Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 5

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Category redundant with bibliography of Haruki Murakami, and less complete. Ario 23:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• If the books have their own articles, then a "books by author" subcategory is explicitly permitted under the existing category rules. The general books categories simply get too large and uncontrollable if they're not broken down in this manner. Keep. Bearcat 02:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not competing with the list, this is just the category for the books wikipedia happens to have articles on. siafu
• Keep Part of a system of categories. CalJW 15:47, 6 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 15:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Consistency. With U.S. presidential elections, U.S. presidential electors, etc.. —Markles 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 06:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. If we are to avoid abbreviations, then a whole-scale renaming to all of the "U.S." political categories and articles would have to occur&mdash that's several hundreds if not thousands of renamings. Or we could be consistent and change this one.—Markles 13:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, this is possibly the only category branch that's inconsistent with the convention. A whole-scale renaming is probably a good idea, and the amount of work isn't an issue-- bots are very good at this sort of thing. siafu 14:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Saifu. - TexasAndroid 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep we should instead change those that are still U.S. to United States or American as appropriate for the particular category. Abbreviations are to be avoided. Joshbaumgartner 19:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Candidates for President of the United States (eventually). - choster 21:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but :Category:Candidates for President of the United States would also be fine. Osomec 20:22, 12 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is for centre backs as stated at the top of the category the name needs to be changed. The players in :Category:Football (soccer) fullbacks are also defenders. Choalbaton 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

::Proposal amended from centrebacks to :Category:Football (soccer) central defenders Choalbaton 15:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:shouldn't that be "centre backs" rather than "centrebacks"? Grutness...wha? 22:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (right wing)

• Rename to Valiantis 15:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Have we been teleported to the sixties? We call them "central defenders". They haven't been called centre backs for years now. -- Grace Note.

• Rename to :Category:Football (soccer) central defenders. Also, some people who really know football (soccer) should make sure that all the players currently in the "defenders" category are correctly identified as central defenders, sweepers, wingbacks, and the like. — Dale Arnett 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Defenders include centre and wing backs, "defender" is by far the most used word, and there are several players (Maldini, Thuram, and others) who play both as centre and wing back. --Angelo 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Football (soccer) central defenders. Players can be put in both where necessary Angelo. Bhoeble 15:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Football (soccer) central defenders. ReeseM 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Football (soccer) central defenders which is more modern. Osomec 20:22, 12 January 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've re-categorised the articles; category is now empty. ----Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This nomination was left at the doorstep of WP:RFD with a small note attached, asking us to care for it as if it were our own. The nominee apparently orphaned :Category:List of Syriacs by moving all appropriate articles to :Category:Syriacs, and then placed a redirect in :Category:List of Syriacs. My understanding is that categories can't be redirected, so this isn't a proper issue for RFD to discuss. I am thus handing the issue off to you, my CFD comrades, so that you may subject it to your thoughtful analysis. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 22:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The use of "list of" should always be avoided when naming categories. In the future, however, I would ask that the nominator simply place the category under "speedy renaming" rather than expending effort switching things round himself. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 5 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename -- After the Viacom/CBS split, all broadcast television stations owned by Viacom were taken over by CBS. Therefore, it no longer makes sense for this category to use the word "Viacom", but CBS's ownership of UPN stations as well as one WB station and an Azteca affiliate would make "CBS television stations" misleading. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Query: How is "CBS television stations" misleading? siafu 06:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• It could perceive people to believe it is only stations that are owned by CBS and affiliated with them (but they also own UPN O&Os and, in WPB, a low-power primary WB affiliate and a low-power Azteca station, as well as an independent in LA), although I may be wrong, with a CBS television station being stations owned by CBS, regardless if the station actually airs that network primarily/at all. In any case, the category name should not indicate the outdated thought that Viacom actually owns television stations. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Definite rename - The new Viacom did not inherit any of the broadcast TV stations, and simply renaming it "CBS television stations" would be way too ambiguous for reasons stated above...Ranma9617 06:14, 11 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Contained the same one article as the category I have nominated for deletion below, which I moved to :Category:American teachers because the subject is an American. However this category is actually intended for "Teachers that teach any of a variety of english composition classes that emphasize reading, writing, and speaking skills". But it could also be for teachers from England. And it is miscapitalised. And it it overcategorisation too. Delete Sumahoy 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

• Delete Overcat. Soltak | Talk 20:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think we should have teachers by subject over nationality, . ArgentiumOutlaw 00:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Do we really need to know what teachers teach a subject? Mentioning in an article is fine but we really need a cat? If I'm missing a valid reason, let me know. Vegaswikian 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most teachers teach more than one subject, and it can certainly change over time. "teachers from England" would be simple overcategorization-- by nation is good enough. siafu 06:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and any category page listing "teachers" - an unencyclopedic distinction to make. Mayumashu 10:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's hard to be notable for schoolteaching anyway. Choalbaton 20:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete One would expect that any worth while teacher would teach good English (or indeed their own venacular). Djegan 13:46, 8 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Teachers definitely don't need to be categorised by school, and there is only one member. Sumahoy 19:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

• Delete Massive overcat. Soltak | Talk 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When I first made this cat, there were more members (which were deleted by AfD). ArgentiumOutlaw 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 06:57, 6 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a highly subjective category, and an unnecessary sub-categorization of pre-existing :category:Drama television series. How "central" must a story be, exactly? If it is kept, it should at least be renamed to better match existing subcategories of :Category:Television series by genre. MakeRocketGoNow 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Too subjective. Sumahoy 19:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. POV and unnecessary. Soltak | Talk 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 06:58, 6 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This had been tagged but not listed. MeltBanana 19:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Rename as per nom. Sumahoy 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. No argument. siafu 06:59, 6 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This should match its parent and children. Calsicol 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

• Rename. No argument. siafu 06:59, 6 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 complete --Kbdank71 14:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Children's Books should still exist, but it should be a subcategory of a new parent, Children's Literature. Several -- but not all of the existing subcategories of Children's books should be subs of Children's literature instead. Children's literature should parallel the other literature categories. Moreover, currently certain literature categories are subs of a books category, which is clearly reversed. (Not exactly a rename, but there's no template for "reorganize a heirarchy".) Deborah-jl 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:That's because its up to users to take the initiative to do it themselves. You don't want a name change, so I think you should consider withdrawing the nomination and just getting on with it. Calsicol 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Be bold. There's nothing proposed here that an ordinary editor can't accomplish in five minutes. siafu 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::I've created :Category:Children's literature and :Category:Children's books is now a subcategory of that. Done with this? Charles Matthews 12:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Hey guys, don't bite the newbies. I'm the one who told Deborah to play it cautious and ask before making a big change. Now I feel like I set her up for snippy comments. Sorry Deborah, and thanks for suggesting the improvement! --Woggly 21:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks; this is done as far as I'm concerned. Sorry for inappropriate use of the Cfd pages. Deborah-jl 13:19, 9 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Cateogry containing sites judged by a non-profit org as endangered on a nomination system, not quite the same as a FHM sexiest category, but possibly as subjective and POV. Locations change on a biennial basis complicating category maintenance, delete.--nixie 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as is, with a possible rename to :Category:World Monuments Fund 100 endangered sites or something similar. Although it is interesting to note there are only 29 articles linked in the "100 most dangerous sites" category... Semiconscious (talk · [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~btvoytek home]) 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete under any name because it changes every year. Sumahoy 20:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and list. Not at all central to these sites. siafu 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment maybe this could be renamed to :Category:Endangered arcelogical sites and broadened so its not just a listing from one org. --Pfafrich 12:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Most of them aren't archaeological sites. That isn't the criteria all. The purpose is to prevent them becoming archaeological sites. Bhoeble 15:17, 11 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

New category already exists; please move history. The proper name is TOKYOPOP in all caps. I tried to fix this a few days ago but did not discover the correct procedure until today...my apologies. pfahlstrom 16:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support all comments in the nomination. Semiconscious (talk · [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~btvoytek home]) 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. History doesn't seem very important to move in this case, really, unless it's incredibly easy. siafu 07:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have no strong feelings about the history. pfahlstrom 17:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --CJ Marsicano 06:18, 9 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There's already a category for :Category:Autistic people, I don't think a category for relatives of autistic people is needed. On an aside, it was odd to see refrigerator mother and Dan Marino in the same category. CDN99 15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Or perhaps you find it objectionable to allow the Wiki's readers to learn more about what these family members (e.g., Liz Birt, Bernard Rimland, Dan Burton, Rick Rollens, Edward Yazbak, et, al) have to contend with in light of the suppression of vaccine injury research. Ombudsman 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Family members, parents or otherwise, are irrelevant in most contexts of categorization. Soltak | Talk 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:This case is a clear exception, because of the fact that only in a very few instances (e.g. Temple Grandin, Dawn Prince-Hughes) can those severely affected by by autistic spectrum disorders can achieve notability themselves. Ombudsman 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::That's the point though, isn't it? Devoting yourself to the care of an autistic child makes you a wonderful, selfless person, but it doesn't make you independently notable. In addition, the majority of people in this category are already otherwise notable and don't require additional categorization. Doug Flutie and Dan Marino are football players, Elizabeth Moon is an author, Joe Scarborough is a former Congressman and current TV host. Why is this further categorization necessary? Soltak | Talk 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:::It is necessary for several reasons, beginning with the fact that these parents must face extreme hostility from the medical establishment, daunting obstacles for attaining treatment, lack of funding for scientific researc compared to other less common (and often less severe medical maladies, and finally, few of their children can ever achieve notability in their own right (at least not individually). The notability of individuals for other accomplishments is hardly a reason for lack of inclusion in this category. Ombudsman 00:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::::"Let's give them a category because the Man's keepin' them down" is a pretty unimpressive argument. In any event, a lot of what you said is up for debate or could be construed as POV so I won't argue any of those points. I will, however, introduce the ever-popular "slippery slope" theory: Where does it end? :Category:Children of Alzheimer's sufferers, :Category:Children of cancer sufferers, :Category:Parents of children with learning disabilities? I'm happy to answer my own question with this: It ends here, it ends now. Soltak | Talk 00:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:Each of these groups you have mentioned has many articulate representatives who can speak on behalf of their community, so thanks for reinforcing the point. Ombudsman 01:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::Autism has no articulate representatives? I'm forced to assume you've never heard of the Autism Society of America, the National Autistic Society, the National Alliance for Autism Research, or Cure Autism Now. If I were to assume the opposite then I'd have to conclude that you're merely attempting to be deliberately misleading, and my firm adherence to WP:AGF strictly prohibits me from doing that. Soltak | Talk 01:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Those are not individuals with severe autism, but your point is well taken. Regardless, what these parents have in common, the treatment methods they are advocating, the stories of their children's plight, etc., all these matters are quite relevant to many of the Wiki's readers, which is why this category was created. James Harris Simons, for example, is an ardent supporter of research into the genetic causes for autism. Unlike most such parents, he seems to side with the medical establishment, whereas most of the parent led groups oppose the recommendations made by government officials to focus research away from possible environmental triggers. In any case, the bottom line is that the category would be helpful for many reasons and for many of the Wiki's readers. Deletion would only serve to further impede ready access to knowledge being sought by a rapidly increasing demographic. Deleting the category would be a disservice to them. Ombudsman 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Category is not needed because the category mentioned by CDN99 covers any articles that may go into this parents category - Image:Flag of Great Britain (1707-1800).svg «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per User:Soltak's comments. Semiconscious (talk · [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~btvoytek home]) 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Soltak's comments. Sumahoy 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep: While little news about the autism epidemic has penetrated through the lethargy of the mass media, the crisis has resulted in huge burdens upon families, schools, and social support systems. Since children in this Age of Autism rarely can speak for themselves, it is entirely appropriate to allow for easy searches for those parents who have taken such responsibility upon themselves. Ombudsman 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Soltak; parents and children do not merit a category. siafu 07:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ombudsman's ongoing diatribes makes clear this category meets a POV need of his. Which is one good reason it should go. Additionally, title is misleading in regards to identifying the purpose which Ombudsman sees for it, that is, is autism caused by over-vaccination of children and does the drug industry and/or media engage in covering up the "true facts" about this? That is a legit question but it needs to be addressed encyclopedically on this site, not with agitki categories or speeches. 12.73.195.16 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the more we can do for autistic children and parents the better, and providing a source of people in a similar situation is commendable, as lets face it, the medical profession has stuck its head in the sand (as it doesn't want to see its part in the cause of autism), and persecutes those who are doing something or speaking out like Wakefield and psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown. The best way to find treatments is from other parents. john 16:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• I have no desire to violate WP:CIVIL, so I'm going to be as polite as I possibly can when I say that the only person with his or her head in the sand is you. Believe whatever nonsense you want, but making idiotic arguments about the medical profession, in addition to being highly inappropriate, is no way to defend an obviously unnecessary category. This level of categorization is completely unnecessary. In the context of encyclopedic content and categorization, whether or not one's child is autistic is completely irrelevant; it's already mentioned in the related articles. Is autism serious? Absolutely. Is autism a genetic disorder? Absolutely. Do doctors cause autism through vaccination? Only a complete and utter moron would subscribe to such an obviously asinine theory. Heads in the sand you say? I'd have to agree. Soltak | Talk 17:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• "At this point, it is believed that about 10% of cases of autism can be accounted for genetically."--B.J. Freeman, Ph.D. Professor of Medical Psychology, Dept. of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences' UCLA School of Medicine. Even the medical boys admit the increase can't be down to genetics, as they stated at one of their meetings reviewed by Dr Blaylock MD--"Several of the participants tried to imply that autism was a genetic disorder and therefore could have nothing to do with vaccines. Dr. Weil put that to rest with this comment, "We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years." In other words, how can we suddenly see a 300% increase in a genetically related disorder over such a short period?" That meeting was the "Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information." This conference, held on June 7-8, 2000 at Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia, assembled 51 scientists and physicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers. These included Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur [{{deprecated source|www.whale.to/a/blaylock.html].}} Also Michael J. Goldberg, M.D., F.A.A.P. explained how it was impossible to have an epidemic based solely on genetics. [{{deprecated source|www.whale.to/v/goldberg.html].}} So that is your genetic theory out of the window, from your own side. And I'll take the opinion of autism expert Dr Rimland Ph.D. when he says vaccination causes autism (not to mention thousands of parents and other doctors), if that is what you call a moron, then maybe we need to insert another definition in Wiki, or add it to the ad hominem terminology alongside 'quack' 'crank' etc. john 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• I admittedly don't know enough about autism to debate you point-by-point. I can say with almost complete certainty, however, that at least 80% of everything you say is crap. Soltak | Talk 17:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a support group, and this category is not a collection of friends and neighbors that can be used for support. It's rather unlikely that anyone you or I know personally will have an article here on wikipedia. siafu 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:This seems to be getting away from the question of whether or not there is reason to believe readers would be well served by a category of articles that many will find valuable. Most people could care less about many of the Wiki's categories for relatively trivial subjects; in this case, however, where there are millions of profoundly affected families, a paucity of social services available, and a great deal of apprehension over which approaches are best for coping with their profound struggles, it is strikingly evident that very many readers will be well served by having a category to enable easy access to the sagas of people like Joe Scarborough, Lorna Wing, Karyn Seroussi, Ivan and Charika Corea, et al. Ombudsman 18:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete overcat. -- Ze miguel 12:17, 13 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A follow up to the nomination below. "Sportswriters" is the established term for such categories and is preferable because it is more inclusive. :Category:Sportswriters has a subcategory called :Category:British sportswriters. This one is inconsistent. Rename. Calsicol 15:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

• Rename. No argument. siafu 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename as proposed. Choalbaton 20:25, 7 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Created simply to hold :category:Scottish sports journalists, which I have moved to the much older and larger :category:Sportswriters (and will be nominating for renaming in a minute). Most sports writers of any note produce both journalism and books. "Sportswriters" is the more inclusive term. Duplicate. Delete Calsicol 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

• Delete. No argument. siafu 07:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Sportswriter" is used more often I should think. Choalbaton 20:29, 7 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Either a merge or a split needed. MeltBanana 15:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge assuming that there is only one word as in Germany, ie. Stad. The Cities and towns category is far larger and older. The Towns category was created just the other day. Sumahoy 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Sumahoy, though I'm not familiar enough with Österreichisch to clarify the assumption. siafu 07:08, 6 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 to :Category:Holy See --Kbdank71 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a general rule for articles and categories to remove Thes As etc. Most articles starting The are titles of books, films, bands etc. not institutions. Yes I know that there other nutjobs pious individuals who claim their own papacy but I don't think a The will stop their articles from being placed in the category. An alternative could be :Category:Holy See as this is the name of the article which The Papacy redirects to MeltBanana 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to :Category:Holy See; it's entirely non-ambiguous, and is apparently the wikipedia authorative name, anyway. Deborah-jl 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with Deborah-jl's comments. Merge all to :Category:Holy See for internal consistancy. Semiconscious (talk · [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~btvoytek home]) 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Deborah-jl, but a redirect from "Papacy" might be a good idea. siafu 07:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move. But Strongly Oppose move to Holy See. The Holy See is not the same as the papacy. The papacy is religious, the Holy See religious and diplomatic. Historians date the appearance of the papacy and the Holy See to different timeframes. The Papacy, the Vatican and the Holy See are complimentary but different terms for different aspects of the pope's role, history and jurisdiction. Merging would be a serious factual error. (Whomever redirected the article clearly has a poor aspect of Roman Catholic Church history and terminology.) FearÉIREANN15px\^(caint) 20:39, 10 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

An empty duplicate of :Category:Science and technology in the United States Delete. CalJW 13:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

• Speedy delete. - choster 16:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete If there was a need for such a category, it would have some articles in it - Image:Flag of Great Britain (1707-1800).svg «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 18:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate. Semiconscious (talk · [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~btvoytek home]) 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Duplicate categories can be speedied or redirected; they don't require discussion. But since it's already here, delete as duplicate. Bearcat 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy as an agrammatical duplicate. siafu 07:09, 6 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Created a few days ago. Merge CalJW 12:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

• Merge Deborah-jl 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nomination. Semiconscious (talk · [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~btvoytek home]) 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Reverse merge. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:Comment: A conscious effort has been made recently toward standardizing categories pertaining to the United States to be X of/in the United States. See :Category:United States. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

::Comment: Wikipedia has previously determined that naming conventions are applied as a per-subject (culture, people, ships, television stations, etc.) standard, not as a per-country standard. Therefore, :Category:Culture, not :Category:United States, is the parent which defines the naming convention that has to be used here. Bearcat 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per nom Mayumashu 10:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge policy is undecided, but majority of articles are Fooish X Joshbaumgartner 19:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Postdlf 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Fairly obvious solution. - ElAmericano | talk 04:30, 11 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This category is too specific. The sole article in this category should instead be placed in the categories :Category:German-Americans and :Category:Polish-Americans — J3ff 10:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is silly. Most Americans must be of mixed ancestry by now. Some know and publicise the details others don't, but either way they are usually irrelevant. CalJW 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Overcategorisation. What next, :Category:Albanian-Polynesian-Americans? Where would it end. Valiantis 14:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Overcat; far too specific. Soltak | Talk 17:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too specific and therefore not needed - Image:Flag of Great Britain (1707-1800).svg «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Way too narrow.Benami 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per long-ago cfd on "Irish-Italian-Americans". siafu 07:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too specific, and not needed. Elonka 05:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Postdlf 06:39, 9 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 14:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV category. --Neutrality^talk 04:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Reluctant to vote keep, but there is a real issue with category size, which can lead to the most notable articles getting lost in a sea of articles that are of interest to very few people. Standard subcategorisation doesn't always address it adequately, and it is going to get much worse. We need some software tools to enable people to sort the contents of categories so that the ones that are of wider interest come to the top, eg largest subcategories, articles with most edits or most incoming links etc. CalJW 12:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible more useful basis for subcategorising the parent cat (:Category:Ethnic groups in Europe) would be by country - some of these already exist. Obviously one ethic group might be in more than one "by country" subcat. However, this cat is not an especially useful cat (in addition to the POV aspect) as one doesn't know intuitively whether to look for an article in this subcat or the parent cat. Valiantis 14:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Revert articles to parent category - Image:Flag of Great Britain (1707-1800).svg «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, vague, and arbitrary. siafu 07:11, 6 January 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 page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Change to match all the other CVG categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

• Agree New category name would be more useful as it could include a wider range of articles - Image:Flag of Great Britain (1707-1800).svg «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 18:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename as per nomination for internal consistancy. Semiconscious (talk · [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~btvoytek home]) 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. No argument. siafu 07:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Full support per everyone else. --CJ Marsicano 06:19, 9 January 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 page.