for now. TimBentley (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, with one exception: the proper name of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is "Archdiocese of Los Angeles". I think we should keep it at the official name. Otherwise I agree with the rest. -Will Beback · † · 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Struck. TimBentley (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I'm not entirely convinced. Usual practice up until now has only been to disambiguate cities where there is clear cause for confusion. While there is a biblical Philadelphia, and Houston and Los Angeles could viably have other reasonable sized places sharing their name (though I doubt many would be too confused by what los Angeles we were referring to), I doubt that Chicago has. It also looks like the thin edge of an extremely large wedge - are you planning to do this with every city in the world? Grutness...wha? 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per Will Beback drumguy8800 C T 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support only for consistency relations. Having every USAn city named in the form of "City, State" will help avoid ambiguity when dealing with USAn cities named after European cities (there's quite a lot of them). JIP | Talk 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per grutness. The state name may need to be included sometimes for disambiguation, and it might help in other cases where cities are not so well known internationally; but LA is surely one of the world's best-known cities, and Chicago is well-known too. I'm not sure about Philadelphia, and inclined to support the renaming for Houston, but since they have all been lumped together, I have to oppose them all. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per grutness. --evrik ^(talk) 15:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support My stance is that it's better to make the naming scheme consistent at the cost of some abbreviation. That way as editors create new categories, they know the format the name should follow. And readers looking to peruse various categories of the same type will know what format to use when typing in searches. If some categories use state designations, and others don't, then readers will sometimes have to resort to trial and error to guess the correct syntax. But if all the categories use "City, State" format, it's easier to search. Dugwiki 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all These are world famous cities so this is unnecessary. Osomec 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Grutness. For world famous cities, or those with unique names, I don't see it as necessary. However, for some of the extremely likely ones, such as People from San Francisco, it may be worthwhile to create a redirect, just as we did for :Category:San Franciscans. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Grutness and Osomec Postoak 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I just noticed that many city categories were nominated for renaming to City, State at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Cities in the United States, which did not gain consensus, but they were manually moved about a month later. Perhaps some well known cities should be moved back to the City form. TimBentley (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose All Extra words for no gain - category names should be succinct. roundhouse 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As with Las Vegas above, until these need to be disambiguated they seem clear and succinct. ~ BigrTex 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per roundhouse.Bjones 21:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:High-importance Uruguayan articles to :Category:High-importance Uruguay articles

• Rename, Per other Category i created for the project and i borrow ideas form Turkey's Categories, there is no need to add an . Matthew_hk tc 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete both. David Kernow (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few more continental categories. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that :Category:Religious leaders by nationality works well enough to cover most anything we are likely to need.

• :Category:Religious leaders by continent
• :Category:North American religious leaders

:Delete in favor of :Category:Religious leaders by nationality. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the middleman. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the middleman per above. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep what is wrong with categories by continent? Other categories are organized by continent! see :Category:Categories by continent Must all those be deleted as well to remain consistent?? Pastorwayne 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, we go by country, not continent. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for consistency. ~ BigrTex 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} SPEEDY DELETE, recreation of CFD'd category. —Moondyne 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:All-rounders
• :Category:Australian all-rounders
• :Category:English all-rounders
• :Category:Pakistani all-rounders
• :Category:Sri Lankan all-rounders
• :Category:United Arab Emirates all-rounders
• :Category:West Indian all-rounders

Delete, no criteria for inclusion: "All-rounder" is a subjective term. This issue was discussed here in April 2006 and we resolved to not have these particular categories. Categories have ben deleted previuosly and recreated a few weeks ago. Only two have been partly populated (SL & WI), others are empty. —Moondyne 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd forgotten that there was a CFD for this at here, so this may be a case for a speedy deletion. —Moondyne 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per Moondyne, otherwise delete per nomination as subjective. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 07:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename to {{c|Fictional prison officers and governors}}. David Kernow (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:{{lc|Fictional Her Majesty's Prison Service employees}}

Delete - Category appears to have been created specifically to house two minor EastEnders characters who appeared one time each. There is no need for a category at this level of specificity; the articles (if they are notable and I have my doubts) can be categorized under other existing categories for prison personnel. Otto4711 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteUpmerge as below. :Category:Fictional members of the 6th lab in the 2nd building of IBM's headquarters next! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as over-categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename per Grutness. I assumed that :Category:Fictional prison officers already existed (silly me, I should have checked). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to :Category:Fictional prison officers or similar - that might be a much more useful category and would contain quite a large number of articles, I suspect. Grutness...wha? 08:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per above and populate. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename, per Grutness, and add new nomination :Category:Fictional wardens to :Category:Fictional prison officers too. Mereda 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support on upmerging of :Category:Fictional wardens. Seems that it might be useful, but the terminology is difficult ("warden" in some jurisdictions, "governor" in the UK), and I doubt that it will grow much. I'd prefer a separate nomination for :Category:Fictional wardens (it's currently mis-tagged). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Comment Or maybe we could have :Category:Fictional prison officers and governors to match the existing articles Prison officer and Prison Governor?? (A lot of other terms redirect to those two.) Meanwhile, :Category:Judicial and penal systems people doesn't seem to have any non-fictional officers, guards, wardens or governors at all. --Mereda 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (But ... I've just added a few now. Mereda 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

:::Comment I like that idea. :Category:Fictional prison officers and governors would cover both, and its better than having two categories, boith of which are unlikely to be very heavily populated. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:Fictional prison officers as above. Tim! 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Fictional prison officers, it was my stupidity to call the category that - I intended to populate it with Bad Girls characters, but none had articles! Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• prompted by this debate, Jim Fenner now has :) Grutness...wha? 00:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to {{c|Fictional prison officers and governors}} per discussion above. David Kernow (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} delete all. David Kernow (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Religion by continent
• :Category:Christianity by continent
• :Category:Methodism by continent
• :Category:Bishops by continent
• :Category:United Methodism by continent

I have a general dislike of categorizing by continent, the problem is that I never remember, off the top of my head, whether places like Kyrgyzstan or Uzbekistan are in Asia or Europe. I wonder if Puerto Rico counts as North America or Oceania. Is Iceland part or Europe or not? For some natuaral things, such as plants, animals, and geographical features like volcanos, it makes sense to categorize things this way. However for manmade things, national boundaries seem to make more sense. However as of today we have five new continental categories.

:Delete all, as over-enthusiastic categorization. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Delete - categorising by countries is sufficient for these. --Alynna 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as over-categorisation. No need to subdivide the categories by continent, beacuse (as above) it doesn't increase clarity, and the list of countries is not too long. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, use countries instead. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Offtopic Comment we now also have :Category:Religion by region and similar categories. Perhaps slightly better than by continent, but I'm not so sure. Mairi 20:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename both per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Matlock to :Category:Matlock (TV series)
• :Category:Matlock episodes to :Category:Matlock (TV series) episodes

rename as Matlock (TV series).Xiedfo 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity and to distinguish from the town Matlock. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• The town doesn't appear large enough to ever warrant its own dedicated category in the first place, and even if it did it would have to be "Matlock, Derbyshire" rather than just "Matlock" anyway, because it's in no way a dominant meaning of the undisambiguated title. Plus the town will never be in any conceivable way associated with the concept of episodes. Bearcat 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Personally, I'm not sure why Matlock needs its own unique category, and I'd support category deletion and listifying of actors/characters. But assuming the category remains in place, the suggested rename makes sense. Dugwiki 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Matlock is in any way correlated with the concept of episodes, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename all using "(TV series)" as :Category:Firefly and :Category:Firefly terminology potentially ambiguous. If/when film/other media involved, renominate with new disambiguation. David Kernow (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Firefly to :Category:Firefly (TV series)
• :Category:Firefly cast and crew to :Category:Firefly (TV series) cast and crew
• :Category:Firefly characters to :Category:Firefly (TV series) characters
• :Category:Firefly episodes to :Category:Firefly (TV series) episodes
• :Category:Firefly soundtracks to :Category:Firefly (TV series) soundtracks
• :Category:Firefly spin-offs to :Category:Firefly (TV series) spin-offs
• :Category:Firefly fan films to :Category:Firefly (TV series) fan films
• :Category:Firefly terminology to :Category:Firefly (TV series) terminology

rename as Firefly (TV series).Xiedfo 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question The category description says it is specifically for the TV series and spinoffs, but I'm wondering if it also includes information regarding the movie? If this covers both the television show and the movie and any other articles, then the articles are not specific to a TV series and I don't think I'd support the suggested rename. I might, though, support something like "Firefly (science fiction)" or the like. Dugwiki 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, no need to disambig here. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Firefly is in any way correlated with the concepts of episodes or characters or soundtracks or fan films or spin-offs, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Especially :Category:Firefly and :Category:Firefly terminology which could be misconstrued. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename all. David Kernow (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Crusade to :Category:Crusade (TV series)
• :Category:Crusade episodes to :Category:Crusade (TV series) episodes
• :Category:Crusade cast and crew to :Category:Crusade (TV series) cast and crew

rename as Crusade (TV series).Xiedfo 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename or delete/listify As above with Matlock, I do not think this category is necessary and would recommend deleting and listifying the characters and actors (assuming they're not already listed in the main article). Episodes should already be listed as a subcategory of :Category:Episodes by television series and could remain in place without the need for :Category:Crusade. However, assuming this category isn't deleted, I do support the rename to remove disambiguity. Dugwiki 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename In keeping with article for series that way. User:Tom walker 18:22 GMT 5 December 2006
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Crusade is in any way correlated with the concepts of episodes or cast and crew, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Deadwood episodes to :Category:Deadwood (TV series) episodes

rename as Deadwood (TV series).Xiedfo 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom Dugwiki 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, no need to disambig here. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Just a guess, but I believe nominator wants the disam to distinguish it between other Deadwood articles, and also to match the category name to the name of its main article Deadwood (TV series). Dugwiki 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• What other possible meaning of Deadwood could be at all correlated with episodes? Bearcat 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Deadwood is in any way correlated with the concept of episodes, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename all. David Kernow (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Entourage to :Category:Entourage (TV series)
• :Category:Entourage Image to :Category:Entourage (TV series) images
• :Category:Entourage actors to :Category:Entourage (TV series) actors
• :Category:Entourage characters to :Category:Entourage (TV series) characters
• :Category:Entourage episodes to :Category:Entourage (TV series) episodes
• :Category:Entourage templates to :Category:Entourage (TV series) templates

rename as Entourage (TV series).Xiedfo 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename or delete/listify As above with Matlock and Crusade, I'm not convinced this category is necessary. Assuming it is kept, though, I support the rename. Dugwiki 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Entourage is in any way correlated with the concepts of episodes or characters or actors, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Mostly oppose as unnecessary; :Category:Entourage Image definitely has to be changed to lowercase-and-plural "images", but I'm still not sure the dab needs to be there. Bearcat 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Dexter episodes to :Category:Dexter (TV series) episodes

rename as Dexter (TV series).Xiedfo 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom Dugwiki 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object, no need to disambig here. (Radiant) 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• As above, I think the reason is that Dexter refers to multiple articles, so the category name should match the main article Dexter (TV series). Dugwiki 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• What other possible meaning of Dexter would be associated with episodes? Bearcat 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of Dexter is in any way correlated with the concept of episodes, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename both. David Kernow (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Dark Angel albums to :Category:Dark Angel (band) albums
• :Category:Dark Angel episodes to :Category:Dark Angel (TV series) episodes

rename as Dark Angel (band), Dark Angel (TV series).Xiedfo 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom Dugwiki 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename all. David Kernow (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Air to :Category:Air (series)
• :Category:Air characters to :Category:Air (series) characters
• :Category:Air episodes to :Category:Air (TV series) episodes

rename as Air (series).Xiedfo 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename - I thought this was going to be about either the atmosphere or the French band. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename or delete/listify As above with Matlock and Crusade, this category does not appear to be necessary and I'd support deletion/listifying. Assuming it is kept, though, I support the rename. Dugwiki 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename for clarity. Osomec 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Parent category :Category:Air is definitely too ambiguous to stand as is, but I don't know if the characters and episodes subcats need to be disambiguated. Is there any other potential meaning of Air that might be correlated with the concepts of episodes or characters? Definitely rename the parent category; rename the subcategories only if there's an actual risk of ambiguity rather than a purely theoretical one. Bearcat 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} rename all. David Kernow (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:House actors to :Category:House (TV series) actors
• :Category:House characters to :Category:House (TV series) characters
• :Category:House episodes to :Category:House (TV series) episodes

rename as House (TV series).Xiedfo 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Timrollpickering 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom; suffix "(TV series)" needed for clarity. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename or delete/listify Another TV category that appears to be unnecessary and could be deleted/listified. Assuming it's kept, though, I support the rename. Dugwiki 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and definitely do not delete, the current tagging does not even suggest this is a possible outcome of the discussion. Tim! 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Category names should always be as simple as possible; there's no rule necessarily requiring that a category name has to match an article title dab for dab. Since no other possible meaning of House is in any way correlated with the concepts of episodes or characters or actors, there's no actual risk of ambiguity here. Oppose as unnecessary. Bearcat 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Category:Middlesex University alumni into :Category:Alumni of Middlesex University

• Speedy merge, the two have identical scope but the latter is the standard convention in :Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom (where the other was not listed). Timrollpickering 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy merge per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} keep, per arguments and existing convention. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:{{lc|OK Go albums}}

Moved to :Category:OK Go discography, as contained 2 albums and 2 singles. - Jack (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose part of :Category:Albums by artist. Songs/singles go in :Category:Songs by artist. Mairi 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mairi. OK Go is active and will probably have a third album next year. There are also other potential song articles. --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as over-categorisation, we don't need categories containing two or three articles. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
• Keep per WP:ALBUM#Categories. ~ BigrTex 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and I put the contents back. Should it be kept per WP:ALBUM#Categories and dozens of precedents, and please don't move contents before starting a debate like this.--Mike Selinker 08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mairi and WP:ALBUM, and delete :Category:OK Go discography, which goes against convention. Mike Selinker has just created :Category:OK Go songs to store the articles about the group's songs (and single releases). ×Meegs 15:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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