Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 28

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. Timrollpickering 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are already many superhero categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another gem from EJBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Weak description and title seem to imply that this category is for anything related to superheroes. Peachy. As that is probably the broadest non-defining characteristic I've seen all day, I can't see any reason to keep or rename this. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Damn, Prov. You beat me to it! Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ambiguous category. George Clooney's aunt Rosemary is superhero-related by being a Batman actor's relative. Freddie Prinze, Jr. desperately wanted to play Spider-Man. That makes his article superhero-related. Most superheroes wear
  boots, so . . . Doczilla 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. People shouldn't create categories if they don't know Wikipedia guidelines well enough to know not to capitalize "related". Doczilla 23:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom... — J Greb 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dismas|^(talk) 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too vague and broad to be remotely useful. --Tenebrae 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Superherocruft, where does it end. Tewfik^Talk 06:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone wanna speedy this up, seeing as it is you know... an abomination? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All things being related at some point (See: Noah or Six degrees of separation, depending on your preference : ) - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Timrollpickering 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:000-related films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Undefined category which serves no conceivable purpose. Otto4711 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete undefined, pointless category. Doczilla 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No idea what this is or is supposed to be, but with only one article it seems like clear cruft. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, undefined. I thought at first it was for films released in the 2000s but with only one film in the cat, I couldn't be certain. Dismas|^(talk) 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If you are correct, it should be merged with Category:2000 films. Otherwise, the film should be recategorized or an introductory statement header should appear for the category to properly justify category. TonyTheTiger 01:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The film is already correctly categorized under its year of release. Otto4711 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, and Special:Contributions/Comicfan seems to be full of candidates CfD. Tewfik^Talk 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 keep. Timrollpickering 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been subcategorised by nationality, which makes the whole system useless and uninformative of bisexual actors as a whole and also incompatible with its contemporary categories, such as Category:Gay actors. We have categories like Category:LGBT actors from the United States, which is far more useful for identifying LGBT by nationality. All the various subcategories of bisexual actors (e.g. Category:Bisexual American actors, Category:Bisexual Slovak actors) should be upmerged into bisexual actors!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unsure about upmerge suggestion. Please provide category link and detail merge from and merge to categories. TonyTheTiger 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge - if nationality is already sorted by Category:LGBT actors LGBT actors from the United States, then I don't see the utility in maintaining this subdirectory instead of upmerging to conform with Category:Gay actors. Tewfik^Talk 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. >Radiant< 09:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment None of these categories are tagged. Tim! 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• All tagged.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all There is no reason to breach the usual approach of categorising by nationality. Osomec 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is done by "LGBT actors by such and such". A bit like how Film actors and American actors were separate until recently. The categories serve no purpose whatsoever when they're "bisexual Slovak actors", containing one person. How does that serve ANY function whatsoever? It also depreciates Slovak actors by removing one of its articles. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is absolutely as useful as by nationality categories which are used in hundreds and hundreds of other cases, so what is the real reason for this nomination? Zythe's arguments lack logic as the same point could be made in favor of leaving everyone in Category:American people and so on. We don't rely on one set of categories to define something and another to define nationality in other fields, so why should we in this one? What is the ideological (POV) reason for demanding it? As for Category:Slovak actors, that should contain zero articles, which is where all the national actor categories should be heading in the long run. There is no minimum category size and it was established a long time ago that single member categories are acceptable. If large categories are subdivided some single member categories are bound to arise unless people from smaller countries are deliberately not categorized with the same precision as those from large countries, which would be inconsistent, untidy and ridiculous. Sumahoy 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't believe people are even considering this. LGBT by nationality and which letter of LGBT you are should be kept separate as both serve different purposes. And exactly, "if large categories are subdivided some single member categories are bound to arise unless people from smaller countries are deliberately not categorized with the same precision as those from large countries, which would be inconsistent, untidy and ridiculous" as you said. Answer? Don't subdivide the category and make it useless as a collection of bisexual actors. If everything gets subdivided so much, they may as well be strings of words that don't link anywhere at the bottom of a page. "American bisexual television actors who committed suicide in their twenties" or "British lesbian composes who were victims of cancer", maybe? What's the point of categorising people into groups if they're so subdivided the groups lose all meaning. Should we subcategorize everything by nationality? How about Category:Deaths from diabetes in people from the United States or Category:Worst Supporting Actor Razzie (amongst United States persons)? Ludicrous. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not a problem as people who want to see all the articles can click on the various categories in turn. The number of articles in each category adds context. Wilchett 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subcategories by nationality can be a pain. There is a dichotomy that everyone seems to be accepting in this debate. On the one side are those that want small specific categories, and see a utility to it. On the other is those that see value in the larger categories and don't want them diffused into smaller ones that may be tiny. So why cant we have both? What is wrong with duplicating membership in both the small and larg categories? Nobody is advocating removing the large category, so why can't we just evaluate smaller subcategories on their own merits and decide if they are useful. If they are, keep them WITHOUT unpopulating the larger categories. As for the smaller subcategories, I think it is more reasonable to categorize actors by language than by nationality, but there is no reason that we can't do it more than one way. So, I guess I'm saying Keep, but only if the larger categories are not depopulated. Since nobody seems to be going for the idea of duplicating without depopulating, I must advocate Delete. --
  Samuel Wantman 07:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and make sure the parent categories are depopulated per best practice. Hawkestone 15:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't believe this is going to end up getting no consensus. Crossing LGBT by occupation with LGBT by nationality is a bad, bad idea! None of the points made in favour of it are any good at all! You want their nationality? You look at the category next to it. I mean, for example, Margaret Cho says: LGBT Asian Americans | Bisexual American actors | LGBT comedians | LGBT rights activists | 1968 births | Living people. We already know she's an LGBT American, then it's like ... bisexual American. Why not LGBT American --> Bisexual actor. Crossing them over serves no purpose. It is a terrible, terrible idea and I'm afraid people seem to be voting in favour of because they're loving the brilliant chewbacca defense it's had.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nationality is a significant attribute. Worthy of recognition on an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --
  TrojanMan 09:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I swear, people aren't understanding this CfD at all! LGBT by nationality is still covered! I fear people perceive I'm attacking categorizing by nationality or by bisexuality but I'm actually trying to save the latter from becoming entirely useless. If bisexuality is subcategorised by nationality then everything else in all of Wikipedia must be.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What is supposed to be the problem with categorising everything by nationality? It's what I would expect to be done, and it is 99% done already. Pinoakcourt 11:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Timrollpickering 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as nom. Category seems to be for actors in films based on Marvel Comics properties. Poorly titled, ambiguous description in the category itself. Seems to be another one of the many lame "comic book actor" categories created this year. Wish I could prove they're all by the same di- person.. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discussions of October 18th and November 23rd . -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent, past discussions, poor title, and vague description. Doczilla 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom... — J Greb 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Very true. --
  Sign here! 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. --Tenebrae 03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Shazam - Oh, wait, wrong Marvel... Delete per many previous discussions : ) - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --
  WikiProject Television) 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Delete as Category:Sportspeople by religion was deleted.Bakaman 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as recreated content. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I second this.--T. Anthony 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Did someone mistake "Muslim" for a nationality again? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I created Hindu athletes purely out of my own accord, lets
    assume good faith that someone saw the need for this intersection of religion and sports.Bakaman 05:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • What? Are you changing your position? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he was just responding to the 'speedy as recreated content' that we should AGF regarding the reason for creation. Tewfik^Talk 07:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correct, I dont think very many people think muslim is a nationality.Bakaman 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Tewfik^Talk 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Misnamed in any case. Pinoakcourt 11:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 rename. Timrollpickering 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Managers in Argentina by club to Category:Football managers in Argentina by club

• Rename, per standard for Category:Football managers by club. Nathanian 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention, Tewfik^Talk 07:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Hawkestone 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 rename. Timrollpickering 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Sports in Phoenix, convention of Category:Sports in the United States by city. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Tuviya 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to convention per nom, Tewfik^Talk 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - ABAsite(still trying to get the "talk" function down. Didn't see the other category(sorry!)

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 rename. Timrollpickering 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philadelphia Whites players into Category:Philadelphia White Stockings players

• Merge, Both were created for the same team, I nominate using the latter as this is the team name used by official records. Neonblak 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the official name per nom, Tewfik^Talk 07:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: deleted per author request and unanimous opinion here. -- nae'blis 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant POV--Gkklein 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as category with subjective inclusion criteria. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, seen it before. >Radiant< 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (speedily if, as Radiant said, it's already been through this process.) Clearly a category with no objective criteria. --TheOtherBob 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category, please explain why irrelevant. King of Anonymity 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define a 'very important person'? It is impossible to define this without mnaking some kind of subjective decision as to who and who should not be considered 'very important'.

► 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete excessively broad, undefined category that requires heavy POV. Doczilla 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I did want to place myself in the cat.Bakaman 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. Tuviya 19:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Nathanian 20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, impossible to be NPOV. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. « SCHLAGWERK^{Talk to me!} 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I created, but understand point. Go ahead and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Anonymity (talk • contribs) 22:59, December 28, 2006
• Delete per nom. It is oddly worded as well. Wait, isn't that the same thing as the nom? Woops. Either way, delete. ^_~ --
  Sign here! 03:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 split/rename per revised nom. Can someone in the know perform the split? Timrollpickering 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wisconsin films to Category:Films set in Wisconsin and Category:Films shot in Wisconsin

Category:Idaho films to Category:Films set in Idaho and Category:Films shot in Idaho

Category:Films featuring Brighton, UK to Category:Films set in Brighton, UK Category:Films set in Brighton and Category:Films shot in Brighton, UK Category:Films shot in Brighton modified nom per comment below. Otto4711 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Montana films to Category:Films set in Montana and category:Films shot in Montana

• Split and Rename - these are the only sub-cats of Category:Films by location with a "Fooian films" name. If "Films set in Foo" and "Films shot in Foo" are the prefereable constructions then the cats should be split and named appropriately. Of course if a combined "Foo films" is preferable then all the others need to be nominated and renamed. Otto4711 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and rename, per nom. I created Category:Films by location and it seems like a reasonable thing to do. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to I don't see a need for "Films shot in...": Many Hollywood pictures, especially the more recent ones, are filmed in a variety of locations to take advantage of tax credits and other arts incentives—and for that matter to avoid some of the taxes and regulations imposed by the City of Los Angeles. As proposed the categories are open-ended; no distinction is drawn between a scene filmed in half a day and an entire feature filmed over a year, but at the same time any line drawn between the two is surely to be arbitrary. To draw a comparison, we wouldn't call the
  F-117 Nighthawk have this characteristic implies no natural relationship between them. To reverse the perspective, I can see how a film or films may have some importance to the identity of a place, the way a local newspaper does; however, in most such cases the setting will no doubt take precedence over the actual shooting, leaving the "Films shot in" category to be redundant. If the film is only loosely identified with its location, we have a clear-cut case of overcategorization—grouping articles about things loosely associated based on the circumstances of their creation, at the sub-national level of granularity. The cases where "the movie is set in X but everybody knows it was shot in Y" are going to have even less in common with each other, and while I'm no film geek, I have to think that by that point we are truly at the level of trivia. -choster 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename as per Choster, but the Brighton one should simply be to Category:Films set in Brighton, partly to avoid abbreviation, and partly because the article on that city is at Brighton. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and Rename per existing convention with Grutness' caveat, Tewfik^Talk 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and rename. Just makes sense. Plus it matches the convention used for other states. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split & rename per nom & convention. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename certainly but not sure about splitting out "shot-in" vs. de-catting those. As Choster points out, a film may be shot in multiple locations and be set in none of them (and vice versa!) which could lead to multiple "Films shot in..." for a film. Then there's always the intersection: Films set in x but shot in y!--RCEberwein | Talk 17:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on "shot it" categories. I see the point of the objection but I think it can be made clear that the cats are for films primarily shot in Foo as opposed to films shot in Hollywood with a couple of days of location Foo shooting. Otto4711 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Timrollpickering 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a repost of Category:Victoria's Secret models, see June 9th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At one point (June 15, 2006) Cindy Crawford belonged to well over 100 categories, the most in all of Wikipedia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathanian 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP Procedurally, we are suppose to delete as before. However, previously, the category was lumped in with 100 other model categories that were deleted and this one was brought down by many lesser categories including the nominated one
  Omega_Watches. If Cindy Crawford had only had 2 or 3 premier modelling company categories listed, this would have survived. It is one of the most prestigious modelling affiliations (along with Sports Illustrated). Both of these two are hugh marketting phenomena. Most of the other 100 are just that, other companies. It has its own annual Television show and its own mail order catalogue. It is very different from most of the other 100. TonyTheTiger 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment In addition to keeping, all women listed on

this notable list of VS models should be added to the category. P.S. a few other model categories got thrown out with the bathwater in the prior debate. I believe Calvin Klein, Guess Jeans and Polo models are nearly on par with VS and Sports Illustrated. However, since they don't have calendars, catalogues, or TV shows they are harder to distinguish. TonyTheTiger 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• • That's nice. It's still misspelled. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Victoria's Secret models. Current recreation may indicate a need for this category. Furthermore, fear of clutting the Cindy Crawford article isn't a strong basis deletion. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above. It's a notable sorority of models, like category:Playboy Playmates and category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models, so I'm in favor of it staying.--Mike Selinker 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ooops i mispelled it huh well yeah move it to Victoria's Secret models and keep its notable blah blahqrc2006/email 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename - it is certainly as notable as Playboy and Sports Illustrated, though with some caution not to become overcategorised again. Tewfik^Talk 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just use a list. Osomec 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as category clutter and recreated content. Otto4711 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as recreated category per above. Listify contents to reduce chance of recreation. Vegaswikian 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the many previous discussions. Listify if wanted. - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment previous discussion about deleting 100 categories is not really relevant to the most important of those 100. TonyTheTiger 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been a lot more than a single CfD about models. The person to ask is User:ProveIt. I've always been amazed at that person's ability to find previous CfD discussions on any topic. : ) - jc37 07:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing notable about this grouping if one has a basic level of resistance to marketing hype. Hawkestone 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above, or else listify. — Instantnood 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussion. Pinoakcourt 11:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment previous discussion about deleting 100 categories is not really relevant to the most important of those 100. TonyTheTiger 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree and I don't think this category is important. Pinoakcourt 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussions. Categorization is "monkey see/monkey do". We have to draw a line. I'd advocate getting rid of the Sports Illustrated cat as well. This type of information is much better presented with a list. --
  Samuel Wantman 05:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete recreated, as above. Dugwiki 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Timrollpickering 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect into Category:Soap opera characters. I think a redirect is needed in this case. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom at the very least... Delete may be more accurate if its population is already in the others sub-cats. — J Greb 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete - per J Greb, and Redirect, per ProveIt. - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect Pinoakcourt 11:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Timrollpickering 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyrighted published list. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as cruft and trivial. Rossrs 13:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a gossip column. 67.117.130.181 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. I'm on the fence, I guess. I opened the category and thought it was appropriate since it is a documented list and there is a relevance to fashion history. However, I can also see the flipside of the argument, that it would be or could be superfluous to have category listings for each year or something or other. That said, I won't be devastasted if the category gets trashed. I leave it to the better and higher authorities. --Ashley Rovira 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! I change my mind totally because it falls under the category of Published List, as stated before. Thanks for clearing it up. It is a copyright violation. I'm sorry.--Ashley Rovira 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original creator, you can just tag it with {{
    db-author}}. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I don't see how it's more of a copyvio than a list of 2006 Oscar winners, but as a published list it's not such a good category for other reasons. 67.117.130.181 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cruft and trivia + Wikipedia is not a gossip column. Nathanian 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (move to list) The article
  International Best Dressed List remains as notable. If category is removed a list should be created for years IMHO. If list is inappropriate, external link should be provided. However, I believe Forbes 400 lists, and [[Billboard Lists should exist and they do not. TonyTheTiger 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete An emphemeral, category-clutter creating bad precedent. Sumahoy 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - And don't listify. (Due to copy vio reasons, from what I understand from previous discussions.) - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 nomination withdrawn by proposer. Timrollpickering 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brahe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This appears to be an ad hoc category containing any individual with the name of "Brahe" (not just people related to Tycho Brahe) as well as a couple of articles on places where people named Brahe lived. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unclear Keep see Brahe, these do refer to a specific pair of families unless I missed a few (which might have been misplaced). Possibly should be renamed. Suggest discussing it with the category creator. 67.117.130.181 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to "keep" based on Category:Swedish noble families containing a bunch of similar subcats to this one. If the Brahe subcat is a bad idea then all of them are and there should be a new nom to discuss this. 67.117.130.181 23:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - Combining two unrelated families with the same surname in one category is not useful. I would advocate creating two separate categories, but it does not look like the relations of Tycho Brahe need to be linked via a category (as they can be linked more easily and more meaningfully through the articles' texts), and I am not entirely convinced that a category for the Swedish family is useful. Do other Swedish nobility get family categories? Dr. Submillimeter 14:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the article says they're related. And yes, Category:Brahe is a subcat of Category:Swedish noble families. 67.117.130.181 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two families are not unrelated. When Scania was ceded from Denmark to Sweden in 1658, one part of the family stayed and became part of the Swedish nobility. The other left for Denmark and remained part of Danish nobility. In the 19th century, the Reventlow and Moltke families broke into Danish and German fractions pretty much the same way. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawl of nomination - The arguments for keeping the category make sense. However, I suggest that referenced information on this complex family relation should be added to Brahe. Dr. Submillimeter 15:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't we rename this to "Brahe families" or somesuch? >Radiant< 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that I made a slight error. The branch settling in Funen (modern Denmark) did so a few decades before the war that transferred Scania to Sweden. My error. This topic is a bit tricky. The

Rigsraad member Axel Brade (d. 1551)." ... It seems to me like both the Danish and Swedish encyclopedias untimately consider them to be one family, but I could be wrong. I can't promise to do it in the coming days, but the Swedish Wikipedia has more information - most importantly about the Swedish line - so I'll try to translate it and incorporate material from the SDE. Anyway, according to the SDE the ancestors of the two branches were brothers. At first glance it looks like the family both had times when the two branches cooperated and when they didn't. I still think the category should stay, but I'm in two minds regarding the name. But if you go back long enough it definitely is the same family. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Methodism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category is an ad hoc category encompassing articles on people and articles on various denominations of Methodism. This category fails to organize articles in any useful manner, and the designation of what or who is historical may be vaguely applied. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 12:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see the category for edited language responding to the above criticism, further clarifying the usefulness of this category, especially as a subcat of Category:Religious history of the United States (just as Category:History of Catholicism in the United States is also a subcat of this cat, as well as Category:Jewish American history and Category:History of the Latter Day Saint movement. Indeed, Methodism plays/played as important a part in the religious history of the U.S., if not more so [in some ways], than any of these). Thanks.Pastorwayne 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The "history of X" structure to categorize people and things in general is problematic. The categories generally tend to sweep up any person, any place, or any thing that appears to be "historic" according to someone's point of view. However, if the categories are restricted to articles on historical events or categories that describe the general histories of a broad topic (such as "History of X"), then the categories are useful. In this light, the articles on people and Category:History of Catholicism in the United States, Category:Jewish American history, and Category:History of the Latter Day Saint movement need clean-up, but they do contain articles on general histories or historical events (such as Know Nothing, History of the Jews in the United States, and Amboy Conference). In contrast, all the articles in Category:History of Methodism in the United States only contains articles on people (which are covered in categories on Methodist bishops) or denominations of Methodism (which can be covered in a category on Methodism). These articles are better organized in other categories; an ad hoc category only dilutes the effectiveness of the category system. No articles on Methodist events or articles on general methodist histories currently exist. Therefore, the category serves no purpose and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 14:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. There are plenty of articles about the History of Methodism in the U.S.A.! There are being categorized properly, just as are those about the History of Catholicism or any other religion. No, not all articles about Methodism are about its history (so should thusly NOT be included in this cat, but instead in the cat Methodism, as they properly are). But for those articles (and possibly subcats) having direct relation to the history of Methodism in the U.S.A., this is an altogether appropriate and helpful, even needed, cat. Thanks. Pastorwayne 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an important subcategory of category:Religious history of the United States. Nathanian 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in agreement with Nathanian above! Thanks. Pastorwayne 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — coelacan talk — 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 no consensus to delete. Rename per nom. Can those in the know prune them down? Timrollpickering 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These presently contain every actor that has appeared in a single episode. That's quite a lot, and not a defining characteristic. Per the standards, we should rename those categories to "cast members", and prune the excess. >Radiant< 11:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "XX recurring actors" or "XX cast members" to prune it to the main cast. Actors who were in one episode don't need yet another cat at the bottom of their articles. Character actors could end up in the same situation as Cindy Crawford whose article at one point had over 70 cats because there was one for every clothing company that she had modelled for. If a person appears in only one episode, their actual involvement may have only been for a couple hours to a day. I don't feel that is a large enough involvement to justify them being identified with the show in this way. Dismas|^(talk) 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and prune — Preceding
  talk • contribs
  )
• Keep or rename and prune. Tim! 14:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Nathanian 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all categorizaton of actors by the productions they appeared in. This is a bad use of the categorization system. It is much better handled with lists. However, as Radiant!'s rename proposal is better than leaving things as they are. --
  Samuel Wantman 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What despite there being no consensus to do delete all such categories? Tim! 11:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Useful categories. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all other "XYZ actors" categories, as they are totally useless in research, are trivial and non defining. It's Wikipedia, not IMDb.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So David Duchovny is not defined by being in the X-Files? Tim! 11:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and prune as per nom. If it's desired to know who had single appearances on the shows, listify. If a particular celeb feels it is a defining moment to have cameoed on a show, note it in the article of the celeb. — J Greb 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete these just like we deleted Category:Batman actors and a umpthundred other such actors by program categories. Notice that the Batman category is even protected against recreation. Doczilla 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notice that the Batman category is even protected against recreation - ahh, great! Recommend these 3, plus The Simpsons one from Dec 25th get the same treatment. Lugnuts 10:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Samuel Wantman and Radiant!.--Tenebrae 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Radiant! proposed a rename, and I said delete is better than renaming. --

Samuel Wantman 10:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Deleting these three cats is over kill. They serve a purpose, if limited to recurring cast, This is supported by the nom with "Rename and prune". No Zythe, this isn't the IMDB, but the recurring cast is important to the shows. The cat facilitates that link.
2. The Batman salting is a very, very bad example. The reason that happened is that the cat was being used to lump all actors that participated in any way, in any television show, movie, or video game. That isn't the case here, nor for most of these types of cats.

— J Greb 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to X cast members. Oppose "recurring characters" categories. Weak Oppose Delete for Radio/TV series cast categories. - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename. Useful to those interested. (Including myself.) Dark jedi requiem 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per
  Samuel Wantman and Radiant!. --(trogga) 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - oppose all "performers by performance/series/film" categories, as they proliferate potentially endlesly --lquilter 08:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - potential for every TV series or film to be categorised by cast. A cast list in the article for each series should suffice, without cluttering the categories. Rossrs 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 11:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is to rename, not delete. Tim! 11:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of what the specific nomination was, once a category is opened for discussion it's open for any vote, whatever Wikipedia editors deem most appropriate to serve Wikipedia project goals. Doczilla 09:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think Tim! is saying that delete isn't an acceptable vote. I believe that he was pointing out that Pinoakcourt's vote doesn't make sense as stated. It's a little like having a waiter recommend the roast beef and your reply is "That sounds great! I'll have the turkey!" If Pinoakcourt agrees with the reasons stated in the nom but would recommend deleting over renaming, then that's fine but it's not exactly what he said. Or at least it's not the way I, nor Tim! it seems, read it. Dismas|^(talk) 10:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• These categories remind me of the proliferation of categories for models' jobs. At one point Cindy Crawford had over 100 categories because she'd gotten categorized for every job. Those categories have been broadly deleted.[1] Doczilla 13:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I just remembered that the model thing is even mentioned in another CfD on this same page. Doczilla 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually mentioned in this very CfD. By me. Although I had forgotten that it ended up over 100 cats for C.C., I thought it was 70. Dismas|^(talk) 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and prune. Notable guest appearances should be incorporated into articles themselves. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is not trivia, they are notable programs so anyone who appears in them has added importance. Mr. Stabs 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and prune - Only actors that are an integral part of the TV show should be in the category
• Delete or rename/prune - I suggest deletion as all of these are sufficiently handled by cast lists in the main article or a subarticle. As per some of the comments above, it is a bad idea to create individual actor categories for shows. Assuming the category is kept, though, rename/prune as suggested. Dugwiki 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 listify. Timrollpickering 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Schools in the MEC sports conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over categorization. Maybe as a list. Also it is more of an article rather then a category. Vegaswikian 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 rename. Timrollpickering 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game covers

Rename to Category:Computer and video game covers to match naming conventions. -Sean Curtin 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per naming convention. (Shouldn't this and all its subcats be renamed to: "Images of..."?)- jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 rename. Timrollpickering 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video game mascots

Rename to Category:Computer and video game mascots to match naming conventions. -Sean Curtin 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomBakaman 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for reasons stated above. Shoester 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per naming convention. - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 rename. Timrollpickering 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer game design

Rename to Category:Computer and video game design to match naming conventions. -Sean Curtin 06:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - agree with nominator
• Rename - per naming convention. - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nom. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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. Timrollpickering 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with Poland Syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Poland syndrome is a rare congenital defect. There is only one entry in this category, and I see no growth potential beyond that. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being rare, it would lend credence that sufferers would likely meet our standards, allowing for better populating. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too small for growth. Circeus 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete underpopulated category. Shoester 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but add the example to related article(s). - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not needed, and most of those sub-categories are based on no references, and are a bad idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bad precedent to create thousands of hard to impossible to verify and low value categories. If it is important it belong to the text. Pavel Vozenilek 03:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 no consensus to delete. Rename per nom.. Timrollpickering 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people with disabilities to Category:Americans with disabilities

• Rename. The term "American people" is unnecessarily wordy, when "Americans" alone will do. I wonder if the phrasing of the current title is based on a literal reading of "person-first language", in which some variant of "person" or "people" must appear no matter what, even if it's unnecessary. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete altogether. Characterizing individuals by disabilities is inappropriate and not as neatly defined as one might think. How many senior citizens have handicapped license plates? Does Paul Newman have one? Do we even know? He is old now, after all. Define "disability". Do we include Tom Cruise and Cher because they're dyslexic? Doczilla 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's why we have subcats, to specify which particular "disability" the people in question have. It is not useful to just say someone "has a disability", but more people would argue we should say Tom Cruise is dyslexic, or George Lucas is diabetic, or Max Cleland is an amputee. Though there are a few individual articles in this cat, I think they should be recategorized or removed from this category. szyslak (t, c, e) 11:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes is a disability? Almost everyone has some physical problem. How about arthritis? How about severe allergies? 75.10.32.110 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I acknowledge there is some tendency to debate on who is disabled and I don't think all of these conditions should be classed as disabilities. Still there's also debate about who is a Bisexual or a Christian, but we have Category:Bisexual actors and Category:American Christians. There are inarguable cases of disability, debatable cases don't negate that.--T. Anthony 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian" and "bisexual" are more clearcut terms than "disabilities". There's wiggle room in both, yes, but not like with disabilties. Those can be restricted to self-affirmed Christians and self-affirmed bisexuals. Diabilities, though . . . not so clear. Again, why include diabetes? Why not dyslexia? Or why dyslexia? It's a difference, not necessarily a disability. Who gets to judge? Doczilla 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're only somewhat more clearcut and I wouldn't include diabetes myself. Still that there are areas at the fringes where things get debatable doesn't negate the fact there are disabilities. I don't think of myself as disabled, but I'm not unaware that using a wheelchair and having brittle bones means I need extra aids. I am disabled for all legal or medical purposes. Sometimes I think people here make things more difficult than they need to be just so they can make a point.--T. Anthony 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Oppose deletion due to other similar category types (as discussed above). - jc37 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inherently vague, POV, and often unreferenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, This category is possibly subject to abuse and adds very little in terms of indexing. But in terms of some of the above arguments, we should also take a look at the higher level category Category:People with disabilities and the categories like Category:Politicians with physical disabilities and Category:Disabled sportspeople --Bejnar 05:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That last would be really silly.
    Disabled sports is both an article and a Category so "disabled sportspeople" is just for those who do it.--T. Anthony 13:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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. Timrollpickering 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Black ice hockey players. If kept, we should create Category:Ice hockey players by ethnicity. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, racecruft. There are any number of sports the demographic of whose participants does not map to the population as a whole, no need to single out ice hockey, or black people, or the intersection thereof. -choster 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have Category:African American football players, Category:African American basketball players, Category:African American baseball players, Category:African American tennis players, Category:Jewish baseball players, Category:Jewish cricketers, etc. Also many blacks in hockey are notable for being black and in hockey. This really shouldn't be so, but it is.--T. Anthony 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although rename is also good.--T. Anthony 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as Category:African American hockey players for consistency. TonyTheTiger 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I almost said that myself, but some of the names here are Canadians. Would "African American" still work?--T. Anthony 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Category:Black Canadians -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment after looking at Category:African American basketball players I'm doubtful these African-American categories are useful since the sports are very international. E.g., Hakeem Olajuwon (from Nigeria) is not in the basketball category, which is logical given the category name, but most people think of him as a famous former Houston player. That suggests the category is too specialized. 67.117.130.181 11:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, we already have these kinds of ethnicitiy/sport intersection categories already, but considering almost all of them have been up for CFD at one point and they usually squeak by with no consensus I think
  WP:INN would apply here. Even hockey is becoming international to the point of these categories becoming useless; where does Akim Aliu go? Recury 15:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Skin colour does not affect performance levels. Pinoakcourt 11:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a pointless distinction. If a hockey player's being black is significant, write how that is in the article. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this 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 Probably the longest discussion I've yet closed but there are more keeps than deletes so keep. Timrollpickering 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actively unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T 22:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Second nom. First nom -

crztalk 04:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

For more history (which I eventually tracked down and found very helpful), see a previous (successful) recall (followed by a successful re-RfA two months later. Have there been many/any other recalls? Carcharoth 20:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the discussion at Category_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall and the archive page at Category_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall/Archive_1 - these pages should be moved and kept somewhere, even if the category is not kept. Also, the record of this category surviving the previous CfD nomination should be copied from the talk page archive to the front talk page. Carcharoth 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the above, and the below, I have found at least four examples of admin recall in one form or another: Silsor, Crzrussian, Bunchofgrapes, Friday. Any more? Carcharoth 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone considers Silsor an example under this category, though as there wasn't a recall petition I don't think (glad to be corrected as I collect the links to them!). But the mechanics of how the re-RfA went are interesting. We have had other re-RfAs of course... Sean Black stood down then stood up again, for example. ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merovingian had an abortive appeal by Hipocrite back in July. -- nae'blis 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]