Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 21

< August 20	August 22 >

August 21

Sub-cats of Category:Writers by genre

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 not tagged, and keep anyway --Kbdank71 14:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these seem to have been recently created (and poorly named) by Wax Tablet, who I'm sure means well but uses incorrect case and vague terms. ~~Can someone on the Welcome Wagon greet him and steer him straight??~~ ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I left Waxy a note. If I don't hear anything in a week or so, I will examine the sub-cats for possible cfd candidates. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are already sufficient categories in category:Writers to hold all the sub-sub categories. This one is redundant. Osomec 10:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Writers by genre, but change its subcategories - I like the idea of a category sorting writers by genre. It allows you to easily compare, for example, mystery writers against each other. However, my suggestion to keep things consistent is to make the subcategories match the genre subcategories in Category:Books by genre. So use the "Books by genre" category as a template when you set up "Writers by genre". Dugwiki 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is a well-written category title. But something broader needs to be done. We have Category:Writers by audience, Category:Writers by subject area and Category:Writers by genre, which should be merged, and none is very populated (possibly because someone has depopulated them). Category:Writers by outlook should all be moved to Category:Writers by genre. Then we have Category:Writers by personal characteristic which contains Category:Christian writers, but the latter category is for people who write about Christianity, not writers who are Christian. Then we have Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area and Category:Writers by fiction subject area, which I've just included in Category:Writers by genre. I'm off to try to populate a bit. — Reinyday, 17:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep and merge in Category:Writers by subject area.Vegaswikian 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep and more power to Reinyday. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:24, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Wikipedian pirates

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian pirates to Category:Wikipedians interested in pirates

I realize this category was recently renamed, but I rathaaaaarr (uh, sorry about that) doubt that we have so many buccaneers amongst us. On the other hand, it is a silly category, so maybe we would be better off deleting it. - EurekaLott 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I think that this was originally intended to be a joke category, in which case I would normally recommend deleting it, but I think it is useful if it is renamed as you proposed. --Cswrye 19:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The category could have a viable use if renamed as suggested, while still maintaining a bit of fun for those who wish to keep it. -- Jade Keira 18:13, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Rajasthani freedom fighters

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rajasthani freedom fighters to Category:Rajasthani Indian independence activists

Rename, This seems to be what the category is for. It seems to be conventional in India to call independence activists "freedom fighters" but it is no less POV for that. Some of them were more concerned to win power for their own group than to increase "freedom" and indeed while some were Ghandi-like figures others were extremists who were determined to reduce "freedom". Chicheley 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per POV concerns. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 10:50, 22 August 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 page.

Wikipedians by location

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the categories in this ubercategory are “Wikipedians in X”, so this attempts to sync those up. An exception is made for those that represent birthplace but not residence, all of which make more sense in category:Wikipedians by ethnicity. If all the category members say they live in the place listed, though, it becomes a "Wikipedians in X" category. (To the Texans who objected before I could post the nomination, please note the change to category:Wikipedians born in Texas. If this is still not satisfactory, please post to that effect.)--Mike Selinker 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all. I've long thought there need to be consistent categories for those who live in a place and those who were born in a place. This one seems sensible to me. I especially like that it avoids the ambiguity inherent in saying that someone's "from" a place. Jay Maynard 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom but rename Category:Andhra Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Andhra Pradesh as that's the full name of the Indian state. --musicpvm 19:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I should have caught that myself. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all although I only think that "person in X" is appropriate if that person is categorizing themselves. "From" is ambiguous but someone's nativity is rarely as notable as their place of residence. --Dhartung | Talk 00:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I'm an Indian administrator, but I live in Canada. Why the need to change the names of the categories? User:DaGizza is "in" Australia. User:Ganeshk is "in" California. Issues requiring administrative attention on articles relevant to India frequently come up; I've been approached a number of times by editors who've clicked on the Category to find someone to resolve a dispute. Don't think "born in" is a solution either for this one. -- Samir धर्म 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In retrospect, this is easily dealt with by moving the Indian administrator category to an Wikipedians by ethnicity one. -- Samir धर्म 02:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I may have erred in assuming that these administrator categories were location-based rather than ethnicity-based. I've fixed them to "(ethnicity) Wikipedia adminstrators" and we'll see how that flies.--Mike Selinker 02:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My objection is gone then :) -- Samir धर्म 11:04, 22 August 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 page.

Wikipedians by ethnicity

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike those above, these are more appropriately in the ethnicity categories. Some reassortment may occur.--Mike Selinker 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Macedonian Wikipedians" might raise trouble. See Macedonia (terminology). It is not as specific as "Republic of Macedonia", which clearly differentiates between the Greek region and the Slavic country. Picaroon9288|ta co 18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'll leave it where it was, then. I withdrew it from here and posted a slightly different version to the nomination above.--Mike Selinker 18:50, 21 August 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 page.

Category:Wikipedians from Texas

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 void. Mike Selinker is apparently preparing a mass nomination of some kind. Discussion can begin once he posts it. ×Meegs 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Wikipedians from Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

Keep. I am not IN Texas, I am FROM Texas (and it's important to me to let people know I'm originally from Texas -- it explains a lot about me, thank you very much). If you wanted to eliminate redundant location categories, it would be better to standardize on the more inclusive FROM which can include those of us who are from a location but can not say we are still IN the location. Likewise, those who are in the location can still say they are from the location. Think. In this era of mobility, it doesn't make sense for you to insist that users be in a location to claim it as a homeland. --Renice 14:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's right, you're not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway.--M @r ē ino 15:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm originally from Texas, but I currently live in Minnesota. The two are different, and each benefits the encyclopedia in its own way. The distinction is important, as being born and raised in Texas shapes a person even though they may live elsewhere. FWIW, I think there should be "from" and "in" categories wherever there is a category, in general. While I'm here, where's the nominator and his rationale for deleting the category? Jay Maynard 15:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I was a small child and lived in San Francisco and later in the Seattle/Tacoma area, I always told people I was from Texas. Obv at that time I wasn't in Texas at that time period, yet that never kept me from actually being from The Great State Of. It is semantically impossible to make in = from, so I insist we keep the from distinction alive. (Krushsister 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Mos Def. Foster2008 00:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool your jets, guys. I'm in progress on all the categories of category:Wikipedians by location. This nomination hasn't even been listed yet, and it won't be as category:Wikipedians in Texas. So please relax.--Mike Selinker 16:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then perhaps the notice on the category page should be reworded. --Renice 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it's formatted right now, the nomination is to delete. If you want to nominate for a name change, you have to list the proposed new name in the header. --M @r ē ino 16:31, 21 August 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 page.

Category:British neo-Nazi terrorists

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 delete --Kbdank71 14:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category:Criminals is not classified by ideology but by type of crime. Category:Terrorists is classified by nationality, not by ideology. —Viriditas | Talk 12:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorization along these lines is an invitation to endless reverts. --Leifern 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Improper categorization. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I created the category, but I can see no support for it so I have moved the articles back into Category:British terrorists along with a new Category:British neo-Nazis. --GCarty 11:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Calsicol 14:06, 26 August 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 page.

Category:Virginia cities

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 cat redirect --Kbdank71 14:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redundant with Category:Cities in Virginia, which has the actual cities in it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect Golfcam 18:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Category:Virginia cities to Category:Cities in Virginia per Golfcam ProveIt ^(talk) 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No need to redirect. Vegaswikian 22:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect The fact that this was recreated on 4 August demonstrates that a redirect is needed. Osomec 10:51, 22 August 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 page.

Category:Virginia counties

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virginia counties to Category:Counties in Virginia

Rename, Puts name in line with similar categories. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Either rename all the categories in Category:Counties of the United States or leave them alone, but don't nominate just one of them. - EurekaLott 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppese, per naming convention of Category:Counties of the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per Proveit's point above. It looked like all the other states are titled "State counties", not "Counties in State". Dugwiki 16:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Counties of Virginia per the over-riding convention for subdivisions. Osomec 10:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a proposal for a mass rename of members of Category:Counties of the United States, but I think changing just one to be different from the others would be a mistake. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Follows the current standard. Changing just one sub category to be out of line with all of the others should not be allowed. If there is a better name for this category, then the same logic would apply for all of the others and a new nomination for changing all of the state sub categories should be made. Vegaswikian 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Counties of Virgina per (sub)divisions convention above. David Kernow 23:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Counties of Virgina. It might prompt someone to initiate the bulk renaming that is required. Nathan Mercer 10:30, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Wikipedians interested in Ancient Egypt to Category:Wikipedians interested in ancient Egypt

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 no consensus --Kbdank71 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. the wub "?!" 09:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

category:Wikipedians interested in Ancient Egypt to category:Wikipedians interested in ancient Egypt Caps. --Mike Selinker 04:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It is correct as it is. Sumahoy 18:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article History of ancient Egypt says otherwise.--Mike Selinker 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - As Mike Selinker pointed out, both History of ancient Egypt and Ancient Egypt do not capitalize "ancient" except at the beginning of a sentence (eg. in Ancient Egypt, there is a sentence that begins "The civilization of ancient Egypt...."). So it appears that capitalizing "ancient" is not correct, judging by similar Wiki articles. Dugwiki 16:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia uses geeky capitalisation preferences and is not a credible source. Most academic sites on the web use a capital A. Golfcam 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply' - I'm not sure about "geeky", but when I do an ask.com search for "ancient Egypt" I see articles that spell it both ways: some with the lower case "a", and some with an uppercase "A". For example, Menagerie of mummies unwraps ancient Egypt, an article on NewScientist.com spell it with "a". The Ancient Egypt Site, though, spells it with "A". So it's not immediately clear which spelling is correct. However, whichever way the consensus decides is correct, I'd recommend that the spelling be standardized that way in Wiki. So if the consensus is to use lower case "a", then all the articles and categories should do the same. If consensus is "A", then all the articles and categories should use that. Spelling should be consistent if possible. Dugwiki 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nom. Ancient is only an adjective and it is the Wikipedia convention to have an adjective in a title starting lower case unless it is the first word. Wikipedia is not geeky as such: it simply doesn't follow newspaper headline syndrome. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename while I prefer title case, myself Wikipedia doesn't and the category should match the article. Eluchil404 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've always thought of it as having a capital "A". Nathan Mercer 10:31, 25 August 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 page.

Category:American Islamist terrorists

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category is not consistent with the current scheme of categorizing terrorists by nationality. It duplicates already existing data by combining disparate data sets: Muslims and Criminals. These are separate categories and should not be mixed, and according to the current scheme are separated by the addition of the appropriate terrorist group cats (which are categorized by ideology), and in cases where no group exists, by the addition of Category:Islamists and/or a terrorist incident cat. All the members of this category are either explicit or implicit members of Category:Al-Qaeda members, and that category is already a member of Category:Islamist groups (at the top Category:Al-Qaeda) so no new information is conveyed through this category. The creator of this category is also the same editor who created Category:British Islamist terrorists. For those unfamiliar with how terrorists are categorized, we do not categorize by religion. —Viriditas | Talk 09:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Viriditas. --Leifern 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Viriditas. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Islamist and Muslim are not the same. Nathan Mercer 10:32, 25 August 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 page.

Mulatto actors/actresses

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.

Delete, Category:Mulattos was deleted in 2005, and these are already listified. The category not only combines an occupation with an ethnic group, but also by gender. Sibling Category:Mulatto Actresses is empty. Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. -Will Beback 09:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. QzDaddy 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both it and the sister category. Gimmetrow 14:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 21 August 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 page.

Sports-related flops

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cat's definition is inherently subjective and there's already been some discussion of its problems on the talk page. Labeling a person, league, or event as "a flop" is serious and requires context and explanation that categories do not make possible. Lists along these lines have been deleted in the past too (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL Draft busts). Delete. ×Meegs 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Meegs well observes, even lists of flops have been (quite properly, IMHO) disfavored; a category that will almost surely comprise some articles for which internal citations to a flop designation do not exist is, it follows, wholly unencyclopedic. Joe 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and poorly-named before someone adds Dick Fosbury. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That category name is a flop. (Bonus points for the Fosbury reference, though.)--Mike Selinker 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And, for that matter, in view of his propensity for falling in the lane should another player even breathe on him, perhaps Dirk Nowitzki belongs... Joe 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to potential for POV and anecdotes. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Twittenham 23:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 07:09, 26 August 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 page.

Category:Websites critical of Islam

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV. —Viriditas | Talk 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, inherently POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 13:41, 23 August 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 page.

Category:1900s in the United Kingdom

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 not tagged, relisted here --Kbdank71 13:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1900s in the United Kingdom to Category:20th century in the United Kingdom

Rename, 1900s refers to a decade but this category contains a century worth of years. Tim! 06:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -whoops! this is (kind of) my fault. I was just copying the pattern set by the Australian cats, eg Category:1900s in Australia, so we had better rename all of these:

--Mais oui! 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both the nominated cat and those which Mais oui! lists, for which I don't think {{cfr}} tagging to be necessary, inasmuch as the proper disposition seems rather clear. Joe 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per above. David Kernow 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Nathan Mercer 10:32, 25 August 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 page.

Category:Sega locations

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable category. Has no articles with only 1 sub-catecory real _decimic 06:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. The sub-category Category:Sonic the Hedgehog locations is also in Category:Sonic the Hedgehog which is sufficient. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:02, 23 August 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 page.

rename Category:Canadian armoured fighting vehicles, Category:World War II Canadian armoured fighting vehicles

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. I'm not too sure if I listed this right, if some one could make any needed changes and drop me a line on my talk page, it would help me learn more about the 'pedia! Mike McGregor (Can) 06:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Michael Z. 2006-08-21 06:25 Z
Support, because the vehicles themselves are not Canadian. Deon Steyn 15:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just go ahead and do this? or does an admin need to close the debate and make the move? Mike McGregor (Can) 04:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter to keep the process kosher/halal/etc, I believe... Regards, David Kernow 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of Canada and Category:Armoured fighting vehicles of Canada during World War II for sake of consistency. David Kernow 16:26, 30 August 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 page.

Category:The Ultra-Men

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 delete --Kbdank71 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, They are a very non-notable group (of all 3 members), a category isn't needed for it. RobJ1981 04:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would also delete the Ultra-Men article if it can't be developed. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Jade Keira 18:33, 23 August 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 page.

Category:Amalgam Comics superhero teams

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 keep --Kbdank71 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Amalgam was a short lived joint effort by Marvel+DC... it really doesn't need categories (just for the sake of categorizing things). RobJ1981 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it does, and for exactly that reason. These teams and other articles are neither DC or Marvel, so they need a publisher category. And once in that category, they should be categorized in the same way the DC and Marvel categories are kept.--Mike Selinker 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was Amalgam an actual publisher, or was it simply the label used by Marvel & DC in a joint publishing effort? If it was just a label and not an actual publishing company, would it make more sense to instead simply list Amalgam comics under both Marvel and DC simultaneously? Dugwiki 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a label, not a company. There is other Amalgam categories that really don't need to exist as well. The Amalgam series went 24 issues, and that's it. It simply doesn't need numerous categories, when it's just a label and not even a full on company. RobJ1981 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a category like category:Marvel Comics superheroes makes sense if it contains characters that never appeared in Marvel continuity, and the Amalgam characters didn't. So I'd leave them separate.--Mike Selinker 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think continuity is a red herring. Marvel, for example, has multiple continuities, some longer lived than others, as well as one-shots. Rather, I think the definition of what constitutes a Marvel Comics character is who created that character and owns the copyright. For example, about 25 years ago there was a Spiderman/Superman team-up one-shot comic. But even though those characters appeared in the same comic book, Marvel created Spiderman and owns the copyright. Spiderman's use was only licensed for that book, so he didn't suddenly become a DC character simply by appearing next to Superman.

The same is true of Amalgam characters. The real question is who owns the rights for the characters that appeared in Amalgam stories? If Wolverine appeared in Amalgam, for example, he would still be a Marvel character. And if Amalgam includes a brand new character that is jointly owned by both Marvel and DC, then it would appear under both Marvel characters and DC characters simultaneously.

So to sum up, if Amalagam isn't a publisher and doesn't actually own any rights for any of the characters, then those characters should instead be listed under either Marvel or DC, whichever owns the rights. If both jointly own the rights, list the character under both. Dugwiki 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why would you want to mix the Amalgam characters in with the mainstream characters? Take a look at the category:Watchmen. It wouldn't make sense to just drop those characters into category:DC Comics superheroes, right? It's a self-contained universe, and so is Amalgam. I don't have a problem with dropping it one level (putting the main Amalgam category under DC and under Marvel), but I don't think it's a good idea to mix them right in with Superman and Spider-Man.--Mike Selinker 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, all I said was that characters should be listed under the publisher that owns them. That can include listing all the characters in a subcategory under that publisher's characters. For example, Category:Watchmen appears as a subcategory of Category:DC Comics superheroes because the rights to all of the characters in the Watchmen belong to DC.

The main issue with Category:Amalgam characters is that it might include some characters that are Marvel properties, and others that are DC properties. If so then you can't simply list that category as a subcategory of Marvel character, because not all of them are. Rather, you would want to list the characters under both "Amalgam characters" (indicating the continuity they appear in) and either Marvel characters or DC characters or both (indicating the actual publisher). Dugwiki 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a viable category, even if small compared with DC and Marvel. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of rename Category:Crossover superhero teams to incorporate teams beyond just Amalgam. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:45, 25 August 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 page.

Category:SpongeBob SquarePants fans

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable category, this isn't a fan site for Sponge Bob. RobJ1981 04:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Wikipedians who like SpongeBob SquarePants. We already have a category for this. --Cswrye 14:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cswrye. --musicpvm 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cswrye Golfcam 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cswrye --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cswrye -- Jade Keira 18:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cswrye. Clay4president 17:50, 27 August 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 page.