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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Escort carriers of the United States Navy into Category:Escort carriers of the United States

• Merge, we just merged Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy into Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States so the subcategory, Escort carriers, should be merged as well. Currently they're two virtually identical subcategories underneath Aircraft carriers of the United States. TomTheHand 21:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per TomTheHand/previous CfD. David Kernow (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Josh 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandal created category. NawlinWiki 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Super Hero actors[edit]

Category:Super Hero actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overly broad to the point of absurdity. Based on the articles it has been added to, it would also include fictional characters who are not super-powered (eg the Batman family) which is even further too broad. This is not useful categorisation — it would include, extended to it's furthest limits, virtually every voice actor from The Tick, those actors who have portrayed the main characters of the various Kamen Rider series, and many, many more.

There's no set criteria here, and I can't imagine anyone being useful. Does it only include actors who are portraying pre-existing characters? What about Darkman? And further, why just superheroes? What about villains? This is simply far too broad to be of any use.--SB | T 21:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is way too broad. There could be a nice list style article that could be shaped along these lines, but the categorisation structure is not going to be the best place to go about presenting it. Unwieldy and unmaintainable. Hiding Talk 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yep. Way way way too broad. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are already too many "Fictional" categories and too many "Actor" categories, this borders on both those spaces. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I'm adding Category:Comic Book Movie actors as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Dr. McGrew added the categories to a whole slew of pages. I am going to undo most of the additions to save someone else some work in a few days. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edton 14:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Based on timing of account creation and common capitalization errors, I strongly suspect this is a sockpuppet of User:Batman Fan, who was banned as a disruptive user for continually creating redundant categories and refusing to engage in dialogue about it. CovenantD 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; it's users like this that give film fans a bad name... Her Pegship 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per CovenantD --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:School accreditors in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, There is a category for "College accreditors in India", which is more representative of Indian culture. "Schools" in India do not include colleges and universities they refer to primary education which don't abide by this method of accreditation so this catgory is not needed. Thus, this category is simply a repeat of "College accreditors in India", and it named incorrectly. Arbusto 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandal created category. NawlinWiki 02:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villains[edit]

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

• Delete, Category lacks any means of specification and seems to be an attempt at cataloging any article subject considered "Villain". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Fictional villains and make the content less arbitrary than it's now. >Radiant< 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without merging as a duplicate. Piccadilly 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without merging. This category is overcategorization, considering there are thousands of characters, real people, etc. that could be considered a "villan". UnDeRsCoRe 21:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmaintainable, possible POV issues and not what I'd consider of encyclopedic value. Hiding Talk 21:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and redirect to category:Fictional villains. - jc37 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This links people on the basis of a random coincidence, rather than something that helps define why the individuals are important. If kept it should be renamed Category:Entertainers who played American football. Edton 18:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aargghhh. Systemic bias, football isn't grid-iron. Sorry, rant over. Can't quite see the value of this information in a category, although a well written list style article could be of interest. Hiding Talk 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I created this last year before we had the encyclopedic categorization of football players by college. I think it's outlived its usefulness. For anybody who achieved notability for football in high school but not beyond, there's category:High school football players.--Mike Selinker 06:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nearly everybody played one form of football or another at some stage. Agathoclea 14:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pretty random. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mike's comments also make a lot of sense. — Dale Arnett 13:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:French classical music to Category:Classical music in France
• Category:Canadian classical music to Category:Classical music in Canada
• Rename, Most of the sibling categories already use this format, and it makes more sense because the categories cover music in the Western classical tradition as performed in each country or by its nationals, rather than only music composed in that country. I have not included the Indian and Chinese categories because they relate to separate musical traditions. Edton 18:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge then delete. David Kernow (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Governors into Category:Lists of governors

• Merge, Correct capitalization per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Titles. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, capit. >Radiant< 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stanley Gallon novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This is an unknown author, with a single, yet-to-be-published novel--not notable at all, and certainly doesn't merit his own category. ShelfSkewed [Talk] 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, per nom. Also calls into question the objectivity of Stanley Gallon and Darkest Days (the novel). johnpseudo 21:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above. You got here before I could. Damn. I nominated the author for deletion, though. - Richfife 15:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indiana Jones characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Most of the entries in this category seem to be nonsensical, and I don't see much value in having a category for characters in Indiana Jones. These could just be listed on the various Indiana Jones articles, or if someone really wants to, they could make a more general "Indiana Jones movie series" article. johnpseudo 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there's a lot more to Indiana Jones than just the movies. It makes a certain amount of sense from the viewpoint of cating the francise. However, in this case, it's subject to abuse because of all the historical figures that show up in Young Indiana Jones. --Rindis 17:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. To be honest, I hadn't known about Young Indiana Jones, but it seems to me the task of cataloging these historical figures should be limited to that particular article. If this category isn't deleted, I think the historical figures that only appear in Young Indy should be summarily referred to as "various historical figures" with a link to the Young Indiana Jones list. johnpseudo 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Real people shouldn't be included in a category for a fictional series. Edton 18:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Edton (and listify). >Radiant< 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listify is an excellent way forward. Hiding Talk 21:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify per above. David Kernow (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and prune. I think Henry Jones, Sr., Rene Belloq and others need somewhere to go, and this is it. But people like Vlad III the Impaler need to go.--Mike Selinker 06:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and prune per Mike Selinker. Category should have notice that it's for fictional characters only. --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, prune, and Rename to category:Fictional characters of the Indiana Jones franchise, or something similar. (I found "franchise" in the Indiana Jones article.) - jc37 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and prune per Mike Selinker. - EurekaLott 16:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those people voting keep and prune want to consider this stuff might just as easily be placed in Category:Indiana Jones is it just houses the fictional characters. That's not a huge category, is this level needed? Hiding Talk 15:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a categoriziation used elsewhere. My rough count is 11 legitimate characters in the category currently, which probably takes care of the films. Then of course, there may someday be pages for characters from the comics [1], games [2], novels [3], and Young Indy. So... probably not needed right now, but I wouldn't be too hasty in deleting. --Rindis 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added it to category:Film characters, which is what this level allows it to go into.--Mike Selinker 20:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think that the characters should be placed in others Indiana Jones categories, for example: Indiana Jones supporting characters, Indiana Jones villains, and Indiana Jones historical figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.144.217 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golden Globe winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Similar to cfd below, this category is currently empty and redudant with the subcategories for specific awards. Dugwiki 16:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate. All the categories should be renamed to make it clear which of them are for winners and which are not, in line with the Academy Award categories. Edton 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, use categories per specific award. >Radiant< 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of course there should be categories for specific awards, but they should be subcategories this category. Piccadilly 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it confuses the categorisation structure. Hiding Talk 21:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant with the much better (sub)categorised Category:Golden Globe Awards. If winners' subcategories are to be removed from main cat, then category:Golden Globe Award recipients per current concensus to avoid "winners". - jc37 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreated material. - EurekaLott 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golden Globe Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Category is currently empty and is redundant with other categories under Category:Golden Globe Awards. Winners are typically instead placed under the subcategory for the award they won. Dugwiki 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant with the much better (sub)categorised Category:Golden Globe Awards. If winners' subcategories are to be removed from main cat, then category:Golden Globe Award recipients per current concensus to avoid "winners". - jc37 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian Superannuation Funds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, all (er, only) article could simply be re-added to Category:Funds. Kinu ^t/_c 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, but are there other articles that should be in this category? --Bduke 11:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of CSI: Miami characters to Category:CSI: Miami characters

• Rename, Per WP:NCCAT (alternatively merge into Category:CSI characters but likely this will be expanded and another one could get created later for CSI: NY). After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per After Midnight/WP:NCCAT. David Kernow (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Canadian Centenary Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category is not required for a book. 69.156.78.190 10:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - may be re-created if more of the redlinked articles in The Canadian Centenary Series are created. - jc37 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the legitimacy of a category is not defined by how many articles it does contain at any given time; it's defined by how many articles the category will contain when it's fully populated. Bearcat 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-1933 two-digit Virginia state highways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, these articles are already listed at History of state highways in Virginia#1928-1933 in a way that makes their relationship clearer. With the creation of Category:Historic Virginia state highways, every article in here is in another related category. I do not believe this category adds anything that the two links above do not. NE2 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 13:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overkill. Hiding Talk 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Mormon temples --Kbdank71 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latter Day Saint temples into Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

• Merge. The former is the parent of the later. The later has many more entries and has the correct name, as I understand it, for the church. The extra cat does not make sense to me. Vegaswikian 07:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoa, that is a long name. Can we do something about that? >Radiant< 13:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Mormon temples, to match siblings in Category:Temples. Mormonism is not synonymous with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Community of Christ has temples (Independence Temple and Kirtland Temple) and FLDS is building one. The main article is Temple (Mormonism) but Category:Temples (Mormonism) seems awkward.-choster 14:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that sounds sensible. Rename per Choster. >Radiant< 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, merge Category:Latter Day Saint temples and Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into Category:Mormon temples. Vegaswikian 04:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify again, IMHO no merge or deletion is in order. Category:Latter Day Saint temples should be renamed Category:Mormon temples. Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would remain a child category of Category:Mormon temples. -choster 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So we should also create a Category:Community of Christ temples under Category:Mormon temples so that it is clear that several branches of the religion are grouped under the parent. Vegaswikian 06:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, though such a strict requirement for denominational segregation does not exist, for instance, for Category:Churches, and the CofC category would consist of only two articles for the forseeable future.-choster 19:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Should we rename Category:Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Category:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temples? A bit shorter. Vegaswikian 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Categories. One of the categories is about the temples (buildings) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The second category is about rooms in temples of the same church. They should remain two categories. Val42 20:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but both include temples. One category confuses the issue by including some rooms. If we need a category for the rooms, then create one for that purpose as a child. Keeping a category that is intended for temples only for rooms in temples is confusing at best since the name would be wrong. Either the articles get dropped into the main category or you create a dedicated subcat for the rooms, maybe Category:Mormon temple rooms. Vegaswikian 22:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With Category:Community of Christ temples I think the problem with leaving the rooms in the main temple category is addressed and there is no need for another category for the rooms. Vegaswikian 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient people into Category:Ancient peoples

• Merge, both of these seem (or ought) to be intended for much the same thing. The cat description for the underpopulated and newly-formed Category:Ancient people says it's for "groups of people with an identity that spans an attested minimum of 2,000 years", which apart from being a rather arbitrary definition of what might constitute 'ancient', is ill-defined as well (just what is a continuous identity exactly?) Also, in the intended sense peoples needs to be in the plural. The Category:Ancient peoples has its definition problems as well, but there's no need for two of these. --cjllw | TALK 07:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per cjllw Piccadilly 20:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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