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

The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto  ^talk 06:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Poorly named cat with only four members. Mildly interesting cat, though Edison number isn't as famous as Erdős number, but not interesting enough to warrant a four-member cat. -- Quuxplusone 23:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete List them in Edison's article. Golfcam 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Adds more category clutter than it's worth.-- ragesoss 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as it's an empty category now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. Funnybunny 04:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as proposed. Alan Liefting 23:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. — akghetto  ^talk 06:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Should be merged into Category:Lists of comics. -- ZeroOne 19:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge as per nom. Osomec 21:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge ditto. Funnybunny 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto  ^talk 06:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Being named in any song in any genre in any language in any period etc. seems too broad to be useful to me. Surely Underground stations in popular culture is better handled with an explanatory list. - choster 18:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Osomec 21:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• listify to something with less capitals in its title. That way we can find out something about the songs. ive added two more (both by Donovan). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. Funnybunny 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, categorycruft. Pavel Vozenilek 06:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. — akghetto  ^talk 06:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As fame is subjective, and significance/notability is implied by the existence of an article, I do not see a need for the former category and suggest its contents be merged into the latter. choster 17:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Osomec 21:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge They mean the same thing. Funnybunny 04:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Pavel Vozenilek 06:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto  ^talk 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think categorizing people according to their sports and entertainment fancies is a useful way of grouping them together. If it can be confirmed that various people are Everton fans and this information is deemed important, I suggest we listify. I have visions of half the celebrities in the 'pedia ending up in Category:Los Angeles Lakers fans or Category:New York Yankees fans otherwise. choster 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not a useful scheme. Osomec 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Soccer players should be categorised by team if it is a big team, but not fans. Golfcam 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no a defining category. Pavel Vozenilek 06:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. — akghetto  ^talk 06:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Category about articles for a non-notable fantasy series, as per the CfD for Category:Ruin Mist races. See the following related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruin Mist. Delete -- D e ath phoenix 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Osomec 21:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom Thatcher131 05:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep existing category. — akghetto  ^talk 07:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The new name fits in better with the rest of the sub-categories on the page. Plus it removes hobbies from the category which I don't believe fit. JeffW 17:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Category:Sportspeople. All the non-philatelists and non-pranksters in this category are sportspeople, in my opinion. (But all the college players aren't in sports "occupations.")-- Mike Selinker 17:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Sportspeople is a sub-catagory of this one and after the name change I was going to propose that it be merged into this one. I find the term Sportspeople kinda weird. It's not a term I've ever heard in ordinary conversation, but I see your point about amateur athletics not being an occupation (maybe that's why the original name includes hobbies). I'm not against this suggestion, but let's see what the others have to say. -- JeffW 18:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Executives and the like are not sportspeople. Osomec 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • But do you oppose People in sports occupations? That was the original suggestion. -- JeffW 21:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I oppose any change. Sportspeople are competitors and it is essential to retain that category. Osomec 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
      • OK, you're opposed to merging Sportspeople with whatever we end up calling this catagory. It doesn't sound like you would object to keeping the current organization but just renaming the top category to People in sports occupations. Am I correct that it's the current two level organization that you like with executives and the like on the top level and Sportspeople on the second level?
        • Okay. Keep Category:Sportspeople, but rename the parent Category:People in sports occupations. 62.31.55.223 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

It's interesting that in the Occupations catagory Sports occupations only has these ancillary jobs. The actual competitors aren't anywhere to be found. So as far as the Occupations category is concerned Baseball player isn't an occupation. -- JeffW 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose There are many hobbies that aren't sports. Golfcam 03:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The proposal is for the new catagory to be sports only with no hobbies! Was I that unclear? -- JeffW 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

OK. Deep breath. Would it be better if I proposed the name People associated with sports? And specify that the two hobby sub-catagories will be moved out of the catagory as soon as the new name is in place? -- JeffW 04:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• No opinion on the proposal immediately above, but Category:Sportspeople must stay. If it sounds odd to some Americans, that will be an educational experience for them on the existence and validity of international variations of English, just as having Category:Sports rather than Category:Sport gives the same (much less needed) lesson to Britons etc. Choalbaton 23:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Got to keep the category Sportspeople. It's the direct drop down from People. What goes in it could be open to debate, but the existence of the category shouldn't be, in my opinion.-- Mike Selinker 01:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Before this times out and the admins have to make a decision let me try to explain why I don't believe hobbies belong in this category. It is because hobbies belong to the super-category. I wasn't there when Category:People by occupation was created but they put this as the description of the category: "This category classifies people by their notable occupations: professions, businesses or hobbies." I think the reason that hobbies was included is that many occupations, like carpenter, can be a hobby as well and there is no reason to separate them. But Category:People known in connection with sports and hobbies causes hobbies not to belong in the main category any longer.

In addition, I don't believe that the name Category:People in sports occupations excludes amatuer athletes (sorry, sportspeople) in the same way that Category:People by occupation doesn't exclude hobbyists. Just include in the category description that amateurs are includeded. -- JeffW 05:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. — akghetto  ^talk 07:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Company logos seems clearer, the subcats can still be by industry. ::Supergolden:: 16:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't tell if this is a good idea or not because the Logos page is such a mess. Because of all the graphic each page takes forever to load. And because there are so many individual logos under the articles there are dozens of pages for just the C's, so each page (except the first) will only contain at most one sub-category. Can someone move all the logos out of the main category and into the subcatagories, if not out of the category pages altogether? -- JeffW 18:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if this can be done - I would like to think it can, and I would do it if I knew how, but all these images are tagged with the {{logo}} copyright template, which automatically puts them in Category:Logos. This cat desperately needs to be subcategorised, but I dont know if there is a way round the template. ::Supergolden:: 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Use the new {{ logo2}}, which has the same text as {{ logo}} but doesn't force everything into the main category - work is underway to recategorise the logos. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 11:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. The existing name is excruciating clumsy. Osomec 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as proposed. — akghetto  ^talk 06:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Same thing, as far as I can tell. Suggest merge into the more populated one. - TexasAndroid 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge as per nom. "Category:Television movies" was already merged to "Category:Television films" following a CFD proposal in December. "Film" rather than "movie" is the standard word on WP. Valiantis 15:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Her Pegship 21:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse Merge. The proper and technical industry-created name for the product being categorized here is and always has been "TV Movie" or "Made-for-TV Movie". This would trump the normative use of the word "film" - which, in any case, pertains to cinematic rather than televisional product. 12.73.198.166 01:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment According to whom? This argument was made during the previous successful rename proposal I allude to above and equally little evidence was provided. Valiantis 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Response. You might consult the definitive book on the topic, "Movies Made For Television" by Alvin H. Marill. You can also just use common sense to realize that a television program, whatever its format, is not a theatrical motion picture; and that recent TV-Movies are not only regularly processed from a film master to videotape (or, even more recently, further on to DVD) but also include some sequences actually photographed directly on videotape. 12.73.195.170 21:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not familiar with the book in question, but the use of the word "movie" in the title suggests that this is an overview of American television films, as does this collection of reviewers comments. This is not American Wikipedia. In addition, many films that screened first on TV in one country had theatrical releases in other countries - Duel (film) is a well-known example - so it is clearly not straightforward to distinguish between "television programs" and "theatrical motion pictures". In any case, the medium on which a film is shot is not the defining characteristic of whether it is a film or not. Numerous films that have had theatrical releases have been shot on DV (for example).
• Comment. Before voting it may be worthwhile to consider the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)/poll vote. Vegaswikian 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You know, I just voted in this poll before realizing the poll was closed. What was the conclusion of this poll?-- Mike Selinker 01:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The guideline is now in place. It affects this discussion with the point that 'For Made-for-TV movies, use (film)' which appears to support the suggested change. 19:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Based on guidline. Vegaswikian 19:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Latinus 12:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

University of Liverpool is the correct title. For pages Liverpool University already redirects to University of Liverpool. Shrew 10:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support. It is indeed the correct title. -- RFBailey 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support definitely, had planned on suggesting this myself. 21:43, 27 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Latinus 12:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above for Liverpool University Shrew 10:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support as above. -- RFBailey 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support yep. chowells 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was oppose delete. — akghetto  ^talk 06:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

There's never going to be more than 1 article here. The college itself may be noteworthy enough for an article, but not for its very own category. A Clown in the Dark 03:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Simply not true. Look at category:University of North Dakota.-- Mike Selinker 07:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. It is necessary, and will grow. I just threw-in their current president and two of their facilities. × Meegs 09:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The alumni listed in the article should also be added. Golfcam 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Actually, Golfcam, we haven't been doing that much. Some colleges have a category like Category:Michigan State University alumni, and that's cool, but without that I don't think it's a good idea to clutter up the college category with a whole bunch of alumni. Imagine if Category:Harvard University did that.-- Mike Selinker 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment You didn't spot Category:Harvard alumni then? There are around a hundred university alumni category, and that is surely just the start of what will one day be a set of thousands. It is isn't clutter when they are in their own subcategory. Choalbaton 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, I know. I was responding to Golfcam's suggestion that they be in the main category for the school.-- Mike Selinker 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose It is an emerging standard to have categories for each university. Choalbaton 00:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was oppose rename. — akghetto  ^talk 06:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This isn't well known, at least outside the U.S. I had no idea what to expect to find in it when I came across it in Category:Science and technology in the United States. Rename to the full name. Choalbaton 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC). reply

• Oppose; better known by acronym. (Also speaking from outside the US.) Alai 03:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Aren't we trying to remove the abbreviations from the category names? The suggested category name would match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian 05:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak oppose. I generally favor expanding acronyms and trying to matching category names to article names, but I have to make an exception when the full name is this much less-known than its acronym. I'd say the same about Category:NASA. × Meegs 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak oppose As per Meegs. I'm also from outside the US and DARPA is a term I'm familiar with, whereas the unabbreviated form brings a shrug of non-recognition. Valiantis 15:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support This is not anywhere near as famous as NASA. Osomec 21:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Right, but it's much less famous spelled out than it is as DARPA.-- Mike Selinker 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Same reasons as Mike above. — Dale Arnett 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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