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 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Shadow Raiders planets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Only one article, after all other articles were turned into redirects per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Reptizar (Shadow Raiders). The only article there - the redirs target - was already included in the parent category, where it looks more suited to be. Nabla 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:30, 14 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Chiswick Albion F.C players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - category for a team that doesn't even have its own article. WikiGull 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - team appears to be a "Sunday football side in west Middlesex", to quote from something that isn't their website and so too low in the football pecking order to merit an article or a category for their players. Bencherlite 21:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casperonline 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Clearly not a defining characteristic of the people involved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 10:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Empty category containing only links. ArtVandelay13 10:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was one person in there when I looked yesterday, but I can't find him now. Bencherlite 11:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two when I first spotted this, one for David Byrne (English footballer) which I removed as no evidence to say he'd played for them anyway, the second was Robert Ursell who I've proposed for deletion. The category creator Chiswick albion removed the category from that article themself.WikiGull 13:54, 14 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was merge to Category:Mythological hybrids --Kbdank71 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Mythological things at least in part based on chickens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - An unnecessarily detailed category. The name itself shows something is wrong with it. If one really wants chicken mythilogy, a list will do. `'юзырь:mikka 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly rename. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Mythological hybrids - The category name is too silly. (I need to update my list of silly categories.) Also, I do not see any other such divisions for mythological creatures (e.g. Category:Mythological creatures at least in part based on horses, Category:Mythological creatures at least in part based on hummingbirds, etc.). The articles should be merged back into the parent category, Category:Mythological hybrids, to at least ensure that they are categorized properly. Dr. Submillimeter 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Mythological hybrids per Dr. S. This is a textbook case of overcategorization. Note also that Neale Monks is the creator of this category, a fact he should have revealed when commenting (although honestly, it was pretty obvious, since it's hard to imagine anyone but the creator supporting this category). This information might be interesting as part of an article or list of components used in mythological hybrid creatures, but as a category, it is simply awkward and, in fact, a hindrance to navigation when compared to what a broader list might offer. Xtifr _tälk 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above and WP:DAFT this title. Grutness...wha? 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DAFT with a delighted giggle. --Masamage ♫ 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this nonsense per Dr. S. Doczilla 08:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What fun! Put a smile on my face but Merge per above. Possible candidate for WP:BJAODN. Paulbrock 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DAFT, which I mentioned above, is the equivalent of BJAODN for titles. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant merge, I am delighted to know that there are people in the world who would categorize in this way, but alas it doesn't seem to fit with the way Wikipedia in general works. DuncanHill 15:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above This ridiculous title stands out like a sore thumb. It could have at least been Mythological Creatures Based At Least Partly on Birds, though that too would have been lame. Overcategorization at its most evident. Czar Baldy Bald IV 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yes it looks like a name unsuitable to WP. But is there really the need to make fun of it? You know... someone created it, presumably, in good faith. Show respect. - Nabla 13:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very well said, Nabla. DuncanHill 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Very well said, indeed. I certainly went overboard. Thanks for the reprimand, Nabla. It did make me review Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. My apologizes to the category's creator and to the rest of my fellow Wikipedians. Czar Baldy Bald IV 19:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant merge per DuncanHill. If you look at the category's talk page, you'll see that Neale Monks himself admits that it's "funny". After all, chicken is an inherently funny word!  :) RobbieG 19:18, 20 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:List of controversial game shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - "Controversial" is too subjective for a category, and this category was possibly created in error instead of List of controversial game shows (which shouldn't be created anyway). Masaruemoto 19:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - mal-named, POV inclusion standard. Otto4711 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective category per nom. and many precedents for deleting these "controversial" categories. Doczilla 08:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "controversial" is subjective. and categories are different from "lists of..."-Andrew c 23:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 15 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Battle Royale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - the material in the category is extensively interlinked through the text and there is a navtemplate as big as a human face. There is no need for the category for organizational or navigational purposes. Otto4711 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Casperonline 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:27, 14 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Sports-related shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Either merge to Category:Sports television series or rename to Category:Sports television programs. "Sports television series" is consistent with other television genre categories; "shows" is vague as to medium. Alternatively, "programs" would cover one-off broadcasts like The Full Motty, while series could be re-catted into Category:Sports television series. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - how much if any distinction do we make between one-off programs and series for categorization purposes? When I've created such cats I've tended to go with "programs" (i.e. Category:Logo original programs) to encompass both but the bulk are "series" categroies. Is a big "series" vs "programs" discussion worth it or do we not care enough? Otto4711 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. The television categories are pretty variable; many of the European categories use "programmes" consistently, either for a year's worth of a program or for a one-timer, as a "series" in Europe is the equivalent of a "season" in the U.S. The U.S. categories tend to use "series" for an ongoing year of a program and "shows" or "specials" OR "programs" for one-time broadcasts. I think we do need a category for one-time shows in various genres, which don't qualify as a series or a season, but I'm at a loss how else to call it. (And not enough energy to devote to the issue, alas.) Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "related" is vague. Doczilla 08:28, 14 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename to category:Commercial fishing --Kbdank71 15:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fishing industry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Discussed on the WikiProject Fishing proposals page. Decided it was a good idea, as it better ties in with related categories. themcman1 _Talk 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to category:Commercial fishing per capitalization guidelines. Casperonline 21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Commercial fishingOliver Han 09:51, 15 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Quantum Leap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - per the suggestion at the recent CFDs for the character and episode subcats and in keeping with many recent CFDs for eponymous TV series categories, this category is not needed for the material. Otto4711 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And, if the person who mucked with the template or whatever so that it doesn't automatically generate a link to the nominated category is reading this, can you please put it back like it was? Otto4711 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful parent category for the episode and character cats, as well as for Project Quantum Leap (which otherwise has no place to go). Oren0 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Close to a hundred of these categories have been deleted while having character and episode subcats. Precedent and consensus are pretty clear that the existing character by series and episode by series structures are sufficient. Project Quantum Leap is categorized in Category:Time travel devices. Otto4711 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is it that we can't navigate by category heirarchy over TV series? It would seem to be a natural categorization heirarchy, and it would link categories together properly. 132.205.44.134 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the show's main article already normally serves that same heriarchical purpose. Why create an eponymous category to navigate articles about a TV series when you can already get to all those articles and subcategories directly from the show's main article? It just duplicates the editorial work involved for little benefit to the reader. Dugwiki 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The category is not useful when these are already linked to the Quantum Leap article. Doczilla 08:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the articles (all two of them) are already adequately interlinked and don't need a category for navigation, and we have ample precedent for deleting categories like this, and no arguments offered why this one should be an exception. Xtifr _tälk 22:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 15 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was closed and moved here (non-admin action). Bencherlite 21:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - This follows the renaming of, for example, the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern article (as discussed here). The proposed name is both shorter and more precise. --rimshots^talk 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close and move to WP:UCFD. Otto4711 17:23, 13 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eastern Orthodox patriarchs of Jerusalem to Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem[edit]

Category:Primates of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem to Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem[edit]

• Merge - The title generally used for this position is "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem"; see, for example [1] and [2]. The categories should be merged to this title. Note that the "Eastern Orthodox patriarchs" category was moved from Category:Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem to its current name following a 12 Jun 2005 discussion that seemed concerned about confusion between the Christian Orthodox religion and the Judaic Orthodox religion. Although this really does not seem to be a problem (as I don't think that Judaism has Patriarchs), the use of "Greek Orthodox" will hopefully make the title less ambiguous. Dr. Submillimeter 11:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem; there is an Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Armenian Church is self-identified as Orthodox; there may be others. Specifying "Greek Orthodox" is a good thing. (and Support Merge, as usual.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, naturally. -- roundhouse0 15:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Johnbod 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both as Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem. Peterkingiron 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per nom to Category:Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Jerusalem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 14 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Swedish peace treaties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename, to match Category:treaties of Sweden, and because it is in the nature of a peace treaty that it cannot belong to any one state. Haddiscoe 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. — Reinyday, 14:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Drieakko 09:47, 21 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Primates of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - These people are commonly referred to as the Archbishops of Utrecht. Even the Wikipedia article is named Archbishop of Utrecht. The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 09:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per numerous precedents. -- roundhouse0 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per numerous precedents (this another of Pastorwayne's hundreds of superfluous categories). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and per numerous precedents. Johnbod 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Roman Catholic Archbishops of Utrecht, as there are also Archbishops of Utrecht in the Old Catholic Church. Mairi 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is Joris Vercammen. It does seem clearer to me to include 'Roman Catholic', although there is no consistency in Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese. -- roundhouse0 20:29, 14 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic Primates of Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - These people are commonly referred to as the "Archbishop of Seoul". The category name should be changed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 09:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Rename per nom. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 10:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per numerous precedents. -- roundhouse0 15:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Note that the article Primate (religion) says "Similarly the Archbishop of Seoul is often considered to be the primate of Korea, but such title has never been granted by the Vatican. Such 'analogous' use of the title is confusing and technically incorrect". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Johnbod 21:50, 13 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Primates of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - *Delete - This appears to be redundant with Category:Popes. It is unbelievable that someone would actually create this category. The articles on popes already contain many categories; this one just contributes to category clutter. This category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A ludicrous category. (Surely there are more than 5 popes with articles?) Occuli 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. To judge from Pope Benedict XVI, there are various other possibilities, yet to be created, such as Category:Successors of the Prince of the Apostles. -- roundhouse0 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Bishops of Rome, anyone? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as a textbook example of a useless category which duplicates another. Pastorwayne (talk · contribs) has provided us with dozens (if not hundreds) of bizarre categories, but this must be one of the worst. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Laugh-out-loud strong delete per all the above. What a category... Bencherlite 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Laugh-out-loud strong delete per Bencherlite & all. Johnbod 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Category:Roman Catholic primates seems to omit Category:Popes. Rather an oversight, I would have thought. -- roundhouse0 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Popes is at least included in the super-parent category of Category:Bishops by type. Bencherlite 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least PW never got around to Category:Anti-Primates :) Johnbod 21:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS :) Bencherlite 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - Add Category:Popes to Category:Roman Catholic primates. I assume that there is a separate "Italian Archbishops" category to which it should also be added. Peterkingiron 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, although I should point out that not all Popes would necessarily be included in this category, since most Popes predate the creation of Italy as a nation. In fact, five members might be about right. Nevertheless, I still think this is overcategorization. Xtifr _tälk 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old red herring - Italy has been a recognised geographical unit since the Middle Ages and before, and, I'm pretty sure, a province of the RC church also. Johnbod 23:46, 14 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Citizen Kane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Delete - category not required for this material. Everything is interlinked and otherwise appropriately categorized. Otto4711 07:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per precedents for categories for individual films and plays. Haddiscoe 09:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedents Bulldog123 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 08:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 15 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Series finales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename, More exact title, given that the category is made up of TV episodes and not books, movies, or other things that come in series and have finales. —tregoweth (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. — Reinyday, 14:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the members of this category have little or nothing in common, making this essentially useless for navigation. In fact, I seem to remember this, or something very similar, being deleted before, which might make it eligible for a speedy deletion. I know that we recently deleted categories for "first album", "sophomore album" and "final album" for musicians as overcategorization, and I certainly fail to see how this category differs from those to any significant extent. Xtifr _tälk 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference between this and the album categories, at least the directly analogous final albums category, is that it's not always definite that a "final album" is the final album from an artist what with new material being released from various vaults. Whereas when a TV show is cancelled and the final episode is aired, there aren't more episodes of the series in the vault. Not saying that's reason enough to keep this category but it is a difference. Otto4711 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless, of course, there are episodes that were not shown during the original run (this happened with The Prisoner, I believe). Or the series gets revived (Family Guy, Dr. Who, etc., etc.). In any case, this category is an indiscriminate collection of names with few indications of what series an episode is associated with, making it all-but-useless for navigation. And the episodes themselves have little or nothing in common, aside from being "last episodes". Some are actual planned finales (the last episodes of MASH, The Sopranos, etc.), while others simply happen to be the last episode aired. I moight see the point of a list (so the episodes could be organized by show), but a collection of random television show episodes sorted by episode name strikes me as thoroughly useless. Xtifr _tälk 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (neutral on keep/delete) I don't have a strong opinion here on the keep/delete debate above. But assuming it's kept I agree that the category should probably be renamed as per the nom. Dugwiki 17:49, 19 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UNF Ospreys men's basketball coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename, new name is much clearer, and as far as I know, "UNF" is not an official name in the same way as "UNLV" or "UTEP" is for their respective institutions. fuzzy510 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Googlefight has "North Florida Ospreys" beating "UNF Ospreys" 1,080,000 to 160,000. So rename.--Mike Selinker 04:50, 13 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Chinilpa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Inherently POV category (title translates roughly as "Pro-Japanese faction"; it's intended to connote people who allegedly "collaborated" with the Japanese colonisation of Korea). Basically, an example of categorisation by people's alleged political views. cab 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I see the inherent POV-ness of the category. Whether a person is considered to have been Chinilpa can be verified through standard (Korean) biographical reference works. And the legacy of the Chinilpa is not universally considered negative -- in fact I've been surprised to find a number of respected civic leaders bearing this label in my biographical dictionary... Suggest firming up the inclusion criteria and perhaps renaming to something in English (not sure what). -- Visviva 02:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category corresponds to Category:Nazis and Category:Nazi collaborators in Koreas, while the Category:Chinilpa contains some weird persons such as Akira Maeda.

Visviva, I was particularly interested in explaining an OINK term "Chinilpa" that is clearly different from Japanophile. Is there any simple and good substitutions for it in English? Jjok 04:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, there goes Godwin's Law =) Seriously though, I'm not particularly impressed with Category:Nazi collaborators either. The people therein could be categorised by the specific political movements or governments (cabinets, etc.) to which they belonged, rather than throwing them into a catch-all "collaborators category" which includes everyone from Quisling down to any random journalist who wrote pro-German newspaper articles. And the issue of collaboration with the Nazis is comparatively transparent --- a period of a few years of occupation under a specific military government.

In contrast, because Japanese rule in Korea lasted for 35 years, this category ends up lumping together some guys who signed a treaty in 1905 and a guy whose businesses kept getting closed down by the Japanese in the 1930s and 40s (I'll ignore the stranger inclusions like Ahn Eak-tai or Akira Maeda). Four decades is easily enough time for people to change their views back and forth several times to the extent that dumping them into a "pro-Japanese" category is questionable; even Lee Wan-yong, pretty much the most obvious example of chinilpa, had previously been sufficiently anti-Japanese (or at least, pro-Russian) that the Russians actually pressured Gojong into appointing him to the government back in 1895 over the (futile) objections of the Japanese. cab 09:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am comparing yuja and lemon, not apple and orange. Chinilpa just corresponds to ex-Nazi or Nazi collaborators. If you create category:specific political movements, both will come under it. You can make more specific category by adding words such as WWII and the Axis. They are both citrus but yuja and Chinilpa are just not well-known outside Korea.

Second, Japan to Korea far more corresponds to Germany to Austria, but neither France nor Poland. The latter correspond to China and southeast Asian countries. However, your points are right. Chinilpa were just outstanding Korean collaborators.

Third and most importantly, the category exists to help understanding "What is Chinilpa" rather than "Who is Chinilpa". Chinilpa is also an important keyword to describe an aspect of Korea where people need to excuse "I am not Chinilpa but..." when they need to talk about positive aspects of Japan compared to Korea. I do not clearly know the purpose of Category:Nazi collaborators (and looks different from Category:Chinilpa), though Category:Chinilpa will contain Institute for Research in Collaborationist Activities, Committee for the Inspection of Property of Japan Collaborators, and related organizations, activities, and laws.

By the way, I think Lee Wan-yong was basically pro-US who was recorded that he never spoke Japanese. Interestingly, one of Eulsa Five was officially not designated as Chinilpa. Jjok 18:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The word itself has the propensity to be a POV tool. The term doesn't have any set defined meaning and can be used to label pretty much anyone in a relative manner. It is not a formal classification system as even some former Korean presidents have been labeled as such. I even feel that some people in that list don't belong there. Basically, any Korean who has even been alledged to have demonstrated pro-Japanese sentiments or biases in some way can be labelled as such, forget about the real historical chinilpas. --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 10:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and limit to those convicted under Rhee, or otherwise indisputable; not the recent list. Remember that because categories can't be annotated, there is a general rule that the reason for a cat must be obvious to anyone coming from the category to the article. As for Category:Nazi collaborators: Laval, Quisling, and Antonescu have one thing in common - and this is it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jjok 18:47, 17 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was keep. Andrew c 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:2003 Iraq conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Iraq War
• Category:Battles and operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Battles and operations of the Iraq War
• Category:Books about the 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Books about the Iraq War
• Category:Campaigns of the 2003 Iraq conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Campaigns of the Iraq War
• Category:Causes and prelude of the 2003 Iraq conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Causes and prelude of the Iraq War
• Category:Multinational force involved in the 2003 Iraq conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Multinational force involved in the Iraq War
• Category:Stances and opinions regarding the 2003 Iraq conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Stances and opinions regarding the Iraq War

Category:2003 Iraq conflict is currently being used for articles relating to both the initial invasion and the ongoing occupation and insurgency. I suggest renaming it and its subcategories from "2003 Iraq conflict" to "Iraq War" to match the article Iraq War. Seperating out the invasion from the occupation would not be useful, since most articles would fall under both, so I say rename all. jwillbur^talk 00:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There has been more than one Iraq War, so the chronology needs to stay in there somehow. Casperonline 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A better name is possible; this isn't it. Johnbod 23:09, 13 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge Category:Area codes in Miami-Dade County, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge into parent Category:Area codes in Florida since no other sibling category has subcategories and this category isn't likely to grow enough to warrant this level of granularity. Sapphic 00:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. — Reinyday, 14:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge overcategorization. -Andrew c 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It seems that there are only 2 relevant articles. Perebourne 23:53, 17 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Historic provinces of Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename. English language. (While I don't claim English proficiency, but I do see other cats in Category:Former country subdivisions.) `'юзырь:mikka 00:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment in the subcategories of Category:Former country subdivisions at least 3 naming patterns are in use. One pattern should be standardized on and then used everywhere. Hmains 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the top category is called "Former country subdivisions", it would seems to make sense to rename all categories to "Former...". The problem with the words historic and historical is that they say that these provinces once existed in history, but do not say whether they still exist. In other words a historical province may also be a current province. Therefore I lean towards former, also independently of the top category name. --rimshots^talk 15:33, 13 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fugitive cast members category.--Mike Selinker 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note this nomination was made without tagging the category itself. I have now tagged it, but please can editors remember to use the procedure set out at WP:CFD#Procedure when nominating a category or deletion, merging or renaming. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My fault. Thanks for the cleanup, BHG.--Mike Selinker 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as performer-by-performance category per WP:OCAT#Performers_by_performance. This category has already been superseded by List of Sailor Moon actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category has already been deleted once per the previous nomination, in response to which WP:SM made List of Sailor Moon actors to replace it. It was recreated without discussion three weeks later; I asked why at the time and got no response. --Masamage ♫ 01:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 08:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oliver Han 09:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:23, 15 June 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.