Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 21#Sun Microsystems category

: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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a listing of economic, infrastructure, sim or RTS games that have "tycoon" in the title. Seems pretty redundant. (Radiant) 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - See Tycoon computer game. Though I think that even the article is vague. Are these all Microsoft Tycoon games? - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:*Apparently, and also including some that are not by Microsoft. (Radiant) 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::*Then this should prbably be a list, since I even had to ask such a question : ) - jc37 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and listify if wanted, per discussion above. - jc37 10:27, 22 November 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 "?!" 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rename to "Run and gun games". Yes, they are computer games, but everything else in the parent cat (including the parent cat itself) is named "games". (Radiant) 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - This seems to include any FPS, as well as any other shooter game in which the game shoots back. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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 merge/delete. Mairi 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Delete, it seems to me that magnicicent is POV. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

• Merge into :Category:Hindu temples - The word "magnificent" is too subjective, but categorizing Hindu temples is worthwhile. (Note to admin: If no consensus is reached, this may also be treated as a Delete vote.) George J. Bendo 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• There's only one member, it's already a member of :Category:Hindu temples in Karnataka. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• In this case, delete is fine with me. It will have the same effect. George J. Bendo 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, pov. (Radiant) 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge POV. Tim! 18:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per GJB - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV. Choalbaton 13:46, 23 November 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 unnecessary (and empty) category. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Sittiparus}}

Delete, this supposed genus of tits might be valid at the subgeneric level as a clade of basal Asian chickadees, or be entirely invalid. Subgenera categories are not used at present and if anything they might be justified in extremely species-rich genera (such as unsplit Parus, in which case Sittiparus would be included in Poecile however). See Varied Tit article for references and some additional discussion. Dysmorodrepanis 14:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The technical terms in this nomination are almost overwhelming. Nonetheless, I was able to determine that the nominator has made a valid point. To put it into plain English: It is unclear whether the varied tit and another tit belong in their own genus (Sittiparus) or if they are part of another genus (Cyanistes, Parus, or Poecile). If the tits in question are part of a larger genus, it may still be appropriate to classify them under Sittiparus as a subgenus. If this is the case, however, it is unclear that :Category:Sittiparus is still needed in Wikipedia, as it is overcategorization. I am voting to delete because the use of the category as a genus category may be inaccurate and the use of the category as a subgenus category is overcategorization. George J. Bendo 16:25, 21 November 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 and redirect. Though candidacy alone may not be sufficient notability for an article, this does not affect the categorisation of articles that might exist anyway. the wub "?!" 12:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:Merge into :Category:United States House of Representatives candidates; it includes former candidates. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom and keep as a redirect. Olborne 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and use a redirect - George J. Bendo 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and listify if wanted. Imagine if everyone who's ever run for congress is grouped in this category. Also imagine former candidates for Parliament (or any other country's legislative body). - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per jc37. Precedent is not to regard candidacy as a notable attribute unless elected. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:08, 26 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Fictional tomboys}}

• Delete - Whether a fictional character is a "tomboy" is too subjective, which can cause problems when adding articles to the catgory. I suggest deleting it rather than dealing with POV problems. George J. Bendo 10:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Well put. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 14:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, arbitrary. (Radiant) 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete subjective category. Doczilla 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Our article on Tomboy contains a list of dictional characters depicted as such. Some of them seem to have conceived to play this particural role. 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Anime dubbed into English}}

• Delete, Over-categorizations. Thousands, if not millions of anime titles have been dubbed and released domestically in the USA over the past 40 years. This is even more apparent now with the prevailence of DVD, where almost every single anime released domestically comes with both an english subtitled and englished dubbed version and where distrubution companies relases hundreds of titles a year. It is also a little arbitrary to simply cateogrize English dubs and no others. Why not "Anime dubbed into French" or "Anime dubbed into Spanish" or how about a real kicker "American animation dubbed into Japanese"! This category will become to over populated an unmanagble if left up. Animedude 08:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - George J. Bendo 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Olborne 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Changed - Completely ridiculous, if I might suggest changing this to English Licensed Anime because it would make it easier to keep track of the existing Anime. It is quite helpful because it tells people which titles are available with an english dub track. What I really hate more then anything is frivolous nitpickers like your self who have nothing better to do then go after things because of a tiny technicality. There is a use for this but it's impossible to explain it to you.--Jack Cox 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:*Given the large amount of anime already translated into English as well as the number of licenses probably held by companies working on or planning to translate additional series, I cannot imagine this category being any more useful that :Category:Anime. Moreover, if you cannot explain the category's purpose, then maybe it is not needed. George J. Bendo 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Eventually this will be a duplicate of :Category:Anime (which is better categorised). - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hanbrook 14:18, 22 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Dukes of Hazzard actors}}

More cruft, from the same source. Her Pegship 07:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Comment impartial, these would be the category from the 1979 season Denver Pyle,Sorrell Booke,Ben Jones,Catherine Bach,Sonny Shroyer,Waylon Jennings, from the movie 2005 movie Jessica Simpson, Johnny Knoxville, Burt Reynolds, Willie Nelson, Lynda Carter and others.--Dakota 07:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete / listify per precedent. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Which precedent would that be then? Tim! 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete over categorization --MarkS (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - These "actor by series" categories are truly unwieldly when fully populated. George J. Bendo 10:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Olborne 14:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep important subcategory of :Category:Dukes of Hazzard. Tim! 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the deletes above. -- Samuel Wantman 02:03, 27 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Charlie's Angels actors}}

Overcategorization, cruft, not notable. Her Pegship 07:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete / listify per precedent. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete over categorization --MarkS (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - These "actor by series" categories are truly unwieldly when fully populated. George J. Bendo 10:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - In general, cast lists are best kept to the main article or to a sub-article of the main article for the show. Otherwise you'll end up with prolific actors having 50 or 100 categories, one per show they appeared in. Dugwiki 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:*Name an actor who has appeared in 50 or 100 series. Tim! 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::*Sammy Davis Jr.. He's also appeared in a scene of Diamonds are Forever that was cut from the final movie, which is why he is in :Category:James Bond actors. George J. Bendo 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:::*50 films maybe, but not 50 series. These aren't actor by film categories. Tim! 23:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::::* No, Mr. Davis wasn't on 50 series (according to IMBD.com), though if we include the "specials" he was on, he would qualify. However, George Kennedy does qualify. : ) - jc37 00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::George Kennedy is a pretty short article for someone who appears in so many series... i.e. he does not make notable appearances in 50 series, or is not a regular cast member in 50 series. We can probably agree that single appearances can removed from categories. Tim! 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep important subcategory of :Category:Charlie's Angels Tim! 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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 :Category:New Zealand Māori and :Category:Māori people to :Category:New Zealand Māori people. the wub "?!" 11:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A well-meaning but misguided attempt to rename :Category:Māori people. I can understand renaming to :Category:New Zealand Māori people, so as to exclude people of Māori descent not born in New Zealand (and especially given to potential confusion with people of Cook Island Māori descent), but this category does not make it clear that it is for individual people, which the previous name did (it would also have been nice if there had been some discussion about such a wide-ranging change at the New Zealand WikiProject pages, but that is beside the point). In any case, I suggest merging the two current categories into a new :Category:New Zealand Māori people, which should remove the original ambiguity and the one which has replaced it. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, or Merge back into :Category:Māori people. If it can be shown that there's a need to further categorise then prepend with 'New Zealand' per Grutness' suggestion (and set up the other(s) eg :Category:Cook Island Māori people. If not, leave as-is.--cjllw | TALK 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Apparently the reason this was changed was because of the creation of :Category:Cook Island Māori. There's also the slight snag of people of Māori descent who are citizens of other countries - IIRC nearly 10% of all Māori now live in Australia, for instance. Grutness...wha? 06:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, and given the rather fluid citizenship/residency arrangements between A/NZ it could easily be problematic to further categorise by nationality. How about rename :Category:Cook Island Māori to :Category:Cook Island Māori people (if it is really needed), make that a subcat of :Category:Māori people, and then leave as-is (ie also delete/merge :Category:New Zealand Māori into :Category:New Zealand Māori? --cjllw | TALK 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Problem with that is that Cook Island Māori aren't Māori per se - they are a separate people who just happen to use the same name to describe themselves, so it isn't an acceptable subcategory. Perhaps I've not been expaining this properly - let's try again (it is confusing): Māori, i.e., native New Zealanders, may be citizens of New Zealand or of other countries. The category {{cl|Māori}} deals with their culture as a whole. {{cl|Māori people}}, the original category, suffers from the problem that it could include people who are citizens of Australia or other countries, but the new {{cl|New Zealand Māori}} has the opposite problem in that it doesn't specify that it is for biographies. To add to the confusion, there is a separate people, Cook Island Māori (so named), this name simply meaning they are of CI Māori descent, but not necessarily implying they are born or living in the Cook Islands - many Cook Island Māori live in New Zealand, for instance. The whole thing could become a horrible mess, really, but - unless there is a proliferation of Cook Island Māori categories, it at least makes sense for categories dealing with the Māori people to adequately delineate between the culture, specific New Zealanders, and specific people not in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• OK, then scratch the idea of making CI Māori people a subcat of Māori people. Is it such a problem that {{cl|Māori people}}, which would seem to be fine and unambiguous as a cat name, could be open to include Māori individuals with citizenship/residence other than NZ? It would be reasonable naturally for {{cl|Māori}} on the overall culture to have a subcat for notable individuals from that culture, and {{cl|Māori people}} would be the simplest name for that. I suppose one could also have {{cl|New Zealand Māori people}} as a more specific subcat if needed or desired. I note there is also a {{cl|Cook Islands people}} as well as {{cl|Cook Island Māori}}. In any event, the categories intended for individuals should probably be named cat:X people to avoid ambiguity, and it's also reasonably standard, so agreed that {{cl|New Zealand Māori}} and {{cl|Cook Island Māori}} need renaming by tacking on "people" to the end, if indeed they are to be maintained.--cjllw | TALK 08:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think it would be too much of a problem - that has been the category name for quite a while, and it was only the recent attempted change that prompted me to bring this here (apparently that itself was prompted by the creation of the CI category). As long as it is made clear in the category that it is for people of (NZ) Māori descent rather than (CI) Māori descent (who are rarely if ever known simply as "Māori"), there shouldn't be much of a problem. There would still be the problem that it's a subcat of {{cl|New Zealand people}}, but I don't think it would be too difficult to turn a slightly blind eye to that one since those Māori not actually New Zealand citizens will be of fairly recent NZ descent. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 23 November 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|}}} deleted by TexasAndroid. Whispering 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Wikipedia articles vulnerable to vandalism}}

Delete -- To avoid encouraging vandalism to vulnerable pages, only administrators can view Special:Unwatchedpages, a page which performs essentially the same function as :Category:Wikipedia articles vulnerable to vandalism. There's no reason to advertise the vulnerability of an article to vandalism, thereby encouraging readers to vandalize it. The rationale for the deletion of this category is discussed in general terms in WP:BEANS. John254 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm certainly inclined to support deletion as serving no useful function, but I do wonder whether this is in fact duplicative to Special:Unwatchedpages; I imagine that it might be intended to serve to comprise, for example, those articles enumerated at Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. The fact of such intended usage would not, to be sure, ameliorate WP:BEANS and other concerns but might serve to illustrate what purpose the category might actually serve. I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATrackerTV&diff=89168984&oldid=88814860 asked] the creator to weigh in apropos of how he intended that this category might serve... Joe 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant with Special:Allpages. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G7 along with Template:Vulnerable as creator. I didn't know that sysop functions similar to this were available. I hadn't transcluded the template anywhere yet. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Radiant. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Screaming Jets DVDs}}

Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories 132.205.93.88 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:not especially notable, plus this band only seems to have one DVD so there is no need for a category just for their dvds 17:46, 20 November 2006 user:Raining girl

• Delete. Overcategorization. It could be reinstated later if the band releases more DVDs. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 14:16, 21 November 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 (after problems with category text were removed). --RobertG ♬ talk 12:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Internet companies of Ireland}}

Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories 132.205.93.88 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Article is in the wrong place (i.e. "category" name space), is clearly an advertisement ("our competencies are ...") and is not notable 15:25, 19 November 2006 user:Sony-youth

::note: I deleted inappropriate category text from this category. 132.205.93.88 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no content, was created as an article in category space, and that article was an advert. 132.205.93.88 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we don't create blank categories. --MarkS (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: We don't delete categories because they are empty. We populate them. — Reinyday, 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I had originally proposed deletion (since the "category" was an advertisement), but see now it is being populated with entries. However, Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. sony-youth 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is not empty and there is nothing wrong with the concept. Hanbrook 14:20, 22 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 18:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• {{lc|Pro-choice actors}}
• {{lc|Pro-life actors}}
• {{lc|Pro-choice musicians}}
• {{lc|Pro-life musicians}}
• Delete, or create :Category:Entertainers by opinion and :Category:Actors by opinion, respectively. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 132.205.93.88 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If a person is a well known activist for some point of view, it's probably better to just list then as both an activiest and by their profession. There's an infinite number of crosses we could make, but I don't think its worthwhile. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - no strong feelings either way though --T-rex 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment See also May 1st discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, do not categorize people by opinion. Also, POV magnet. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - We already stated that sorting celebrities by their political views is inappropriate and subject to original research and POV problems. (I do like the bipartisan nomination.) George J. Bendo 10:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per May CFD. FYI, I speedied the two pro-choice cats, figured the pro-life counterparts might exist but I didn't actively search for them, mea culpa there. There was no side-taking intended. --Dhartung | Talk 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as incorrect use of categories. Also POV, often difficult to verify. I spot checked about five musicians in the pro-life musicians category when I noticed the category appear on my watchlist on the Fireflight article. I found no articles actually mentioned the musicians pro-life stance. At first glance they appeared to be added because they were a Contemporary Christian music artist, but I later found out that they were on a list on a website. I think that categorizing by political stance (not party) is an inappropriate use of categories. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The often superficial opinions of celebrities should generally be ignored by a serious encyclopedia. Olborne 14:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is not really any connection between being pro-life and being an actor or a musician. Tim! 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Categories were created after editors begun sorting miscellaneous celebrities into :Category:Pro-choice activists and :Category:Pro-life activists. The original intent of those categories was to have places to sort WikiProject Abortion articles about people whose main claim to notability was their involvement in pro-choice/pro-life activism. I consider myself a deletionist, but, the fact is that I'd rather dedicate my limited time on Wikipedia to other aspects of WikiProject Abortion than checking every day to see whether someone has sorted Ani DiFranco into "Pro-choice activists" again. The fact is that Wikipedia is already replete with unencyclopaedic categories which categorize people by religion, ideology, sexual orientation, or other personal information, like :Category:Bisexual musicians, :Category:Feminist artists, :Category:American anti Iraq War activists, :Category:Roman Catholic entertainers, and :Category:Jewish actors. There is no reason why these categories should not be nominated for deletion also. If the musician/actor split is excessive, perhaps both categories could be merged into "artists" or "entertainers," after the above. I had also planned on sourcing entries others had added to the categories in some form. -Severa (!!!) 19:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per all above, especially Severa. Pavel Vozenilek 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - Supporters/critics of "x" categories. (Categorisation by issue.) - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreations of :Category:Pro-choice celebrities and :Category:Pro-life celebrities, per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 1#Category:Pro-choice celebrities and Category:Pro-life celebrities. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per previous comments. The posturings of celebrities are not encyclopedic. Hanbrook 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom, jc37. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. If an entertainer is knows for their activism, there are already appropriate categories. There's no significance to the combination of the two. Otherwise, we'd be creating pro-choice butcher, pro-choice baker, and pro-choice candlestick maker ad nauseum. eaolson 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Eaolson. Irk_(talk) 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete all per Aecis; otherwise Delete all as POV-magnet (categories are too crude to include the subleties of the debate); in any case no need to classify by opinion unless the activism is a significant proportion of that person's notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:13, 26 November 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 "?!" 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Military museums}} and {{lc|War and conflict museums}} into {{lc|Military and war museums}}

• Merge: broadly speaking, all war museums deal with the military to some degree, and all military museums deal with war to some degree; certainly, in practice, there don't appear to be any museums that cover one but entirely omit the other. Thus, there seems no reason to maintain an artificial distinction between these two categories. The issue has been discussed by the Military history WikiProject, and no objections to the merge have been raised. Kirill Lokshin 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - This simply makes sense. George J. Bendo 10:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree with merge It is a logical way of subdividing the parent category. I like the scope of both categories since the number of entries in each is appropriate IMHO. The current setup gives a nice amount of room for future expansion. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 14:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• But what's the criterion being used to subdivide here? We can't figure out any real distinction between the two, and the division of articles seems fairly random (indeed, most of the articles seem to be in both categories anyways). If the only issue is size, it would be better to simply apply the same categorization by country that's used for other museum categories here, rather than keeping two root categories without a clear definition of what goes into each. Kirill Lokshin 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Great response! I was thinking that the war and conflict category would contain articles about war and conflict museums, and that the military category would contain military non-war museums. If in both categories, then an article would be in the war category by default. Since you state that system would places nearly all the articles in the war category, then I would be in favor of merging and subdividing by country instead per Kirill's last comment. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. If the category grows too big separate it geographically. Pavel Vozenilek 21:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - The only distinction I can think of here, would be to isolate those members or facets of the military which did not/do not see combat. However, I think the merger name covers this well enough. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nomination and discussion at WP:MILHIST. Carom 15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nomination and discussion at WP:MILHIST.--Dryzen 19:01, 24 November 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 "?!" 19:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|2000s Video Games}}

Delete, superseded by :Category:2000_computer_and_video_games Htmlism 02:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP: If there is a Category:2000s Television Shows then why can't there be a 2000s Video Games. I was in the process of adding every video game released in the 2000s decade into that article, not just the year 2000, the whole decade. (Tigerghost 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC))
• The above editor is the originator of the category in question. There is already a category :Category:21st_century_computer_and_video_games and a sub-category for each year. There's no need to make the depth of the categorization deeper if the breadth is comprehensive and still small and manageable.--Htmlism 02:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:2000s computer and video games, the decade category should just contain 10 year cats ... looking at how many articles there are just for 2000, we probably don't want a populated decade. It should end up looking like :Category:2000s films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Computer games haven't been around for enough years to make decade cats really appropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, kind of pointless since there are so many video game articles that it would provide no meaningful organization. Axem Titanium 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fail to see the point. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, we've already got :Category:2000 computer and video games etc. Don't see the point in what is mainly a duplicate of an existing category. --MarkS (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This extra category is clearly redundant. George J. Bendo 10:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant category. Andre (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but I don't think people (in general) are getting the point. I think that some don't understand Wikipedia's naming convention. For the century the name starts with 21st century, for decade the name starts with 2000s, and year it starts with 2000. I respectfully disagree with ProveIt that video games aren't around long enough to have decade categories, since video games started in the 1970s. That's 5 decades. The kept category should be the parent category of the year categories (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006), and thus should have no articles in it. The category should be the child of :Category:21st century computer and video games. It should be structured the same as :Category:2000s establishments. ProveIt had it right originally IMO before striking the comment. We need to plan for the future. Royalbroil ^{Talk  Contrib} 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to :Category:2000s computer and video games. I disagree with the nom, and believe ProveIt's original comment and Royalbroil's comment above hit the mark; plenty of other topics listed in, say, :Category:21st century works use "by decade" to list categories "by year" categories. Sure, the relatively short history of this form of entertainment definitely means that there isn't much to categorize (only five decades/five cats, max), but it doesn't hurt to be consistent and planned ahead in this regard. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ╫
• Keep Nominator apparently didn't realize this category is for the ten year span of 2000-2009. The century/decade/year breakdown is pretty standard for Wikipedia, and used for many other by year categories (eg :Category:2000s films is for films from the year 2000 to 2009). Dugwiki 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete decades are an unnecessary level of categorisation between centuries and years. If kept, rename to remove non-standard capitalisation. Tim! 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, decades are a useful subdivision between centuries and years. Without a decade subdivision, you would have 100 subcategories per century, which might not fit on a single screen. Also, some articles have information that doesn't include a specific year, but does indicate a decade. For example, an article might not say something occured in "1987", but does say that something occured "in the late 1980s". Without a decade subcategorization, you would be forced to lump all such articles under the century subdivision, which doesn't capture the same information. Finally, I'll note again that the century/decade/year subdivisions are the standard system used on Wiki for books, films, musicals, architecure and other by-year categorization schemes, so keeping video games consistent with those schemes is generally a good idea. Dugwiki 16:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Aside from the "categories by decade" issue, the decade isn't over, so let's wait until then to have this discussion : ) - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, rather pointless and redundant also. Combination 13:58, 24 November 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 delete. Mairi 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

:Delete, IMHO guest star categories are clutter. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all "guest star" cats. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Raidant we should get rid of all these guest star categories. If the information should go anywhere it should be in a list (and it should be a single list with both the main actors and guest actors). --MarkS (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Being a guest star on this show is usually not a defining characteristic for an individual. George J. Bendo 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Olborne 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although :Category:The O.C. actors should be created rather than hosting the regular cast in the parent category. Tim! 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Adds nothing to the notability of people thus flagged.--Londoneye 12:26, 27 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|1990s High Honor Video Games}}

Delete, It just seems fishy, I can't put my finger on it. I wanted to start a discussion on it. One of the guidelines for making categories said to avoid "important x's" and this seems to be a case of that. Htmlism 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Delete original research / POV. Arbitrary cutoffs. Andre (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:Delete - I messed up on this one, I agree. I wanted to make what 2000s Video Games is now. (Tigerghost 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

• Delete, arbitrary. (Radiant) 08:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unclear category. Tim! 18:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrevan. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This walks a very fine line between WP:V and WP:OR. As such, if allowed to exist, it should be a list, not a category. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per my above comment. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Robot Chicken voice actors}}

Delete, This information is better served by being a list. MakeRocketGoNow 00:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Olborne 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Most cast lists should be kept in the main article for the show or a subarticle, not in a seperate category. Dugwiki 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this information is better served by being a category. Tim! 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• How so? Let's say someone wants to compare actors who have appeared on Robot Chicken. They already can theoretically do so by visiting the Robot Chicken article and looking at the cast list (assuming the article is up to date), or by going to a subarticle with that cast list. Likewise, if you have a specific actor in mind, and are wondering if he appeared on Robot Chicken, all you have to do is go to that actor's article and view the list of shows on which he's appeared. So there is very little gained, if anything, to having a category that presents exactly this same information. And, in fact, providing unique categories for every show creates the problem of potentially having too many categories per actor article for actors who have appeared in 50 or 100 shows. Dugwiki 16:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• You keep trotting out that "50 or 100 series" straw man knowing full well that it is not a problem. Tim! 23:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Being a voice actor for Robot Chicken does not define individuals or their careers. George J. Bendo 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There's a lot of precedent for not doing this. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

:*Comment - Given that Robot Chicken is satire that features characters from other animation series, we do not want a :Category:Robot Chicken characters. That would be like having a category for people satirized in Mad magazine. George J. Bendo 09:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::*Ouch, I'd have to agree. - jc37 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• delete An article should cover this. Hanbrook 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per precedents. This is a ridiculously broad and pointless category. I get tired of saying that it's impractical to add a category for every role an actor every plays, but it remains true. A list is sufficient. Doczilla 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not much of a notable thing to have done.--Londoneye 12:23, 27 November 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

{{lc|Kim Possible voice actors}}

Delete, This information is better served by being a list. MakeRocketGoNow 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Olborne 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Most cast lists should be kept in the main article for the show or a subarticle, not in a seperate category. Dugwiki 18:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this information is better served by being a category. Tim! 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• No, I don't think it is. See my reply under Robot Chicken above. Dugwiki 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Being a voice actor for Robot Chicken Kim Possible does not define individuals or their careers. George J. Bendo 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

:*What does being a voice actor for Robot Chicken have to do with categorizing Kim Possible voice actors? Otto4711 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

::*I cut and pasted my comments from the above discussion. I have corrected the comment. George J. Bendo 23:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There's a lot of precedent for not doing this. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Categorise characters by series, not actors by series. - jc37 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per precedents. When both the actor's article and the show's article mention the connection, a category is pointless anyway. Doczilla 02:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not much of a notable thing to have done.--Londoneye 12:23, 27 November 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.