Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 13#Category:Tonal languages

: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. Conscious 20:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

see below SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:33, 13 May 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 keep. Conscious 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

re-listing becasue they weren't tagged. I've now added the tags. Neutral SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper English. — Timwi 11:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -doesn't fit the criteria and not the most commonly used phrase CovenantD 14:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Moved from speedy (articles are not tagged--I'll leave that to Timwi if the nomination isn't withdrawn). Alternate's a fine adjective, and the one everyone uses in this context.--Mike Selinker 14:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per above reasons. Postdlf 16:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, "alternate reality" is the common term. -Sean Curtin 05:02, 14 May 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 wasdelete. The categorisation structure, as stated by WP:CAT, should be mindful of NPOV; "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." The argument for deletion is in keeping with this notion, and the arguments for keeping the category offer little to counter this view, with one user asking it be kept because it exists in another category. I feel that point applies to the article Anti-hero rather than this category. The other point, that categories are more organised and easier to maintain is not essentially true, Lists can be said to be easier to maintain, exisiting as one article, such maintenance involving the editing of only one article, whereas a category requires the editing of many articles. Contentious information is better discussed in article space rather than category space, since categories allow no annotation, references or counter points. Hiding Talk 09:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

: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. Syrthiss 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Fictional 1960s births
• :Category:Fictional 1970s births

Huge possible scope, not very useful. Arniep 20:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Useless. --Zpb52 22:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep: I think it is useful. We classify actual people by year of birth, so why not fictional people? In addition, we have categories to classify fictional characters by what U.S. state they live in (such as :Category:Fictional Californians. If we can classify fictional characters by location, why not by birth? Q0 00:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

:Well the category could theoretically get very large if we included all fictional characters, but maybe in reality not many of them actually have articles. Arniep 00:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

::If the categories get too big it can be possible to divide it further, such as fictional television characters born in the 1960s, fictional literature characters born in the 1960s, etc. Q0 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Information not available, or only available via original research extrapolation, in many (most?) cases. Better to categorize characters by the time period in which their stories occurred. -Sean Curtin 04:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It has been my experience that with most fictional television characters, the decade of birth is well established. For example, the character Balki Bartokomous turned 25 in an episode that took place in 1989. This establishes his year of birth to be 1964. The character Quinn Mallory had a dream where he died and his grave read 1973-1996. This establishes his year of birth to be 1973. Marty McFly was 17 in 1985, which makes his year of birth either 1967 or 1968. Some of these cases require simple arithmetic to establish year of birth, but I don't think doing 1985-17=1968 should qualify as original research. Some of these cases like Marty McFly do not establish a specific year of birth because it could be one of two years. However, although the year of birth in Marty McFly's case is ambiguous, the decade of birth is not, which is why I categorized by decade of birth instead of year of birth. If the categories were by individual year of birth instead of decade, then I would agree that categorization would be too difficult and would agree to delete, but I think categorization by decade of birth can work very well. Q0 05:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not certain how useful the categories would proove. But you might want to add some of those births and methods of estimation to the Timeline of fictional historical events which already lists such events in chronological order. User:Dimadick
• Comment: I don't see how the categories would be any less useful than categories of actual people by year of birth, such as :Category:1962 births or :Category:1973 births, etc. The categories nominated for deletion are the same kind of thing but with fictional characters instead of real people. It can be interesting to have a category of fictional characters born around the same time. I could add the date of birth of some of the entries to Timeline of fictional historical events, but a problem is that with some births the exact year is ambiguous (even when the decade is not). It might look funny if I went to Timeline of fictional historical events (and similar articles like Timeline_of_fictional_contemporary_events) and listed something like "1967 or 1968: Marty McFly is born". To put fictional births into a list, I think it would work best to have a separate list of just births. Thanks for the link to Timeline of fictional historical events though. I'll look at that and similar lists. Q0 10:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sean Curtin. Postdlf 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I thought it was stupid and pointless at first glance but now I think it's useful, so I'm going to try and help save it. But if it gets deleted, I won't be too fussed... —Chantessy 21:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Requires original research in too many cases. Golfcam 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: In one episode, Quinn Mallory's year of birth is explicitly stated as being 1973. In one episode, Steve Urkel's year of birth is explicitly stated as being 1977. George McFly's birthdate is explicitly stated as April 1, 1938. Then there are other cases where the age and current year are explicitly stated, such as in Wade Welles, who is stated as being 23 in 1996. I don't think it should be considered original research to do a simple arithmetic computation like 1996-23=1973. Q0 03:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It's not original research. If we don't know a birthdate, we don't bother to add a fictional birth category. Simple as that. —Chantessy 14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Exactly. In cases where the character's decade/year of birth or current age along with current year are never explicitly stated then we will simply not categorize that fictional character by a decade of birth. Then the categories by decade of birth will only be added to fictional characters where the decade of birth (or age with current year) is explicitly stated. Q0 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite. Hawkestone 22:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't understand how Wikipedia not being a fansite means that these categories should be deleted. Even though Wikipedia is not a fansite, Wikipedia still allows articles about fictional characters to be written, and does have categories that are specifically intended to be used for articles about fictional characters. Q0 01:41, 16 May 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 both. Syrthiss 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Created in a duplication of effort, :Category:Images with no fair use rationale has been populated instead. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 13 May 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. Syrthiss 12:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish composers and songwriters category is almost completely redundant with the Jewish classical musicians category. Surfing through the pages, I found a good deal over half the composers listed in Jewish Composers and songwriters are already mentioned in Jewish classical musicians, filling up the subsequent articles with two very lengthy and unnecessary categories. I propose a merge between these two categories, and the removal of those songwriters who do not fit the criteria of "classical." If felt necessary, a :Category:Jewish songwriters could be made for those removed, though a songwriter can just as easily fit in :Category:Jewish musicians. If all Jewish composers are already listed in Jewish classical musicians, then this category can simply be deleted instead of merged. A final alternative could be to make a :Category:Jewish composers for all Jewish composers, and keep :Category:Jewish classical musicians for only performers...this can be discussed later though. Antidote 18:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose many classical musicians are not composers or songwriters (although many songwriters and composers are known as musicians in their own right). Arniep 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose main option, support second option of splitting "composers and songwriters" - even widespread crossover does not imply redundancy if there is a reasonably drawn distinction in purpose of categories. The unusual "lumping" of songwriters and composers, however, has split these categories off from the category tree for composers and songwriters; this should be rectified. TheGrappler 23:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

::I imagine there are more composers than songwriters so it would easier to rename the category :Category:Jewish composers, and then move the songwriters manually into the new cat :Category:Jewish songwriters. Arniep 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

:::That's exactly what I was suggesting :-/. Antidote 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support The most popular option that will remove this inappropriate combination of composers and songwriters. Golfcam 01:20, 15 May 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 Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 18:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unused. Conscious 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

• Delete per {{user|Conscious}} --Zpb52 22:07, 13 May 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. Syrthiss 12:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This category has been usurped by :Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games after debate on its talk page, and is now entirely depopulated. ThomasHarte 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per {{user|ThomasHarte}} --Zpb52 22:05, 13 May 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 sega rename rename sega. Syrthiss 12:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

After much discussion it was agreed that the machine article should be Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis, the current category for games is :Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games and every emulator of the "Genesis" that I've tried has a Mega Drive option, even if sometimes only the 60 Hz Japanese Mega Drive rather than the 50 Hz Australian and European version. To name the category after the North American-only version of the console is to introduce a cultural bias into the English language wikipedia which, besides bordering on non-neutral point of view, isn't reflected by the entirety of the English speaking world. ThomasHarte 16:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:Um, yeah. Bias. Anyways, all you really needed to say is "Move to match parent category X". I was just wondering shouldn't it be Sega Mega Drive/Genesis? It is quite unusual to state "Sega" twice in the title. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:I have to admit that I would pick Sega Mega Drive/Genesis if given free choice, but it took absolutely ages to find an acceptable title for the article describing the console and became such a big row (key points: "Genesis" in the largest segment of the first-language English world, "Mega Drive" in the largest segment of the first-or-second language English world, putting both in the title isn't very clean) that I've just accepted the thing. Given that that :Category:Sega Genesis emulators was given that name last week, it seems that not everyone has. ThomasHarte 18:29, 16 May 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 with expansion of vermeer, keep paintings as is pending a mass rename of paintings cats. Syrthiss 12:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

relisted from 4 May for more opinions Tim! 15:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the categories :Category:Vermeer and :Category:Vermeer paintings are more unambiguous when the first name of this famous painter is added to the category name, leading to :Category:Johannes Vermeer and :Category:Johannes Vermeer paintings. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming. Johannes Vermeer is the only Vermeer on Wikipedia so I don't see how there could be any ambiguity as to whom is being referred to in the category title. In :Category:Paintings by artist at the moment there are 19 subcategories of which 7 have the artist's given name, and it just looks messy – I'd prefer :Category:Picasso paintings to :Category:Pablo Picasso paintings, personally. HAM Image:Icons-flag-gb-wls.png 21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Second thoughts: Create :Category:Johannes Vermeer, which is more helpful than :Category:Vermeer. Where paintings by the artist are concerned, like siafu I prefer the form :Category:Paintings by Vermeer, for the sake of concision and grammatical sense. (I would prefer a short form of the artist's name so that we avoid lengthy category titles like, say, :Category:Paintings by Antonio Allegri da Correggio.) HAM Image:Icons-flag-gb-wls.png 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. The man's name was "Johannes Vermeer", and other personal categories are named with a full name (e.g. :Category:Julius Caesar, :Category:Joseph Stalin). :Category:Vermeer could potentially be confused with Vermeer Quartet or even Vermeer Technologies Incorporated. As for the paintings category, my actual preference would be "Paintings by X", but a more general rule seems to be in order. siafu 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 09:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Some of the discussion about :Category:Categories by person may be relevant here, as well as the naming convention that seems to have been adopted there. That category would be the root for any categories whose names include that of a person. Subcategories would probably drop the first name, unless there was potential for confusion. Carcharoth 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I will say that for some people, it's a lot easier to remember the last (or first) name of a person than the full name. So there's no :category:Madonna Ciccone, for example. I might have trouble remembering that Vermeer's first name was Johannes, but I won't have any trouble remembering his last name is Vermeer.--Mike Selinker 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:I recall having read somewhere in the Wikipedia: namespace that category names should follow the corresponding article. Can't remember exactly where, I'll look into it. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming I think Aecis is right, but the guideline is intended for cases like El Greco; not cases of mere abbreviation. Cats should be short. Septentrionalis 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Category names should also follow article names. siafu 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment No strong views either way, but the category for each artist should use the same form. ReeseM 03:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename :Category:Vermeer to :Category Johannes Vermeer as I think using the full name of a person is standard in naming articles, and should be the same for categories. Oppose rename of :Category:Vermeer paintings as there is less chance for ambiguity there. The form Paintings by x isn't used at all currently so if you want that form, propose a mass renaming. --JeffW 18:51, 13 May 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. Syrthiss 12:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Since lists are either lists of things or lists of topics and lists of either type have been added lately to only the regular lists categories, I don't see the reason to have this category any longer. I've made sure that each of the lists in this category are also in the appropriate subject-based Lists category. JeffW 14:45, 13 May 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. Syrthiss 12:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This category incorrectly assumes that Unix web browsers only work on Linux, this is obviously wrong, since their dependancues rarely have anything to do with the kernel involved. These browsers work on Solaris, they work on FreeBSD and they work on some Linux distributions. Janizary 14:13, 13 May 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 kept. Syrthiss 12:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Art Newspaper etc. can then be included. HAM Image:Icons-flag-gb-wls.png 14:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Question What's the difference between a magazine and a journal? If journal is more inclusive perhaps all the magazine categories should be renamed. --JeffW 19:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Seems to me that journals are more of a professional or cultural publication, while magazines are popular publications. I say keep them separate. --Zpb52 22:14, 13 May 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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 18:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unused. Conscious 11:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

• Delete; Yet another unused bird category -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:03, 14 May 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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 18:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unused. Conscious 11:09, 13 May 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. Syrthiss 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the old name slightly awkward. Tim! 10:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, but, with this below in mind: "characters" or "people"...?  Regards, David Kernow 11:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• That would probably be ok, but may, for example, prevent the inclusion of fictional disfigured extra-terrestials or animals. But maybe I'm thinking too far ahead ;-) Tim! 11:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Looking again, why not "characters"?  I've amended the below and so:
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rewname per nom - characters seems appropriate. Colonel Tom 15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. The original name is awkward. --Zpb52 22:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom.Palendrom 02:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Quite right, quite right. BD2412 T 13:32, 17 May 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. Syrthiss 13:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See(:Category_talk:Tonal_languages)Oyd11 06:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. More than half of the world's 6000 languages are tonal. There is no point in having this category, since it will become overpopulated, hence unusable, hence useless. It would be about the same as :Category:Men and :Category:Women, only without the subcategories (since there is no agreement among linguists on a sensible way to subcategorize tonal languages). Additionally, the boundary between tonal and non-tonal languages is not clear at all, so this would lead to endless deliberations and discussions about whether or not to include borderline cases. To give an example, I see that Limburgish has been placed in this category; however, that language is only marginally tonal and certainly not a prototypical tone language, so I'd argue for removing it from the category. I'm sure someone else would disagree with that, and there you go. Delete this unusable and unmaintainable category before more people discover it and think 'wait, wasn't Norwegian tonal?'. — mark ✎ 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've put the 'cfd' after seeing the discussion page, however I don't have strong views to either side. I admit, the category, as such is confusing, indeed with examples such as Norwegian. To a degree, any language is tonal. Anyways, if the category is to be deleted, I suggest a clear list would be made, Tone_(linguistics) and Tonal language are 'difficult' to navigate through the way they are currently. Oyd11 22:04, 14 May 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 Speedy Deleted. Vegaswikian 23:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:See: :Category:Supporters of Médecins Sans Frontières (typo). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reckon this one is a speedy delete too, ProveIt. David Kernow 11:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• moved to speedy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:11, 15 May 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 Speedy Deleted. Vegaswikian 23:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:See: :Category:Teleconferencing. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reckon this one is a speedy delete too, ProveIt. David Kernow 11:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• moved to speedy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:12, 15 May 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. Syrthiss 13:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into: :Category:Fictional areas in space. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 11:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above.--Mike Selinker 14:55, 13 May 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 Speedy Deleted. Vegaswikian 23:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:See: :Category:Sony CyberShot cameras (caps). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy rename, assuming "CyberShot" is Sony's camelcasing. David Kernow 11:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• moved to speedy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:13, 15 May 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 speedied. Syrthiss 13:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Move only entry to whatever the cat decision is on :Category:Catholic saints. Vegaswikian 18:15, 17 May 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 already listed on May 8 Tim! 10:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:See: :Category:Fictional British knights. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 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 speedied. Syrthiss 13:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:See: :Category:Florida International Golden Panthers men's basketball players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete.--Mike Selinker 14:57, 13 May 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. Syrthiss 13:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into: :Category:People from Cavite. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Can this be a speedy? They're practically the same thing. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think it qualifies for speedy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:: Well, rename per nom. --Howard the Duck | talk, 09:40, 19 May 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 one is already deleted (merged?), rename other to cavendish laboratory. Syrthiss 13:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:See: :Category:Cavendish Laboratory (physics), Cambridge. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is unnecessary disambiguation. Rename both :category:Cavendish Laboratory in line with the article Cavendish Laboratory. Bhoeble 06:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename both :category:Cavendish Laboratory per Bhoeble. Hawkestone 14:04, 15 May 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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 18:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:Unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 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 deleted already. Syrthiss 13:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:See: :Category:Baylor Bears football coaches. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Mike Selinker 14:57, 13 May 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. Syrthiss 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Category is entirely too subjective. One obvious example is Jamie Lee Curtis who has been in, and is known from, several movies besides Halloween Dismas|^(talk) 05:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 06:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, is this really an accepted term? --Zpb52 22:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not voting, but I'd just like to point out that Scream queen is a relatively common term amongst horror film fans. Also, there is a List of scream queens already on wikipedia. Furthermore, there are some actresses - Brinke Stevens, Linnea Quigley, Misty Mundae - who actively label and promote themselves as scream queens. Serpent-A 07:08, 20 May 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. Syrthiss 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All sports have rookies of the year, dab to specific sport. :Category:MLB Rookies of the Year might be a better choice. Vegaswikian 05:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

*Maybe all American sports have rookies of the year, but in the circa 95% of the world where the structure of sport is not based around colleges and franchises the concept makes little sense and is not much used. Rename to :Category:MLB Rookies of the Year if it is specific to MLB or to :category:Baseball rookies of the year if it is not. The current proposal is miscapitalised. Bhoeble 06:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:MLB Rookies of the Year as that's the name of the award. William's right, I forgot there are two. Okay, support.--Mike Selinker 14:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

*Rename to :Category:MLB Rookies of the Year per Bhoeble. --Zpb52 22:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename as nominated -- The parent category is ":category:Baseball awards and trophies" not "MLB", and general policy is to expand abbreviations. The award is emphatically not named the MLB Rookie of the Year; there are two, one for American League and the other for National League. And the correct capitalization is Rookies and Year. --William Allen Simpson 04:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Baseball rookies of the year. If there are two awards with different names the category name is not a proper noun. Bhoeble 05:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Baseball rookies of the year as per capitalizatoin policy. Golfcam 01:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Baseball rookies of the year Hawkestone 14:06, 15 May 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 merged already. Syrthiss 13:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this worth separating from :Category:Arsonists? Probably not and it only contains one article. The capitalization is incorrect. ReeseM 04:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

• Merge as above. ReeseM 04:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. The higher category is small too. Bhoeble 06:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Hawkestone 14:06, 15 May 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. Syrthiss 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

More accurate description of category's contents. Listify? David Kernow 04:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 04:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC), amended 11:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. ReeseM 04:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 06:26, 13 May 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. Syrthiss 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

ie. people born on 29 February. These people have nothing meaningful in common as random coincidences are not encyclopedic. ReeseM 03:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

• Strong delete All the other births by date categories were deleted and presumably this one only slipped through the net as it has an unusual title. Bhoeble 06:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic. — mark ✎ 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Q0 06:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ugh, delete this arbitrary and largely useless template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: All of these people (except the barely-notable Milly Edwards) are now also listed on February 29#Births. — sjorford++ 10:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 14:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per sjorford++. --CTSWyneken 15:16, 22 May 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 already deleted. Syrthiss 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Listed for deletion by Zimbabweed.

• Very strong delete.--Fallout boy 03:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as BJAODN. David Kernow 03:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as just on worthwhile. ReeseM 03:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as totally baseless and not even English JesseRafe 07:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Tim Ivorson 09:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Karl Meier 20:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- subjective and unprovable. --Zpb52 22:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- as completely irrelevant and extraneous Jogabbeyjr 02:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with Fire as one of the most useless categories I seen, pure PoV as well Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:47, 14 May 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 already moved to fictional disabled people I believe per may 12th cfd. Syrthiss 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

More informative. David Kernow 02:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC), amended 12:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 02:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom . CalJW 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Sweetie Petie 16:54, 13 May 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 deleted. Syrthiss 13:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Empty; Bad cat, now moved to :Category:Hong Kong Jews. Marcus 01:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CalJW 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 06:28, 13 May 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 deleted. Syrthiss 13:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Empty; Bad cat, now moved to :Category:Brazilian Jews. Marcus 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CalJW 02:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 06:28, 13 May 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. Syrthiss 13:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Neater. David Kernow 00:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 00:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 14:05, 15 May 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.