Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 30

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

The result of the debate was deleted. the wub "?!" 12:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kuro5hin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, category has no chance for expansion. Only contains the main article and article for the creator of the website. --- RockMFR 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Recury 03:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 12:29, 3 October 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 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/merge to Category:Ohio State University faculty --Kbdank71 13:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ohio State University academic faculties and staffs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete or rename Upmerge Appears to have been added by non-native speaker ("faculty" and "staff" in this sense are indeclinable mass nouns, though I suppose they could take a plural when used across different universities). I have no objections to renaming to Category:Ohio State University faculty and staff, if there are any actual articles about non-faculty staff members at OSU. But if there aren't, then the expansion to include "staff" seems unnecessary and over-wordy. Trovatore 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Upmerge to Category:Ohio State University faculty --- RockMFR 22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's the point of including the word "academic"? Is there some other sort of faculty at OSU? Category:Ohio State University faculty already exists, and has since June (whereas the category under discussion is new). --Trovatore 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The category adds an unnecessary layer. Upmerge to Category:Ohio State University faculty. - EurekaLott 00:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Eureka. Recury 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Re: Trovatore: Of course there are other sorts of faculty. The janitorial faculty come to mind, as well as the administrative faculty. -Toptomcat 03:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Janitorial faculty? Never heard such a term. Do they use it in England, maybe? Anyway, I don't think "Ohio State University faculty" is ambiguous in context. I agree with EurekaLott's "upmerge" (which is effectively "delete", because Category:Ohio State University faculty is where the articles were before yesterday). --Trovatore 04:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename' Sorry, my bad. I worked on this for several hours and became tired: just coping and pasting did not pay attention to the context. I personally would take Category:Ohio State University academic faculty and staff. The key reason that I put academic in there is to distinquish from athletic coaches. As you may see in the list of any University faculty, there is only athletic coaches listed in there. There is no room to put academic faculty and staff. I would place staff in there because I do not want the list is limited to only faculty.--06:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there are 65 categories in category:Faculty by university in the United States, and not one of them uses "academic". I really don't see the point. If someone wants to add Terry Donahue to category:University of California, Los Angeles faculty, it would strike me as a little silly, but not worth making the already-long category name longer just to exclude him. As for "academic staff" -- are there really many of those who are going to get bios? If they do, it'll probably be for non-academic reasons, and if it does turn out to be for academic reasons, we could probably stretch a point and put them in the "faculty" cat. --Trovatore 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, uh actually, no, I don't think we should stretch a point in such a case. But what would such a case consist of? A teaching assistant who makes some breakthrough? What's the hurry to categorize him by school? Wait till he gets his degree, which won't be long, and then categorize him as an alumnus of the school, or as faculty wherever he gets hired. --Trovatore 05:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Ohio State University faculty, per adjusted nom. (Note: category:American University faculty and staff is the only category of Category:Faculty by university in the United States that has "and staff".) - jc37 00:19, 8 October 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 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. the wub "?!" 12:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reviewed requests for unblock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• As the category says, "This category is intended to allow administrators to easily locate users who have requested that a block placed on them be lifted." Since the category has thousands - literally thousands - of entries, nobody can "easily locate" anything in it. It has no use as a reference work, unless I'm missing something fundamental. It breaks
  ЯEDVERS 20:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: it was created along with {{
  talk) 23:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, not useful. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Hiding Talk 21:48, 6 October 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: speedily withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subnational entities in Europe to Category:Subnational divisions of Europe

• Rename. User:David Kernow added cfd to this category, but I'm unable to find any discussion. Anyway, I feel that "division" is a clearer indication of what the category contains. Dagnabit 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies; this category was one of a number recently proposed but then withdrawn pending ongoing discussion at
    WP:WPCSub and related articles, but I forgot to comment-out/remove the tags!  Will now do so. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:38, 30 September 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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here! to Category:I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here!

• Rename, the article for the show is at
  I'm a Celebrity, Get Me out of Here!. Extraordinary Machine 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy, surely? Grutness...wha? 00:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename as above. -Toptomcat 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename - since it's just a comma : ) - jc37 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's yet another useless category that just lists who was in the show. The show article or a list page can do that. RobJ1981 17:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify - As above, this category is better suited as a list. In general it's a bad idea to have seperate categories for cast lists for individual movies and television shows (doing so can eventually lead to many, many categories per actor page). A list would also allow for other information such as character name and first appearance date, etc. Dugwiki 17:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename as above. And I suggest that anyone reading the input by Dugwiki on this subject also has a look here. Rgds, - Trident13 17:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like category-cruft to me. --Trovatore 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listify. Hiding Talk 21:47, 6 October 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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:China manufacturers to Category:Ceramics manufacturers

• Rename, This whole section needs some work, as the terms Ceramics/Pottery/China are intermingled to make a confused categorisation. However, this particular category just seems to stick out as the most obvious one to rename. The term China these days is more commonly used to refer to the country, and use of the term Ceramics over Pottery covers a larger number of manufacturers, while still remaining encyclopedic. Rgds, Trident13 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not sure I could support this one. I understand the problem you are describing, but I'm not convinced that this is confusing. Maybe if presented as a solution to the complete problem I could support it. Vegaswikian 21:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something different. 'China' is a specific and special type of ceramic, no? Perhaps 'Manufacturers of China?' That seems at least marginally less confusing. -Toptomcat 03:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I agree that the whole section (ie - everything that covers Cereamics/Pottery/China) needs a review to become more encyclopedic. Personally I would go for Ceramic, and this covers both Pottery and China, and other forms of the clay moulding/glazing art form. What about Maunfacturers of Ceramics, as the start of a whole rename of these various areas to use the term Ceramics versus pottery or China? Rgds, - Trident13 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom as start of review suggested by Trident13. David Kernow (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, This could easily cause problems for people looking for Chinese manufacturing articles.Slavlin 21:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Category:China manufacturers under Category:Ceramics manufacturers under Category:Ceramics. There should be no confusion with Chinese manufacturing. This provides the structure that many seem to be suggesting above. Once these are grouped and split based on the total picture, they can be cleaned up by those involved in ceramics. I don't see us changing a very specific and completly accurate name without a very strong need. Vegaswikian 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - geat comment which I fully agree with. At the moment the whole sequencing/navigation in that area is more confusing than encyclopedic - and once we have a direction, agree that it shouldn't need to change again. Rgds, - Trident13 10:30, 6 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 13:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The main article is a disambiguation page, always a bad sign. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, Nominators reasons are frivolous, this category has many articles that fit the +cat criteria. MapleTree 13:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What exactly is this category going to feed into? Seems a specious grouping to me.--Mike Selinker 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Mike Selinker. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The main article does not exist. Vegaswikian 21:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --
  Peta 03:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The main article is a disambig, sure, but not like a disambig for two completely different people happening to share the same name: everything on the disambiguation page is at least loosely related to the same concept (the abrupt and violent end of the world) -Toptomcat 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Move List of doomsday scenarios into this category. Calwatch 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No coherent grouping involved, the
  tjstrf 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Listify and Delete. Note: Listify List of doomsday scenarios and Self-referencing doomsday argument rebuttal to the Doomsday dab page (the rest are already listed). - jc37 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See also #Category:Human extinction. --Dhartung | Talk 12:33, 3 October 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 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 already renamed/merged as nominated --Kbdank71 13:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Awards and decorations of the British military to Category:Awards and decorations of the British armed forces

• Rename, I propose that this category be renamed Awards and decorations of the British armed forces. British military is not a common term of description - the usual term (in the UK, and UK defence establishment at least) is the British armed forces. Making this change also brings the UK category into line with the naming conventions established for its sister armed forces such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand - all of which follow the Awards and decorations of the XXX armed forces style. Xdamr^talk 13:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Xdamr's reasonable-sounding rationale. David Kernow (talk) 23:50, 30 September 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 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 --Kbdank71 13:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, I created this months back not knowing really what a category was or its intent. I also created Category:Unaccredited Christian universities and colleges, which is basically the same thing. This category is too narrow for usage. Such as religious institutes, universities, and schools are listed even though the category is for seminaries and theological colleges. More importantly we have Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning which includes all unaccredited schools and is a very important category. By deleting religious/theological subsections of unaccredited it gets rid of ambiguity of diploma mills, like Almeda University that claim to be religious, but are more of a business than a religion service. If at all possible I'd like to speedy it. We have less than 80 unaccredited school articles, and we should just keep them in one unaccredited category. Arbusto 09:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't really add anything, Arbusto summed it up very nicely. Mgroop 15:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - jc37 20:25, 2 October 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 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 already deleted --Kbdank71 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2006 Oscar predictions

• Delete This is a blatantly bad idea for a category. Besides which I didn't think the reviews were that great for All the King's Men (2006 film) and where's United 93? "g"--T. Anthony 07:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So.. WHOSE predictions are we talking about? Wow, horrible category. SubSeven 08:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[The result of the debate was speedy delete per

WP:NOT. David Kernow (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)][reply

]

• I've reopened this because the category appears to not be deleted. I'd say David was entirely correct to delete this, I'm only reopening this so that people don't overlook it. Delete. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re not deleted: Strange... I think I listed it in the correct area... Thanks anyway for scooping it up, David Kernow (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another opinion-based category crying out for citations, references and such. - jc37 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as speculation. --Metropolitan90 08:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as this is complety out of line for Wikipedia. Nominees would be fine, but not predictions.Slavlin 21:46, 4 October 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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous crocodiles to Category:Famous crocodiles and alligators
To match

• Comment - perhaps we should drop the "famous"? - jc37 06:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's leave that for later, given all of its peers in Category:Famous animals. This may be one case where famous is appropriate. We need somehow to distinguish them from the taxonomical cats, as these are meant for individual animals. ×Meegs 08:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. You're gonna need some verboten word--"famous," "notable," "named," whatever--to keep the Taco Bell chihuahua out of category:Dogs.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, should be part of Category:Crocodiles. We should avoid the word "famous" in category names. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename - I think this is a good exception to the rule about "famous". Also, category:Famous animals and sub-cats appear to be well managed. - jc37
• Keep and Rename. The only way I see to get around using famous would be to use some term like "crocodilian individuals", which really doesn't make much sense and sounds like a category for
  tjstrf 22:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was rename all. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nobel Prize in Economics winners

Category:Nobel Peace Prize winners

Category:Nobel Prize in Literature winners

Category:Nobel Prize in Physics winners

Category:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine winners

Category:Nobel Prize in Chemistry winners

"Category:Nobel Prize in X winners" to "Category:Nobel Prize in X laureates".

• Rename [all], parent cat is Nobel laurates, and that is the term used to describe Nobel recipients.
  Peta 04:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename all per Grutness below. David Kernow (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC), updated 00:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to Category:Nobel laureates in X - less clumsy construction, and better reflects the Category:Nobel laureates parent. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as per Grutness. -Toptomcat 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per above. Doczilla 05:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per Grutness. - EurekaLott 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per Grutness. --Dhartung | Talk 12:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, but Category:Nobel Prize in Economics winners should be renamed to Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences laureates or something like that as there is no Nobel Prize in economics. Dagnabit 14:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there was no consensus over renaming the corresponding article
    Nobel Prize in Economics, I guess the category ought to use Category:Nobel laureates in Economics, at least for the time being...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Rename all per Grutness. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:15, 3 October 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 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nobel science laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Cat is empty and there is no Nobel Prize for science.
  Peta 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Peta. David Kernow (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unnecessary (presumed) parent cat for a subset of the Nobels. There arent' that many. --Dhartung | Talk 12:37, 3 October 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 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 already deleted --Kbdank71 12:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cooking for captive audiences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• This is a very problematic article, necessarily involving an act of POV judgment for the inclusion of any article. It is defined as:

...foods commonly known as "captive audience" food, that is, food served to those people who are members of various sorts of institution (such as armed forces, schools, prisons, airplanes, or athletic training stables) and have little or no say in what they eat.

I understand that there might be a few foods eaten almost exclusively by "captive audiences" (e.g. hardtack), but particularly given the variety of foods that may be served in armies, schools, prisons, etc., this can very easily become a runaway category. My elementary school growing up served pizza every day; should that article be in here? Suppose a soldier in Iraq gets served a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in the mess hall -- does that get included?

So, we come to foods "commonly" known as captive-audience foods. Commonly according to who? I don't see any citations. More likely than not, items entered here will be defined as "commonly" captive-audience foods by the editor who places it here, and no one else.

In short, I can't see this category ever fulfilling the Wikipedia's policies. Delete. Dylan 04:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --
  Peta 06:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, otherwise surely rename... Category:Institutional cooking...?  David Kernow (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I cannot see how this category would ever be of any use. Institutional cooking, maybe.Slavlin 21:49, 4 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 12:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cole and Dylan Sprouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This is an unnecessary eponymous category. The description is "Movies, TV Shows, etc. with Dylan and Cole Sprouse." We have decided against this type of categorizing several times. musicpvm 03:55, 30 September 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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are inconsistent with each other.

• Category:Science fiction TV characters to Category:Science fiction television characters
• Category:Fantasy TV characters to Category:Fantasy television characters
• Category:Television drama characters to Category:Drama television characters
• Category:Comedy television characters (does not need to be renamed)

Or should "television" be placed before the genre? Either way, they should all be consistent. --musicpvm 03:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in current order, e.g. "fooian television characters". ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Her Pegship. - jc37 06:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Her Pegship. David Kernow (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but not per nom. Sorry this is a late entry; rename to Fictional characters in fooian television, per recent-ish discussion about Category:Fictional characters in children's television (I think the "fictional" is important disambiguation, as "character" also has a secondary meaning something like "personality"). Also, I am uncomfortable with the phrase "drama television", since in common usage "television" is (incorrectly) an adjective in this phrase. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 9 October 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 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 --Kbdank71 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American actor-politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Unnecessary subcategory of Category:Actor-politicians. -LtNOWIS 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Categorising by nationality within another category is quite common, and could easily help clear up this category. However, I'm not sure about the naming convention -- should it be Category:United States actor-politicans? Dylan 04:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Probably : ) - jc37 06:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, every people-category uses "American" which is normal usage. Brammen 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think we should wait until the category reaches 100 articles before we worry about subcats.--T. Anthony 07:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The parent category is dubious, but if it is to exist it certainly requires subdivision. Brammen 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a perfectly legitimate category and subcategory, in my feeling. -Toptomcat 04:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, "actor-politician" is a neologism. >Radiant< 10:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As would be any alternative (If this term is. I'm not convinced hyphenating a couple of simple words amounts to a neologism. . Edton 13:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepper -Toptomcat. Edton 13:16, 1 October 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 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 speedy renamed from Category:Northern Ireland flags to Category:Flags of Northern Ireland. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags of Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not do categories — 132.205.45.206 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category overlaps with Category:Northern Ireland flags. I have deleted incoming links 16:58, 29 September 2006 User:Hroðulf

• Reverse merge Category:Northern Ireland flags to Category:Flags of Northern Ireland per the other "Flags of..." categories. David Kernow (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rv merge per David Kernow
  (Talk) 13:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment from nominator (I used the incorrect {{

prod}} tag; thanks to anon for fixing it.) David Kernow is right—Category:Northern Ireland flags should be moved to Category:Flags of Northern Ireland for uniformity with Category:Flags of the United Kingdom and Category:Flags by country. I will tag that for a speedy rename. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:03, 2 October 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 rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Category:Members of the Linnean Society to Category:Members of the Linnean Society of London[reply]

• Rename, there are heaps of Linnean Societies worldwide, specifying which one we are talking about in the category name reduces the chance of incorrect categorisation.
  Peta 01:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - While I am typically a proponent of using "of", I think in this case it should probably be: category:Members of the London Linnean Society. - jc37 06:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the are always called Linnean Society of X, so your suggestion doesn't really make sense.--
    Peta 10:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Rename per nom (cf http://www.linnean.org/). David Kernow (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, even though this is the original Linnean Society. They seem to have recently applied the "of London" consistently to their official web presence. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 20:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (apparently standard usage). - jc37 20:25, 2 October 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 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 12:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Island nations to Category:Island countries

• Rename, Articles "Island nation" and "List of island nations" have been renamed to Island country and List of island countries. Nurg 00:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Island countries, but Redirect Category:Island nations to Category:Island countries. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Nurg 21:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and listify. There's (I hope) no category for landlocked countries, for desert countries or for countries without rivers. Pavel Vozenilek 22:28, 5 October 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 above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was proposal withdrawn. David Kernow (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Island nations, since both names are reasonable. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse redirect per nom above...?  David Kernow (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, since Category:Island countries makes more sense as a member of Category:Countries by characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was already deleted --Kbdank71 12:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of banks by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This isn't really a category but a version of List of banks in Greece, probably created by error. Brammen 23:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Brammen. David Kernow (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and
  WP:NOT. Doczilla 05:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:NOT isn't relevant so far as I can see. Edton 13:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]