Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 26

< January 25	January 27 >

January 26

Category:Saskatchewan Huskies ice hockey players

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. Xiner (talk, email) 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List members would be non-notable. SERSeanCrane 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pages will not be created simply for the purpose of populating this category. Appropriate, already-notable players who have played professional hockey in North America will be added to this list. See the rest of the subcategories of Category:College ice hockey players for other examples. Skudrafan1 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable enough to me. CIS hockey provides an excellent pro-feeder system. I see no problem with keeping this category. DMighton 23:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All our pro sports have minor league player categories.--Mike Selinker 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by all said. --Deenoe 00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for deletion given. CfD is not the proper place for a POV argument about articles. Resolute 05:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason, as stated above, "List members would be non-notable." Use your eyes before your fingers, Thanks. SERSeanCrane 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and be mindful of WP:CIVIL. Obviously the only biographies that would be added to this category are for players who are notable. You are arguing against this category because of your POV belief that nobody who played for the U of S could be notable. That is a complaint against an article that does not exist, not against this category itself. Resolute 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Resolute. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 18:09, 27 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.

Category:Works of Art: Artcars

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category newly created for self-promotion. The category has only one article, the poorly written, unencyclopedic, improperly sourced, and autobiographical Hutman Artcars, which lacks notability and violates WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Doczilla 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an appropriate category for this, Category:Art vehicles. However, it appears the one article in this category is doomed to deletion, so the category may as well go with it rather than be merged. --Vossanova ^o< 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category created for ego entry, as noted Category:Art vehicles already exists for this purpose.Improbcat 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant with Category:Art vehicles (well, ok, vehicles is more general than cars but there aren't enough of them yet to merit that kind of specificity). Plymouths 21:27, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:Comics protagonists

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unpopulated subcategory of the previously deleted fictional protagonists category for the same reasons as the previous deletion: The term "protagonist" invokes POV. Even if it did not, this creates an unmanageable category with millions of members. Doczilla 22:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds very similar to the rash of deleted "villain" categories. Terms like "villain", "hero", "antagonist" and "protagonist" are unfortunately all a bit too subjective. Dugwiki 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above. --Xdamr^talk 04:03, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:African Lutherans

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We usually categorize people by nationality not continent, so I have moved the only article that was here to the relevant national category. Sumahoy 21:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. On the one hand the nominator has a point, on the other hand, why have a subcategory if the parent category itself only contains one article? When and if the parent category gets to have a dozen or so articles (if that ever happens) it could then be subdivided. Herostratus 21:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One article categories are desirable, but they should be based on the correct hierarchy. Pinoakcourt 13:25, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Documentaries about McDonald's

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: rename to Documentary films about business. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No need to get this specific when there's not yet a Documentaries about food or Documentaries about business category --Vossanova ^o< 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Documentary films about business" (and remove from category "McDonalds"). There are 192 articles in the category "Documentary films" and it could use more subcategories. Herostratus 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, only two articles in cat. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Herostratus. There seems to be excellent scope for sub-categorisation within Category:Documentary films, we might as well make a start with this one. --Xdamr^talk 04:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete underpopulated cat. Doczilla 09:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and remove McDonald's. per Herostratus. Pcu123456789 23:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Herostratus. Lesnail 01:15, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:United States Department of Labor appointees

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: rename. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Department of Labor appointees to Category:United States Department of Labor officials

Rename, To match the name format used by other categories in Category:United States Executive Department officials. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Xdamr^talk 04:06, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Dominican singers

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: rename. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dominican singers to Category:Dominican Republic singers

Rename. Found filed under Dominica, but none of them have anything to do with that country. Their connection is with the separate independent country of the Dominican Republic. LukeHoC 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Darwinek 10:43, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:People by political orientation

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: no consensus. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by political orientation into Category:Politicians by political orientation

Merge, these categories include subcategories that should be together, like Conservatives, Fascists, Libertarians; and Communists, Nazis, Socialists. There is no reason to have them on separate categories. NaBUru38 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and reverse merge into Category:People by political orientation because many of the individuals were not politicians, ie they did not hold or seek political office. Retain Category:Politicians by political orientation as a redirect. Sumahoy 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and keep separate. Not everyone with a political orientation is a politician in the sense in which the stub sorters at least have been using it, i.e., those who hold or seek an elected office in their own right. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. While those opposing the merge are right that not everyone with a political orientation is a politician, that just illustrates a huge problem with the category. It is vague and unencyclopedic. Everyone has a political orientation. Even staying out of politics is a political orientation. Doczilla 21:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But not everyone is notable for their political orientation. Only those who are should be in one of the descendants of People by political orientation. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As has been noted, not all 'political people' are politicians. Doczilla's concern is justified, yet we need some categorisation for political figures who are non-politicians. Perhaps the relationship between these two needs to be considered? Logically speaking, I would expect Category:Politicians by political orientation to be a sub-category of Category:People by political orientation.

Xdamr^talk 04:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Keep the main categories separate but don't divide the subcategories as it would then be necessary to make a judgement on whether each person was a politician or not, which is fairly easy in modern democracies, but not in dictatorships and earlier eras. Pinoakcourt 13:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and keep separate I've seen some shuffling about in these categories that was just wrong--people who were not in any sense politicians moved to politicians. I haven't had time to deal with it systematically, but this will just make it worse. --Lquilter 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People who are not politicians can be notable for their political views and should be categorized. Lesnail 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is There are two distinct meanings, and someone is usually looking for one or the other and knows which.DGG 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge As above, not all politically influential people are politicians. The subdivision is useful. And as someone pointed out in response to Doc's concern, everyone has political opinions but only a relatively handful of articles about people discuss those political views in any meaningful way. If a piece of information is not notably mentioned in the person's article, it shouldn't be used for categorization. Dugwiki 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Political views are nearly impossible to categorize in a NPOV verafiable way; membership in a party, where membership is available, is verifiable; being elected or campaigning on behalf of a party or candidate is verifiable, but the POV comes in when editors try to generalize from the specific: because Ronald Reagan campaigned for union rights in the 1950s he is pro-union, explain that to the PATCO workers he fired, because he signed a liberalized abortion law in California in the 1960s he is pro-choice, too, right? Carlossuarez46 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is to note non-politicians too where verifiable Mayumashu 15:21, 31 January 2007 (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.

Acronym categories

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: upmerge N-letter and recursive into category:Acronyms, no consensus on computing and military. (I could have closed this as no consensus, but there seemed universal consensus to do something, so this is the less damaging course .)--Mike Selinker 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overcategorization. Cybervideo 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3-letter, 4-letter, 5-letter, 6-letter, 7-letter Subdividing acronyms by length isn't necessary since the acronyms are automatically sorted alphabetically, and the most likely scenario is that a reader looking for an article about an acronym will want to do so alphabetically. I don't have a strong opinion yet one way or another about the computing, military or recursive categories. Dugwiki 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first five into category:Acronyms, and keep the last three. While I agree that sorting by length is pretty bizarre, the entries have to go somewhere. For now they can go into Acronyms, but they should then be split by utility, such as the very likable "Computing" and "Military" categories.--Mike Selinker 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad, you are correct. I didn't word my recommendation correctly. I should have said Delete and upmerge. Thanks. Dugwiki 01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the first five into Category:Acronyms, and keep the last three. -- NaBUru38 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the n-letter categories; keep computing and military; listify Recursive acronyms or transwiki to Wiktionary as that's more a dictionary than an encyclopedia category. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with that result for "Recursive".--Mike Selinker 23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xiner. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of these, by and large nothing other than collections of trivia. However I suggest keeping Category:Computing acronyms and Category:Military acronyms—in my view these categories are of significant wider interest.

Xdamr^talk 03:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, except rename military/computing acronyms to Military terms and Computing terms, or something similar. The fact that they are acronyms is not significant, but there should be a category for terms. Pcu123456789 23:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge n-letter acronyms, keep topic-specific acronyms, as per Caerwine. SnowFire 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete n-letter as trivia, merge topic-specific into "Terms" or "terminology" cats. >Radiant< 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all, these categories are useless. --CodeMonk 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ----Yakudza 09:08, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:Theodore Roosevelt Award recipients

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The recipients of this ward, such as George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Richardson are better known for other accomplishments than winning this award. This category only contributes to category clutter, as can be seen in the articles on George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Richardson. The award recipients are already listed at Theodore Roosevelt Award (NCAA). This category may therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that this is a non-defining category; award recognition is better served by inclusion in the text of the article ("x has won awards such as ..." and ("this award has been given to X, Y, and Z") --lquilter 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify Awards are generally better handled as list articles. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners and its talk page for reasoning and discussion. Dugwiki 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a career defining award. Sumahoy 20:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki. 146.186.44.199 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate categorys for awards. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wimstead 12:19, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:Alpha Phi Omega honorary brothers

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The recipients of this honor (such as George H. W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Jimmy Carter) are much better known for other accomplishments rather than for receiving this honorary membership. This category merely creates category clutter; see George H. W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, for example. The honorary members of this fraternity are already listed at List of notable Alpha Phi Omega members. This category may therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that this is a non-defining category; award recognition is better served by inclusion in the text of the article ("x has won awards such as ..." and ("this award has been given to X, Y, and Z") --lquilter 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awards are generally better handled as list articles. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners and its talk page for reasoning and discussion. Dugwiki 18:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how it would be useful to categorize people based on this. delldot | talk 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xiner. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original creator of the page and I can see where you all are coming from. Hillary Clinton being in a Category for First ladies of the United State or United States Senators from New York represents a signficant part of who they are. Being an Alpha Phi Omega honorary brother doesn't. If this is the way to distinguish whether or not they should be in a category, then it probably should be deleted. Naraht 13:15, 28 January 2007 (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.

Category:Members of the Trilateral Commission

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: delete. >Radiant< 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is being nominated simply because it includes a number of notable politicians (including George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter) whose major accomplishments are not necessarily related to serving on the Trilateral Commission. The category ends up creating category clutter; see the bottom of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, for example. The category should be deleted and the members listed at Trilateral Commission or a similar page. Dr. Submillimeter 15:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sumahoy 20:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and listify. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:54, 30 January 2007 (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.

Universities and colleges II

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: rename all.--Mike Selinker 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m relisting some of these, and adding some new ones, after closing this colleges and universities debate. These are the ones that either have both but in the other order, or need both because their contents are about both types of institutions. I did not grab any where college is used as a generalized adjective (e.g., Category:College football), or any where a location and only one type of school was specified (e.g., Category:Universities in Melbourne). Those can be dealt with later, if at all.--Mike Selinker 15:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: Added "American university presidents".--Mike Selinker 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. This will be more consistent and comprehensive. delldot | talk 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom.-choster 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 03:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Timrollpickering 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that big a deal, so Rename all per nom.--Wizardman 17:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all Thanks for doing this. AshbyJnr 17:00, 4 February 2007 (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.

Category:Fauna of Madhya Pradesh

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: delete. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category is nearly empty as is, and the fauna of Madhya Pradesh does not seem distinct enough from that of India to warrant a separate category. Lesnail 15:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xiner. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 13:32, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:The Goodies connection

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: rename. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:The Goodies (TV series), to match The Goodies (TV series), and convention of Category:Categories named after television series. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:The Goodies (TV series) Category names should almost always match the main article. Also, I'm wondering if this category is even necessary or if it could be safely deleted. But for now, assuming it's kept, rename as above. Dugwiki 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Dugwiki. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. Figaro 01:02, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Missionaries by region of activity

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: merge. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Missionaries by region of activity into Category:Christian missionaries

Merge - All of the subcategories are about Christian missionaries. Category:Missionaries by region of activity effectively replicates Category:Christian missionaries. The two should be merged. (Note that recreation of this category may be appropriate when non-Christian missionaries are also sorted by region.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Duplicate. Xiner (talk, email) 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Xiner. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 23:00, 26 January 2007 (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.

Category:Glapwell F.C. players

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: delete. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, don't think this team warrants a category. WikiGull 12:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Empty. If someone writes these articles and they merit inclusion, the cat can be recreated if necessary. delldot | talk 18:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per delldot. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. Rgds, - Trident13 22:12, 31 January 2007 (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.

Category:Christian missionaries in the Middle East

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: merge. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian missionaries in the Middle East into Category:Christian missionaries in Africa

Merge - The category contains one article on a missionary who worked in Egypt. Since missionaries are being subdivided by continent and since the locations included within the Middle East may be poorly defined, I suggest merging to "Christian missionaries in Africa". Dr. Submillimeter 12:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:58, 26 January 2007 (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.

Category:Methodist missionaries to British North America

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: merge. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Methodist missionaries to British North America into Category:Christian missionaries in North America

Merge - The category seems too specific and too awkward. To some degree, this is overcategorization, as it refers to a specific denomination of Christianity, an occupation, a location, and a time period (the eighteenth century). The category "Chsitian missionaries in North America" seems more appropriate for use here. Dr. Submillimeter 12:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. S. Although I am sympathetic to the need to reorganize the Missionary cats, and am more than willing to cooperate, you seem to be arguing two different ways related to Methodist missionaries. Under discussion for Category:Methodist missionaries in Africa you said this: Division by the country of activity (Cameroon, Sierra Leone, etc.) would be preferable for organizational purposes at this time. But though "British North America" is/was, in essence, a "country" (replaced, to a large degree, by the U.S.A.), here you do not seem to think such organization preferable. Obviously, this cat is an historical organization. As such, it is an helpful subcat of Category:People from British North America. The missionary planting of Methodism in British North America is an important part of U.S. religious history. I'd be interested in your reply. Thanks. Pastorwayne
  - Simultaneous subdivision by Protestant subdenomination and location is still unwarranted at this time and goes against consensus; see the discussions under the Initial Proposal at Category talk:Missionaries. This proposal is consistent with the proposal on that talk page. Dr. Submillimeter 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Overcategorization. Xiner (talk, email) 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Xiner. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge overcategorization by Protestant denomination, and "British North America". How many notable such people could possibly exist/have existed anyway? Don't answer that; I probably don't want to know. --lquilter 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a subcat of both Category:People from British North America and of Category:History of Methodism in the United States -- the planting of Methodism in Britsh North America is an extremely significant part of U.S.A. religious history. While I agree this cat maybe overcat for Missionaries, it is not for these other cats. Thanks. Pastorwayne 02:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge there are only 4 in this categoryDGG 03:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as overcategorization, per Dr S. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:57, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:American African Methodist Episcopal bishops

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: merge. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American African Methodist Episcopal bishops into Category:African Methodist Episcopal bishops

Merge - At the moment, a total of six articles are located in both Category:American African Methodist Episcopal bishops and Category:African Methodist Episcopal bishops. The subdivision by nationality does not seem necessary. With so few articles, such subdivision will separate related articles rather than brighing them together, thus defeating the purpose of the Wikipedia category system. Dr. Submillimeter 12:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both categories. This is exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference says to avoid. Doczilla 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just wanting to be sure we all understand: This is a cateory for American Bishops of the Christian denomination: African Methodist Episcopal Church. It has nothing directly to do with ethnicity (i.e. African American), only religion and occupation. Thanks. Pastorwayne 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I realize that "African Methodist Episcopal Church" is the name of a Protestant denomination. This is why I suggest merging into the parent category rather than deleting both categories. Dr. Submillimeter 18:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose With 7 of the 20 AME Episcopates being located entirely outside the U.S., if they haven't had a non-American bishop yet, they ought to have some in the near future. If this were a purely American denomination I could see some sense in the merge, while if I knew of a non-American AME bishop, even one without an article as of yet, ny opposition would be more than just weak. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are in fact many AME Episcoal Districts on the continent of Africa. I am fairly sure there are non-American Bishops involved in this denomination. I have only begun contributing articles on AME Bishops. This cat seemed reasonable as a sister-cat to other American Methodist Bishops' cats. Thanks. Pastorwayne 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as an helpful and significant categorization of American Methodist Bishops as well as those from an African-American heritage. Thanks. Pastorwayne 23:35, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:Images of birds

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: reverse merge. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of birds into Category:Bird images

Merge - Both these categories perform the same function. Everything should be merged under one title. Dr. Submillimeter 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nom. Lesnail 15:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ - seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. I'm sure this was just an error that they were separate to begin with. delldot | talk 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to reverse merge per Vegaswikian. If Images of x is the convention, we should go with that and discuss changing the other cats that defy the convention too. delldot | talk 05:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and reverse merge into Category:Images of birds, which is better English. Sumahoy 20:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although Category:Images of birds does seem like a better name, Category:Bird images is consistent with the categories for other groups of animals (cf. Category:Frog images, Category:Mammal images).Lesnail 20:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The consensus of past discussions seems to be to use images of x, so if this one continues to that conclusion, the other exceptions should also be renamed. Vegaswikian 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and rename the categories for other groups of animals. Pinoakcourt 13:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and rename the other categories. --lquilter 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forward Merge per submillimeter. "Bird images" is perfectly valid English. Pcu123456789 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Using nouns as adjectives in English is well established and entirely correct: orange juice, paper towel, tin can, three-revert rule, wheel war. See this Google search. Pcu123456789 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be acceptable, but that does not necessarily mean it is to be preferred. "Bird images" is ambiguous, but "Images of birds" is not. Sumahoy 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge to Category:Images of birds. Piccadilly 02:23, 1 February 2007 (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.

Category:Places impacted by urban decay

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: delete. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether or not a city is "impacted by urban decay" may be highly subjective and encourages original research. For example, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is included in this category but Phoenix, Arizona is not. Why? This also crosses into the POV problem of determining what "urban decay" is. Moreover, it may be possible to state that all cities are impacted by "urban decay" and therefore all cities should be listed in this category. Given the POV problems and the vague inclusion criteria, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is POV, then why do we still have Category:Urban decay? Doesn't that have the same problems? Vegaswikian 08:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Urban decay itself was nominated for deletion recently, but the result was no consensus. This category not only shares some of the POV problems of the parent category (e.g. the definition of urban decay) but also has its own POV problems (e.g. the determination that the cities in the category are impacted by urban decay). Dr. Submillimeter 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category has bothered me from the first minute I noticed it. It's totally subjective and of little value. Every large city in the world has been 'impacted' by urban decay. Uucp 13:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambiguous category. Doczilla 17:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too broad & ahistorical. --lquilter 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective. --Vossanova ^o< 22:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The name implies this is a one way process but urban decay often goes into reverse. Pinoakcourt 13:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it would work better as a list with references and dates. futurebird 13:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but possibly listify. Rgds, - Trident13 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but the good people who set up this category are encouraged to set up a list of U.S. municipalities that lost population between 1990 and 2000, as measured by the U.S. Census. That would present similar information in a nonsubjective manner. New lists could be set up after each decennial census. Bigturtle 17:46, 2 February 2007 (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.

Category:Cadet colleges in Bangladesh

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: merge. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant category with the existence of Category:Cadet Colleges in Bangladesh. Aditya Kabir 08:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Cadet Colleges in Bangladesh into Category:Cadet colleges in Bangladesh unless there's some reason for the capitalization of "Colleges" that I'm not aware of, in which case, merge the other direction. delldot | talk 18:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per delldot. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seem to be identical in scope. --Xdamr^talk 03:57, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Things Related to the Dominican Republic

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: merge. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps it could be a little more specific. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Category:Dominican Republic. Pascal.Tesson 04:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Dominican Republic. It would be a shame for the two articles in the category that are not already categorized by country to lack that category. delldot | talk 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge 146.186.44.199 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per above. "Related" is insanely vague. Doczilla 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Doc. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, 'things' is utterly meaningless. --Xdamr^talk 03:58, 27 January 2007 (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.

Category:Money of Lithuania

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: rename. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Money of Lithuania to Category:Currencies of Lithuania

Rename, just like Category:Currencies of Denmark, Category:Currencies of Hungary, Category:Currencies of Hong Kong, and the 4 main cat under Category:Currencies by region. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk
Rename per nom Johnbod 02:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. Pascal.Tesson 04:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Lesnail 15:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Piccadilly 02:23, 1 February 2007 (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.

Category:Cult leaders

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: delete. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category is POV, and since it categorizes biographical articles is also controversial in that it could be libelous. Sfacets 01:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's also ahistorical, since many (most? all?) mainstream religions were once considered cults (and still are by some, hence Sfacets' POV point). --lquilter 01:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although libel isn't a concern for those leaders who are dead. Otto4711 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category was supposed to contain only those individuals about which "there is wide consensus of sources to be such" (see previous CFD). This has been impossible to enforce. It is a nasty POV magnet, that's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally agree with the above comments TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion of May 8th. -- Prove It ^(talk) 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No objective, universally accepted definition of "cult," which would be necessary condition for listing the leaders. And of course, a nasty POV nightmare. BabyDweezil 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although, if I may, I'd like to point out that it'd be nice to see more people arguing along similar lines when Category:Terrorists comes up for deletion. Same point of view nightmare, same impossibility to enforce any sort of consistency. Pascal.Tesson 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The relevant articles are only in cases in which there is wide consensus as to the term used for that individual, in multiple sources. Smee 05:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete It seems this is being used fairly strictly, but as a category it has too much potential for abuse. A person could skim List of groups referred to as cults and decide that Bill W. or Jimmy Wales should be added.--T. Anthony 11:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia guidelines explicitly say to avoid religious cult categories. Cult is under words to avoid per WP:WTA#Cult.2C_sect. Doczilla 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ProveIt. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only with rename and rules link I think Wikipedia now knows how to do cats like this, and this way isn't it. "Wide consensus" is too strict to build a useful cat that's much different from Category:Destructive Cults. Anti-reporters can never be satisfied, but to meet most of the pro-reporting objections, rename to Category:Persons referred to as cult leaders, and link to the set of rules at List of groups referred to as cults. • Note 1: Wikipedia has been WP:RS referenced as a cult at LOGRTAC, but Jimmy Wales has not been WP:RS referenced as a cult leader. • Note 2: "Cult" is not a word to avoid in the cult topics articles or categories, but editors shouldn't be the first to use it in other articles. • Note 3: The "objective, universally accepted definition of cult" objection was resolved a year or more ago by only deciding what is not a listable cult, e.g., fancults. All other WP:RS referenced definitions are accepted by default at LOGRTAC. Milo 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keepI agree this is a useful category. I think it can be defined, and not abused. If it lists only people for a cult which is already called a cult here. DGG 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one person's cult is another's path to salvation; hence the POV is inherent. And if anyone claims that "Cult" has a universally accepted definition, they may fool others, but not me. :-) Carlossuarez46 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your oft heard concern is obsolete by over a year. See my "Note 3" above. I don't know who's brilliant solution it was, but a "universally accepted definition" of cult is no longer needed for NPOV encyclopedic purposes. Milo 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; we also don't have a category for organizations refered to as cults, for the same reasons. Category:Leaders of new religious movements (to match Category:New religious movements) or such might be useful, tho. Mairi 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The conceptual tools now exist to do a "category for organizations refered to as cults". Only the consensus is lacking. Milo 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As POV. I have always felt that attempts to define "cult leader" are motivated mainly by a desire to cast established religions in an unduly favourable light. Piccadilly 02:24, 1 February 2007 (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.

Category:New Kind of Science

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: delete. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While New Kind of Science is a notable book, I don't think every subject it discusses should be put into a category about it. Imagine if we put every page in categories for every book that talked that subject. I also worry about WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:COI since the creator (Kathryn Cramer) is apparently employed by the author of the book. Lesnail 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The whole point of the book is that it's a type of synthesis, pulling together many existing things. Since it's sort of supposed to be a theory of "everything" then everything logically could get the category. --lquilter 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. -Will Beback · † · 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. Johnbod 02:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and place Stephen Wolfram in Category:Cult leaders. :-) Now, I know it's a very popular book but it's just a very bad idea to create that sort of category: the topics covered in the book are referred to in A New Kind of Science. If we continue creating cats for popular science books, we'll soon find articles with a ton of categorization in minor categories related to Gödel, Escher, Bach, A Brief History of Time and so on. That's not what categories should be doing. Pascal.Tesson 04:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Well put. Uucp 13:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 30 January 2007 (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.

Category:Zombina and the Skeletones

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: rename. >Radiant< 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Zombina and the Skeletones albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 22:49, 26 January 2007 (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.