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

The result of the debate was speedy merge (use WP:CfDS). David Kernow (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Carnatic Music into Category:Carnatic music

• Merge, Unnecessary duplication of existing category. MakeRocketGoNow 23:57, 20 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 'renamed along with Category:Troma Movies. -- RobertG ♬ talk 17:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Troma Entertainment films per Troma Entertainment and November 16th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Royalbroil  ^{Talk   Contrib} 15:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per my suggestion at the previous (still ongoing) discussion. Perhaps someone should close that discussion, due to the relisting? - jc37 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Not really a relisting ... I'm just saying that this category should also be renamed to the new name. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• My apologies, I didn't notice the difference between the two nominations at first ("movies"/"films"). - jc37 22:47, 22 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. -- RobertG ♬ talk 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional parents ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete this and all of its subcategories - Often, being a parent/grandparent is secondary to the storyline. Sometimes the character is a parent at the beginning of the storyline, but in other cases, the character only becomes a parent near the end of the storyline. This category and its subcategories are simply too broadly applied, and the articles within the categories are hardly related to each other. A discussion on Category:Fictional fathers has drawn the conclusion that the fathers subcategory is not functional. It was then suggested to delete Category:Fictional mothers to be fair. I decided just to nominate the whole structure for deletion altogether. George J. Bendo 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all There is insufficient connection between randomly selected parents for a category to be appropriate. Choalbaton 23:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not a defining characteristic. ( Radiant) 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - (Not going to make the "parent category" pun again : ) - jc37 08:50, 22 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

These should be renamed to Alumni of the XX University so that naming style is consistent with the rest of the sub-categories under Category:Alumni_by_university_in_the_United_Kingdom. The categories that need renaming are:

• Category:University_of_Birmingham_alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Birmingham
• Category:University_of_Bristol_alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Bristol
• Category:Durham University_alumni to Category:Alumni of Durham University
• Category:University_of_Leeds_alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Leeds
• Category:University_of_Manchester_alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Manchester
• Category:University College London alumni to Category:Alumni of University College London -- Mark S ( talk) 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all The form "{something} of {the} University Name" is the most common form for UK university categories, going beyond alumni. These should renamed for consistency. Timrollpickering 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all for consistancy. They should match the British cat, not the American one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom and prior comments. Royalbroil  ^{Talk   Contrib} 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong oppose - why do we make category names longer than they already are? These things are too long to type out - at the very least there should be a redirect from the original category, which usually doesn't happen. JROBBO 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There appears to be an issue of different English styles. In the UK it feels very odd to use a university's name as an adjective - note that nearly all UK categories for academics, alumni, Chancellors, colleges, people etc... are in the form "Someting of [the] University Name". Having categorised a lot of people by university I've not found these categories at all hard to type out. What has dragged things out is having to constantly check what version the alumni category is in, especially when an individual was a student and/or academic at multiple institutions. Timrollpickering 12:21, 3 December 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional characters who love to shop to Category:Fictional compulsive shoppers

• Rename, I find this category a little silly, but it is manegable with a little clean up. For one thing, it should only cover characters who shop compulsivly, not just ones who "love" doing it. I myself love buying used DVDs. Does this mean I "love to shop"? If it is felt this category is unmangable, then it should be deleted. Animedude 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per above. Cbrown1023 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This suffers from a POV problem. George J. Bendo 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unnecessary. Note that not only do all compulsive shoppers not necessarily love to shop, but all people who love to shop are not necessarily compulsive shoppers. "Compulsive" implies that there is a psychological component separate from any liking of the activity, and as such the two categories are not congruent or automatically in a category-subcategory relationship. Not that either is needed. Grutness... wha? 22:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Grutness Choalbaton 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, trivia. ( Radiant) 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - POV problem. Royalbroil  ^{Talk   Contrib} 15:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Who says that they love to shop? Do we hold these truths to be self-evident? : ) - jc37 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete-- Tlmclain | Talk 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as POV and trivia. Doczilla 02:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Our categories on fictional characters do tend to be the fictional counterports to are categories for historic figures. They serve to provide the depiction of particular subjects in fiction. Do we have any article on "compulsive shopping" or "love for shopping" to have this category relate to or it is just irrelevant? User:Dimadick
• Delete We might as well create Category:Fictional characters who like punk rock, scary movies, macaroni and cheese and your mom. -- ( trogga ) 18:22, 25 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Churches in Taiwan to Category:Christianity in Taiwan

• Rename; the category covers denominations of Christianity in Taiwan, whereas the great majority of the Category:Churches (note related CFD) tree is for physical churches. choster 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 02:30, 21 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 17:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional racists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, or split into two articles. This category is too unorganized. For one thing, it makes no disction between those who hate fictional races (those who hate klingons, etc.), and those who hate other humans of a diffrent skin tone, (those who hate blacks etc.) which is the official definition in connection with the racism page. This can be very confusing when working with works of fiction. Also, the page tends to include characters who hate humanity, who belong only in Category:Fictional characters who are opposed to humanity. Animedude 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This could suffer POV problems. I also expect millions of Marvel Comics characters to flood this category. George J. Bendo 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A category cannot give references or context. Choalbaton 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, POV. ( Radiant) 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete per nom. Olborne 14:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Listify with references/citations, if wanted. - jc37 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per discussion.-- Tlmclain | Talk 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete vague category that, without a strict definition, could include the majority of all fictional characters throughout history. Doczilla 02:03, 25 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 17:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional misogynists into Category:Fictional sexists

• Merge, Redundancy. There is no need to seperated the sexist category into two diffrent categories. Also, since there are more misogynist characters than misandrist character, this one will tend to become over populated. Animedude 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per above. Cbrown1023 20:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Determining what is misogyny suffers from POV problems. George J. Bendo 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, POV. ( Radiant) 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Listify with references/citations, if wanted. - jc37 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete-- Tlmclain | Talk 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this POV-laden category. Doczilla 02:04, 25 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Religion in 2004 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Same arguments as Category:Religion in 1852 below; overcategorization. (Also currently empty except for a subcategory that's also on CFD.) Mairi 19:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Please recycle my arguments from below. (How many other obtuse religion categories are on Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have a Category:One-eyed Norweigan-American Bishops of 1852 somewhere?) George J. Bendo 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

  You almost made my memorable comments list (definitely made me laugh), it just mightn't be as understood out of context. Keep trying. : ) - jc37 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. Doczilla 02:04, 25 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Virginia clergy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) reply
Delete or create Category:American clergy by state. Since clergy often work in multiple states (e.g. the example below - John Philip Newman - of a person being a pastor in 5 states), doesn't necessarily seem a good idea. Mairi 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This is overcategorization. I would like to point out that Pastorwayne has created a network of religious subcategories like this one. George J. Bendo 21:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcat. ( Radiant) 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcategorisation. In most denominations, clergy move around too much for this to be of use. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 15:37, 26 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete or Rename to Category:Ohio United Methodist bishops, seems a little narrow to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, seems to be for UM bishops who have any connection to Ohio, regardless of whether that connection is actually relevant to their career as bishops. One of many examples from the same contributor of overcategorization that doesn't fit into the rest of the category system. Postdlf 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no reason to divide by state. Category:Bishops of the Ohio West Episcopal Area and LCategory:Bishops of the Ohio East Episcopal Area might be warranted, as episcopal areas are the UMC equivalents of dioceses, and those are the two in Ohio. Mairi 19:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Awkward overcategorization. George J. Bendo 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename This category is for bishops with a direct Ohio connection, whereas the above Episcopal Area categories are for those who served in Ohio. Thanks. Pastorwayne 12:27, 28 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Andrew c 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:College and University Chaplains to Category:College and university chaplains, or Delete. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename - Linking university chaplains this way appears to be useful. George J. Bendo 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:University and college chaplains. Because of the multiple meanings of "college" around the world, most such categories give "university" first placement. It grates on ears in the U.S. but is still far more clear than "tertiary educational institutions." - choster 18:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to either; our categories aren't consistent on the ordering of 'university' and 'college'. Mairi 00:10, 29 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, or create Category:American clergy by state. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This is bad overcategorization. George J. Bendo 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcat. ( Radiant) 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcategorisation. In most denominations, clergy move around too much for this to be of use. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 15:36, 26 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, or Rename to Category:Ohio clergy. Do we want to create Category:American clergy by state? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This is bad overcategorization. We do not want to organize people by state, as people frequently move from state to state. George J. Bendo 22:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcat. ( Radiant) 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcategorisation. In most denominations, clergy move around too much for this to be of use. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 15:37, 26 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. Perhaps someone would like to nominate Category:Mediterranean for rename to Category:Mediterranean region per Jc37? -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Mediterranean, seems like a duplicate to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep and cleanup parent, parent represents a greater area, or similar climatic zones. Nothing should be categorized in it. Category:Mediterranean is not a good category, rebuild it as Category:Mediterranean Basin and have this as a subcat. There might be a need for a Category:Mediterranean climate but I'm not so sure. There's always Category:Mediterranean world being civilization and culture... 132.205.93.88 02:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom, by their content the two seem redundant to me. I would prefer a single cat to the multitude suggested by the anon. ( Radiant) 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Radiant. Pavel Vozenilek 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. And rename Category:Mediterranean to Category:Mediterranean Region. There is a distinct difference. - jc37 08:50, 22 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, or create Category:Guest stars by television series. Would be a fine list article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - With a few exceptions, being a guest host on Saturday Night Live is not a career-defining activity. Categories like this contribute to category clutter. (See Hank Aaron, who has made cameos on a few TV programs and has thus gained a few categories.) George J. Bendo 16:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The clutter on Hank Aaron is due to the baseball categories. Tim! 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per George J. Bendo Osomec 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not a career-defining activity for anyone, because being invited to guest host is just a sign that you have a career. Will be largely indistinguishable from a list of "Who's Who in American popular entertainment, 1976 - present." Postdlf 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As it turns out, there's already a list article, List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete so many people have hosted this show that its not really worth a category. Perhaps someone can create a page listing the hosts and airdates, but this category should go. Spookyadler 13:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Spookyadler Olborne 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Most cast lists (including Saturday Night Live guest hosts) should be kept in the main article for the show or a subarticle, not in a seperate category. Dugwiki 18:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Listify if wanted. - jc37 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify. Doczilla 02:05, 25 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Religion in Malta. Mairi 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Religion in Malta, not quite a duplicate, but probably not different enough to matter. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Hanbrook 22:43, 22 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Buildings and structures in Malta. Mairi 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Buildings and structures in Malta, as duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Osomec 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge - Buildings listed in Wikipedia should already be notable, as noted previously in another notable houses category discussion. George J. Bendo 15:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge - Avoid "Notable", "Famous", "Celebrated", etc. - jc37 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge single subcategory of 'Notable' is already a subcategory of 'building and structures' Hmains 20:48, 24 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Tiger Cup ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. The Tiger Cup has been renamed into ASEAN Football Championship since the sponsor, Tiger Beer, did not renew their sponsorship, so might as well rename the category. -- Howard the Duck 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename - The rename is fully justified. Wikipedia needs a mechanism whereby a category may be renamed when the parent article is renamed, especially when the rename is uncontroversial (as in this case). George J. Bendo 15:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:ASEAN Football Championship. Don't delete though. Recury 15:16, 21 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Religion in 1852 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) reply

• Delete - Categorizing articles on religion by year is unwieldly for organizational purpuses and may contribute to category clutter. This category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 14:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Categorization by year is good for things like albums, books, movies, and disasters. In my opinion, it is not appropriate for religion and would only lead to clutter. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Postdlf 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 20:45, 20 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirect. × Meegs 20:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Canonists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Category:Canonists: redirect to Category:Canon lawyers. Charles Matthews 09:49, 20 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Saturnian jazz musicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) reply
Odd category that probably never grow beyond its one article ( Sun Ra). Wafulz 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This looks like categorization based on the alter ego that Sun Ra created for himself. (He claims to be from Saturn.) It's humorous and worth noting on Wikipedia, but not with a category. George J. Bendo 09:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless we have objectively verifiable proof that he is in fact from Saturn :P ( Radiant) 09:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete When I first saw this I thought it meant "Saturnian jazz" was like a style in the manner of Space rock or Saturnian (poetry). When I realized what it was I put it in Category:Jazz musicians by nationality to make it less visible and because at the time I was unwilling to spoil the joke. Still even if it's his belief it is a joke as a category. I'll miss it a bit, but not enough to vote keep.-- T. Anthony 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Still is there a category or list for people who believed they are from other planets?-- T. Anthony 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep, stop anti-Saturnian discrimination =(((((((. Lankiveil 14:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC). reply

Did anyone else claim to be a Saturnian? If so Category:Saturnians should be created before we specify their occupations "g"-- T. Anthony 14:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unexpandable and a probable hoax. -- Omicronpersei8 ( talk) 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It's unexpandable, but Sun Ra truly did claim to be from Saturn. [1] [2] There's good reason to think he truly believed this claim and in that sense it's more of an oddball belief than a hoax. However no one else seems to have claimed it so not useful.-- T. Anthony 07:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Yes, but since this is an encyclopedia, we deal with facts rather than opinions. Him saying he's Saturnian doesn't make it so. Several convicted criminals have said they were innocent, but we nevertheless categorize them as convicted criminals. ( Radiant) 08:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not foolish enough to think his claim is remotely real. I'm just saying "hoax" implies that the person is intending to trick or deceive. If that's what he was doing with the whole Saturnian thing it's a hoax. However if he actually believed he was from Saturn it's not really a hoax in the normal sense. It's something more like a delusion, like John Nash thinking the aliens had made him Emperor of Antarctica. However we wouldn't have "Category:Emperors of Antarctica" either and I voted in favor of deletion here. I'm just saying something can be false without being a hoax.-- T. Anthony 09:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment this category might actually have many potential members (all fictional, of course). Although a broader category (Extraterrestrial musicians) might be more appropriate. Xtifr _tälk 13:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this joke. Doczilla 02:05, 25 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was it's gone. -- RobertG ♬ talk 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Xbox 360 emulators ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Reasoning for delete, empty category that will never have pages in it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.196.236 ( talk • contribs)

• Delete, we don't create categories before articles that would populate them. -/- Warren 06:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Olborne 14:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Won't be populated for a while. -- Wafulz 17:19, 21 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:London Travelcard zone 1 etc. the wub "?!" 13:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Zone 1 to Category:London zone 1
• Category:Zone 2 to Category:London zone 2
• Category:Zone 3 to Category:London zone 3
• Category:Zone 4 to Category:London zone 4
• Category:Zone 5 to Category:London zone 5
• Category:Zone 6 to Category:London zone 6

Rename to mention London. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Suggestion Should these not be Category:London Travelcard zone 1 etc as this would be more accurate. I am more than happy to see them renamed, I only created the last two to match the others. If everyone else prefers Category:London zone 1 etc then I don't think that would cause major problems. Regan123 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:London Travelcard zone 1, etc per Regan123. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify. This is not wikitravel. If kept, rename to Category:London Travelcard zone 1 etc. Vegaswikian 00:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Promptly delete and recreate per you guys :)  Glen  01:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename zone 2 could be anything, anywhere. London zone 1 is unique to public transport, but may not be that obvious to outsiders. Secretlondon 04:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Alternate idea. This rename suggestion still doesn't describe what the contents of the category are. How about something like Category:London Underground stations in Zone 1? -/- Warren 06:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The zones cover Undergorund, DLR, Trams, National Rail and London Buses with "zonal" fares being placed on all train services from 2007. Regan123 12:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, we're not wikitravel and this is not a useful categorization. ( Radiant) 11:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

It is a different cat compared with by borough/by type. The zones are an integral part of the transport network in London. The zones also go beyond the boundaries of Greater London into Kent, Surrey and Essex. Regan123 12:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete This just isn't useful. If one wants to understand London's transport zones, what one needs to do it to look at a map, not a six separate lists. Osomec
• Rename to Category:London Travelcard zone 1 or even Stations in London Travelcard zone 1, as this is obviously a useful way of categorising London underground stations. Tim! 17:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The term "station" was explicitly rejected for articles on the stops on Tramlink which come under the categories. Timrollpickering 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:London Travelcard zone 1 etc... By the way are there categories for Zones A-D? Timrollpickering 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't immediately see the benefit of having things categorized by zone - things in the list might be on opposite sides of London. I also don't think the categories are well defined. What do they cover: Tube stations, railway stations, tram stations, bus stops, shops.... If they are going to be retained we need to decide what is in the category before worrying about the name.-- Mark S ( talk) 08:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • A better name can surely be found, but I don't see an obvious problem with having things categorised by zone - things in outer zones are more suburban, things in inner zones are more well, inner. They do (to a point) share characteristics. It also makes a handy proxy for categorising things by distance for Charing Cross, which is traditional. Morwen - Talk 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide - and this wouldn't be much help if it was. Olborne 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep or rename - I can't see the harm in these categories. If a renaming is definitely needed then Category:London transport in zone x might do the trick. I prefer the current simplest naming, there does not appear to be anything these need to be disambiguated with? MRSC • Talk 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is an inferior way to present this information. Hanbrook 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand the problem or how using TfL's zones to categorise these stations is "inferior". The articles are also categorised by London borough. The zones are also significant (zone 1 more so than the others). Why do these have to be removed? Wikipedia is not paper, these are factually accurate and only add to the encyclopedia. MRSC • Talk 17:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but rename to Category:London Travelcard zone 1, etc per Regan123. Travelcard zones are a very useful geographic division of London, widely understod by Londoners. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 15:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: unencyclopedic, because Travelcard zones are imposed externally on pre-existing things to suit the current economic purposes of a commercial organisation. It's a little bit like categorising airports as Category:Ryanair destinations by adult return fare from London Heathrow. And these zones are already more usefully documented in the articles listed on the LULZones template. If kept, rename to Category:London Travelcard zone 1 etc, per others. -- RobertG ♬ talk 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename: As per my suggestion above (this is not a duplicate vote). Regan123 22:59, 28 November 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 17:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Australian murdered children to Category:Murdered Australian children

• Rename -- as per naming conventions of existing categories. -- Longhair\ ^talk 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment, See also the November 4th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - "Australian" needs to be written second to demonstrate that it is modifying "children" and not "murdered". George J. Bendo 09:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per George J. Bendo Osomec 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per above. Cbrown1023 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, "Australian Murdered Children" sounds as if it's a type of cooked dish. Support as per above. Lankiveil 02:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC). reply
• Rename, as per above, the primary concept is murder, not australian. Ansell 06:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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.