Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 23: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:20, 23 November 2006 editPostdlf (talk \| contribs)Administrators91,191 edits →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:26, 23 November 2006 edit undoGrika (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,513 edits →[]: keep-conditionallyNext edit →
Line 339:		Line 339:
	*'''Weak Keep''', and improve.		*'''Weak Keep''', and improve.
	*'''keep''' for all the keep reasons listed above ] 21:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)		*'''keep''' for all the keep reasons listed above ] 21:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
			*'''Keep''', but agree that it should be reserved only for people that, in one way or another, described ''themselves'' as anti-Jew. <font color=green>]</font> ] 21:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

	====] ====		====] ====

Revision as of 21:26, 23 November 2006

< November 22	November 24 >

November 23

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Australian television actors by series

Category:Australian television actors by series to Category:Actors by Australian television series

Rename, inaccurate as per the similar British category below; the actors are organized by Australian television series, rather than the television series somehow being organized by Australian actor (Category:Australian actors appearing in CSI: Miami??). Postdlf 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename per nom. Tim! 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:British television actors by series

Category:British television actors by series to Category:Actors by British television series

Rename, it's the television series that are British, not necessarily the actors. As the subcategories of this are organized by series, there is no way for it to capture the nationality of the actors themselves. Postdlf 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename per nom. Tim! 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Film villains

Delete - This is an overly broad category that should contain an average of at least one character for every movie ever made. The resulting list of articles will have little to do with each other. Moreover, determining who should be characterized as a "villian" may be difficult for movies with complex storylines and characterization. The category should therefore be deleted. George J. Bendo 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Err, nah, this is a pretty important category. A film villain would be a character who is portrayed as villainous in the movie. Pretty unambiguous. Minor grey area characters probably don't even have articles. I'm all for deletion of the subjective ones but this deletion drive should know its limits. ~Zythe 20:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actors by television anthology series

Delete - For most actors, appearing in one of these series' episodes is not a career-defining activity. The categories will only contribute to category clutter. George J. Bendo 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional interdimensional travelers

Delete - Back in the 1980's, when I was a teenager who collected Marvel comics, it seemed like every superhero made a trip to an alternate dimension every once in a while, at least to get away from all the chaos on Earth. Since I expect that comics have not changed since then, I suspect that every comic book character will have travelled interdimensionally at some point in their careers. This category therefore fails to be a defining characteristic for a comic book (or other sci-fi/fantasy) character, and it should be deleted. George J. Bendo 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Seems like an appropriate category. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, traveler implies frequency or profession. For example, all Charmed characters have crossed dimensions, but only a few characters regularly make the jump (e.g. Sliders characters or Illyria (Buffyverse)) - harmless. ~Zythe 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ivor Novello Award winners

Delete - This minor music-related award is probably worth noting in its Misplaced Pages entry, but it is not notable enough to warrant creating a category for the recipients. Winning this award is not a career-defining activity, as it may be one of many minor music awards that the recipients (people such as Paul McCartney and Celine Dion) earn during their careers. (This is in contrast to something like the Grammy awards, which is career-defining.) The category should be listified and deleted. George J. Bendo 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep. The Ivor Novellos are not pulp media awards. Selected and awarded within the music industry they are entirely merit-worthy. They may not be "career-defining" whatever that means, but they are recognition of merit, and the recipients themselves usually being notable makes the general class of winners notable. Cain Mosni 19:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- What I mean by "career-defining" is that people commonly associate the person with winning the award or that the award represents a pinnacle in an individual's career. People will use the phrase "Grammy-award winner Celine Dion", but they will not use the phrase "Ivor Novello Award winner Celine Dion". (And why do you use the word "speedy"? That implies that the action is uncontroversial or is only a minor technical issue. That is not the case here.) George J. Bendo 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - I use "speedy" precisely for that reason. And as for the "uncommon" use of the phrase "Novello award winner" try it in Google... The Novellos have been going for over 50 years. Lots of very notable people have won them. I believe, honestly, that you underestimate their importance. And it is, sort of, a technical issue. You suggest a list instead, which only invites cruft. At least as a category, only the people worthy of note by WP standards get listed. Hence all round, personally, I think it is clear-cut and a candidate for speedy. If it were controversial, then it wouldn't be speedy, by definition. Please don't think I'm taking a pop at you personally, but I really do think that the nomination is wrong here, and hopefully that others will quickly agree. I'm only stating my opinion. Cain Mosni 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    - I understand your viewpoint, but I would still like to see if the majority of editors here agree with you. I still disagree with you, I still think the category is not needed, and I would like to see this nomination discussed further. (I am also not taking this personally.) I also did a search on "Novello Award winner" on Google enclosed in quotes and turned up 954 hits (but Google only displays the first 119 by default). For comparison, a search on "Grammy award winner" on Google enclosed in quotes turns up 313,000 hits (with Google only displaying the first 758 by default). George J. Bendo 20:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Interesting and encyclopedic content. Otto4711 20:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Actors by television series subcategories to include recurring actors only

Rename all series-specific categories from " actors" to " recurring actors" and prune accordingly to eliminate all one-time guest stars. There are too many subcategories to list here, but all will be tagged and pointed to this discussion. This change will provide some needed relevance and focus to these categories. While many would like to see them pruned further or eliminated entirely, please do not vote in opposition as it is not clear that there is consensus to go beyond this proposal, so we should take it one step at a time. Otherwise, we'll continue to be stuck with these categories in the worst possible form. The only people opposing should be those who actually want one-time guest stars included in these categories. Postdlf 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I would prefer to see a "Thingy main cast" category (or something similar) and a "Thingy recurring actor" category (or something similar) to separate people in the main cast from people who infrequently appear on a TV series. For example, Adam West would appear in "Batman (TV series) main cast", whereas Burgess Meredith would appear in "Batman (TV series) recurring actor". Otherwise, I think that this may be a good solution to the TV actor categorization problem. I suspect that this compromise would also satisfy Tim! George J. Bendo 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment George is not wrong ;) Tim! 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would not be dictated by nor inconsistent with this suggested renaming. My main question is whether there a consistent and clear definition of who is part of the "main cast" of a show, as in only those who appear during the opening credits? Postdlf 19:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Perhaps people who appear in all (or at least 90%) of episodes for one season of a TV series could be counted as "main cast". People who appear in three or more episodes but do not meet the "main cast" criteria can be counted as "recurring actors". George J. Bendo 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Can someone explain to me why all of these categories shouldn't be deleted and the main cast, recurring actors, and guest actor appearances turned into lists? -- Samuel Wantman 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Because Sean Connery belongs somewhere in the James Bond category tree, because there is no consensus to delete them, because lists suck? Tim! 19:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Film series categories are not part of this; only television series categories. Postdlf 20:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    - OK, William Shatner in Star Trek? Tim! 20:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Spoken-word performer categories are not part of this. Postdlf 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I still prefer listifying, but this may be a worthwhile compromise that makes most people happy. However, I have fears that it could still cause category clutter for a few actors. If a majority of people still prefer deletion and listifying, I would support that option. George J. Bendo 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  - You could always vote in the alternative, so state that you prefer deletion, but if there is no consensus for that, renaming is the next best alternative. Otherwise, the split is going to confuse the closing admin, and the categories will be kept as is which few (if any) people really want. Postdlf 20:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep/close - last CFD was in September.. the suggested rename looks exceedingly silly as not every actor is recurring, they may be a main star. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that the discussion that reached no consensus? Because it reached no consensus, we are still discussing this issue. We should continue the discussion for now, or else it will be a problem later. George J. Bendo 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

- There was a keep majority, so that should command at least some respect. Tim! 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're either confused, or you didn't read the above text very carefully. The prior CFD, which sought to delete all actors by series categories, is irrelevant to this renaming proposition, which only seeks to narrow the categories to exclude one-time guest-stars. "Recurring" just means anyone who appears more than once, which would obviously include "main stars." Postdlf 20:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"recurring" is to ambiguous - I have spoken. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete all (first preference) or Rename all using (Series) main cast (second choice). George J. Bendo 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Could you at least state additionally "rename per nom as preferred to keeping as is"? Please understand we're just going to get bogged down as "no consensus" with nothing accomplished if we try to push too far all at once. Postdlf 20:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Rename is that's what it takes to stop the baby being thrown out with the dish water. Tim! 20:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:M&M Boys

Delete - This is a nickname that has been applied to two different pairs of notable baseball players. The players and the nickname are already discussed in M&M Boys. The category is overkill and only contributes to category clutter on the baseball players' pages. It should be deleted. George J. Bendo 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Oz actors

Category:Oz actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per precedents on "Batman actors" and "Spider-Man actors" categories, and per other pending listing on similar actors by adaptations categories; this is merely a big dumping ground for every actor who ever participated in any adaptation in any form of media of any of the L. Frank Baum Land of Oz books. This includes everything from the classic Judy Garland Wizard of Oz to The Wiz musical to the The Muppets' Wizard of Oz television movie, and includes lead actors, bit part actors, and voice actors, none of whom obviously had to actually work on the same adaptation to appear together in this category (compare, for example, Oliver Hardy with Quentin Tarantino—the only time in life you are likely to be asked to do so). Trivia. Listify if you're really bored. Postdlf 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - The precedent set by the superhero categories and the previous debate on those categories is sufficient justification. George J. Bendo 20:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Film protagonists

Delete but Keep Category:Disney protagonists - This category is overly broad. It should potentially contain at least one character from every film ever made. The connections between characters in this category is meaningless. It should be deleted. The subcategory, Category:Disney protagonists seems more limited, and being a Disney protagonist seems to have more of a special cultural meaning. Moreover, Disney protagonists probably have more in common with each other than the protagonists from randomly-selected non-Disney categories, so the Disney subcategory could be kept. George J. Bendo 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete All including the Disney subcategory - This is category cruft. If you think the Disney category has value turn it into a list and add some text that explains the cultural meaning. As a category it seems to add nothing and just adds clutter. -- Samuel Wantman 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hawaiian bishops

Delete - This category is vaguely defined, as it could encompass both bishops who have either lived or worked in Hawaii. The consensus in previous category debates has been to organize bishops by diocese rather than by the state in which they originate from or the state in which they are working. Since a category has already been created for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu and since no other religious organizations have bishops in Hawaii, this category is not needed and can be deleted. (Also note that Category:Bishops of Honolulu is nominated for deletion at the time of this writing.) George J. Bendo 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Postdlf 21:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Red Bank Theatres

Merge into Category:Theatres in New Jersey, or Rename to Category:Theatres in Red Bank, New Jersey. -- ProveIt 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge into the state's theatres category. Red Bank does not need its own. TTV <super>(T)</super> _C M) 18:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Bridges by date

There's a whole category tree of "bridges completed in <year>". However, it seems to me that bridges are a kind of architecture, and no other kind of building has categories like this. Instead, we have a lot of "<year> architecture" cats. I'd say the appropriate thing to do is merging all bridge cats into subcats of Category:Years in architecture. That'd be a lot of work but we have bots for a reason. (Radiant) 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Are users going to look at something like Tower Bridge, see that it was built in 1894, and wonder what other bridges were built in 1894? If they wanted this information, would they rather navigate a category tree or view a "Timeline of Bridge Building"? George J. Bendo 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- What if they want to see what other buildings are built in 1894? Why does no other class of buildings have such a structure as bridges do? (Radiant) 16:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep - Sorry Radiant, I don't understand the problem you are trying to solve. As someone who works on bridge articles I find these categories very useful. Merging them into architecture makes them much less useful. I suspect you will hear from other members of the Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Bridges that feel similarly. Bridges may technically be architecture but they are different enough in their design, construction, and engineering to be in a different category. There are lots of bridge categories that have corresponding architecture categories. I hope you don't want those all merged as well. If you think that bridges should be in the architecure categories, I would consider having them duplicated there instead of merging them.-- Samuel Wantman 19:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Shouldn't all the subcategories be tagged? Otherwise, it is unlikely that many of the people who use these categories will see the tag on the top of the hierarchy. -- Samuel Wantman 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Johnny the Homicidal Maniac

This is a list of characters in a alternative comic strip. There's already an article for the strip, where characters can be discussed/listed. Suggesting deletion as non-notable category. Is every one of maybe a couple thousand comic strips going to get their own category? -- Tenebrae 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep unless the articles are deleted or merged. Tim! 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Impostor pretenders

I'm not sure what this refers to. People who pretend to be an impostor? People who impose on the regular pretenders? At the very least this should be renamed, and unless someone can explain the purpose I'd say delete it. (Radiant) 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - This is the intersection of imposters (people impersonating someone else) and pretenders (people making claims to regal positions such as the queen or king of a country). An explanation is needed in the category, but it should be kept. George J. Bendo 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, that's a good explanation, but can we maybe change the name to something clearer? (Radiant) 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Mysterious musicians

"Musicians who have withheld biographical information, usually to create a mystery as to their identity or origin" - that sounds pretty vague to me and I kind of fail to see the point. (Radiant) 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - The criteria are simply too strange. George J. Bendo 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - seems pretty straightforward to me. A category for musicians who have obscured their identities to create an air of mystery. Interesting and encyclopedic. "Too strange" is not a legitimate reason for deleting. Otto4711 17:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also, where's Morrissey? Sob. ~Zythe 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Vague, requires explanation. Postdlf 21:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Rolling Thunder Pictures films

Delete, Not a defining characteristic. I don't think it makes sense to categorize films by distributer. For example, Criterion doesn't have a category. -- ProveIt 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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 withdrawn by nom. (Radiant) 15:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship

Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship - Duplicates Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. - jc37 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Isn't that what you meant?--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge a category to a project page? Unless I'm misunderstanding you? - jc37 09:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Moved from User-CFD since these categorize Misplaced Pages pages, not user pages. Dragons flight 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This cat is attached to the standard closing template for an unsuccessful RFA, so it is automatically maintained, unlike the list pages that have to be manually updated. Since it is automatically maintained and useful to some people, I don't see any reason to get rid of this. Misplaced Pages is not paper, after all. Dragons flight 14:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Withdraw - I just ask that they be removed from being subcats of (subcats of) Category:Wikipedians. - jc37 14:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, I've removed the improper cat. Dragons flight 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then feel free to close : ) - jc37 14:27, 23 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.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nom. (Radiant) 15:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Successful requests for adminship

Category:Successful requests for adminship - As there are only 125 members, and over 1000 admins, and because this duplicates the List of administrators... - jc37 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - jc37 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly a duplicate.--Mike Selinker 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Moved from User-CFD since these categorize Misplaced Pages pages, not user pages. Dragons flight 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is not a duplicate of List of administrators since it links to RFA pages and the administrators page does not. It is more nearly a duplicate of Misplaced Pages:Recently created admins, but that list is chronological not alphabetical, which makes it harder to scan through for a particular admin. This cat is attached to the standard closing template for a successful RFA, so it is automatically maintained. That also explains why it only covers 125, no one has gone through and added it to RFAs closed before the category was created (which incidentally is explained on the top of the category page). Since it is automatically maintained and useful to some people, I don't see any reason to get rid of this. Misplaced Pages is not paper, after all. Dragons flight 14:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Withdraw - I just ask that they be removed from being subcats of (subcats of) Category:Wikipedians. - jc37 14:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, I've removed the improper cat. Dragons flight 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then feel free to close : ) - jc37 14:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Computer and video game themes

Mostly redundant with Category:Computer and video game genres; the cat contains genres and a bunch of weird categorizations that don't seem all that useful. Merge. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a strong distinction between gaming themes and genres. Genres are a style of play; themes are the subject matter. Marasmusine 13:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, but it's not really a meaningful categorization. Most cats in "themes" are in fact genres, and the others aren't particularly useful. (Radiant) 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dinosaurs in computer games

The parent category contains several genres in computer games, e.g. humor, horror and fantasy, and then it has this, which basically is "computer games that have a dinosaur in it". Seems hardly a genre to me, nor a meaningful categorization. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Non of the categories in Category:Computer and video game themes are genres. They are an extension of Category:Gaming themes and themed category trees such as Category:Dinosaurs in fiction. Actual genres of computer game (puzzle, action, etc) are in Category:Computer and video game genres. Marasmusine 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - How about a category of "spaceships in video games", "cars in video games", "birds in video games", "aliens in video games", "monkeys in video games" etc etc etc. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's just a continuation of Category:Dinosaurs in fiction. Marasmusine 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- We do have Category:Robot films, and probably lots of others that are similar. I'm not saying whether we should, just noting that we do. At a minimum, the category is poorly named, suggesting that it houses articles on the dinosaurs that appear in computer games, rather than being about computer games that feature dinosaurs. Postdlf 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ninja games

I don't think "computer games containing ninja" is all that meaningful a categorization. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per my comment under dinosaurs above. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Futuristic games

Should be "futuristic computer and video games", as it's not about e.g. board games. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say delete this category all together. Futuristic games are going to be either science-fiction, post-apocalyptic or fantasy anyway; all of which have their own categories. Marasmusine 13:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - The term "futuristic" is vague, and the category probably duplicates other categories. George J. Bendo 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Delete as appropriate. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Serious games

Again, should be "serious computer and video games", and I'm not so sure this is meaningful. Any non-humoristic game is serious, no? (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the name change; but if you read the main article you'll see why this has its own category. Perhaps merge with Category:Educational computer and video games; although even then there's nothing to stop a educational game from being non-serious. Marasmusine 13:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep but Rename as something - This is a valid genre of computer games actually used for educational or training purposes rather than entertainment. However, the name of the category and its parent article are ~~silly~~ vague; they fail to communicate what the category is about. A name change is needed, but I do not know what to suggest. George J. Bendo 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Satirical computer and video games

Merge; redundant with Category:Comedy computer and video games. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support; Non of these games are particularly satirical anyway. Marasmusine 13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge - The difference between satire and comedy is probably too gray to warrant keeping separate categories. George J. Bendo 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Piracy computer and video games

Merge; redundant with Category:Naval computer and video games. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose; Many pirate-themed games are not naval games; The Monkey Island series, for example. Also as subcategory of the various themed category trees; Pirates in fiction, Dinosaurs in fiction, etc. Marasmusine 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my comments under Dinosaur above. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:School-themed computer and video games

Merge; redundant with Category:Educational computer and video games. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. School-themed computer games are not educational games. Educational games attempt to teach something; whereas the nominated category is a theme. Marasmusine 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my comments under Dinosaur above. - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Computer and video games based on mythology

Rename to "mythology computer and video games" to match sibling cats. Also, it's probably redundant to Category:Fantasy computer and video games. I know fantasy is not the same as mythology, but in computer gaming the two are conflated. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fantasy computer and video games isn't a particularly useful category for navigating computer games; if anything that category should be subcategorized even further. Marasmusine 13:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And I think the proposed rename is what I had originally called it anyway; the current name was decided on through a previous CfD. Marasmusine 13:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional victims of abuse

Not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This is a common character trait used across many genres. The category ultimately brings together many articles with little in common with each other. Moreover, the perception of what is "abuse" and how it should be used (to indicate serious abuse or comedic abuse) suffers from POV problems. (Does Daffy Duck belong in this category?) George J. Bendo 13:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Popeye and Bluto come to mind... - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional vegans and Category:Fictional overeaters

A character's eating habits are trivia. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete both - Both categories will eventually bring together characters from many genres that have little to do with each other. The fictional overeaters category also suffers from POV problems, as it appears to indiscriminately include anyone with an appetite. George J. Bendo 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete overeaters, Weak keep for vegans. It's been my experience that vegans tend to have more in common than just dietary choice so I don't think that the fear of gathering far-flung genres together is too terribly compelling. Otto4711 14:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete both - jc37 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Unemotional fictional characters

Characters that "don't usually show emotion". Not objectively defined, and not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This suffers from POV problems, and "not showing emotion" may be liberally interpreted. George J. Bendo 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. "Unemotional" is also meaningless without a context, and most fictional characters will appear unemotional compared to those within soap operas, or it will group otherwise completely dissimilar characters who are viewed as detached or unemotional within their respective fictional works (think Bartleby and Spock). It will also be a dumping ground for most robots, non-humanoid aliens, etc. Postdlf 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional pacifists

Not a defining characteristic, and hard to define objectively. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Some people are known mainly for their pacifism. Choalbaton 13:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Whether or not the label "pacifism" can be applied to someone suffers from POV problems. George J. Bendo 20:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional traitors and Category:Fictional rebels

Not objectively defined. Fiction is rife with people who change sides, break their words or go against their nation. Does that make them all rebels or traitors in a meaningful way? (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional sexists

Not a defining characteristic, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This suffers from POV problems. George J. Bendo 13:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Paranoid fictional characters

Not a defining characteristic, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - The label "paranoid" suffers from POV problems. Besides, no one is paranoid if that monster in the closet really exists and is GOING TO EAT YOU!!! George J. Bendo 13:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional stereotypes

A stereotype itself isn't fictional. Many fictional characters conform to one stereotype or other, grouping them together like this is meaningless. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Support; this is a nonsense category. Marasmusine 13:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This looks like a way to circumvent recreating all of the other "Fictional thingy" categories that have been nominated for deletion, such as "Fictional nerds", "Fictional goths", etc. Those categories were not useful, and this one is worse. George J. Bendo 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional lottery winners

Er, right. (Radiant) 12:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? :> Marasmusine 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Silly, trivial cross-genre overcategorization. George J. Bendo 13:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep as no reason given for nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Futurama actors

Delete - This category contains both regular Futurama voice actors and anyone who has ever appeared as a guest voice actor on the show. (This means that virtually anyone who has played one of the floating heads in Futurama will be listed in this category.) Being a guest voice actor on Futurama is not a career-defining activity (as most individuals already need to have well-defined careers to be on the show), so the category should be deleted. Both regular and guest voice actors should be listed in Futurama articles if desired. George J. Bendo 08:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
comment this is the 2nd nomination see Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 26#Actors by series and its sub-categories
- This also was nominated for deletion in Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 29 with no consensus being reached. George J. Bendo 16:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per previous CFD. part of the Category:Futurama tree. You can edit out non-regulars. Tim! 08:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Categorize by character, not actor. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Tim! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Please consider this proposal to rename this and all similar actors by television series categories to include only recurring actors, thus eliminating mere one-time guest appearances. Postdlf 20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional secret agents and spies

Category:Fictional secret agents and spies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
*Delete - The label "secret agent" or "spy" seems to be arbitrarily applied across genres to any character once involved in clandestine activities. As a consequence, the category is filled with articles on characters with little to do with each other. It is unclear as to whether a precise definition for "fictional spy" or "fictional secret agent" can be developed. Therefore, the category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn - Looking at the category much further, I determined that at least 2/3 of the articles describe their characters as "fictional spies" or "fictional secret agents". This category could probably use clean-up, but it is apparently not as dysfunctional as I first thought. George J. Bendo 08:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional supersoldiers

Delete - Since "supersoldier" is not precisely defined across all genres, inclusion in this category is subjective. Hence, the category is being used as a vague catch-all for any fictional soldier with superhuman powers, and fictitious superhero with military training, and any fictional soldier with normal but extraordinary skills. The category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not objectively defined. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (And because it could technically hold all gov't supported superheroes/villains, as well as any in the military, or any created by the military, or, or, or...) - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional orphans

Delete - This is a common storyline element that has been used since ancient times (see Oedipus and Moses, for example). As a consequence, it contains many articles from many genres that have little to do with each other. The category should therefore be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Technically, eventually, if you outlive your parents, you become an orphan... - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Non-liturgical religious clothing

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, by request of creator.Postdlf 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Category:Non-liturgical religious clothing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Badly-considered name; I really wanted "Non-clerical religious clothing", which I created afterwards. -- pne (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - The article creator has requested that the category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - db-author. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - obsolete. - Rcnet 10:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional amnesiacs

Delete - This is a common storyline element used across many genres. Consequently, the category unites many articles that have little to do with each other (unless you believe that Cloud Strife has something to do with the film Memento). The category should be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Postdlf 18:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: New York City College of Technology, City University of New York

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Category:Anti-Semitic people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, This does not belong in an encyclopaedia as it is pure vigilantism and serious libel in some cases. By all means, bios should list anti-Semitism if accurate, but this category's contents and existence is ridiculous Rcnet 05:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV & This is an encyclopaedia. This article has no business in an encyclopaedia. By all means in articles about individuals where they are shown to be anti-Semitic, and this is verifiable it should be mentioned if relevant - however a directory of alleged anti-Semites is vigilantism and should be deleted from Misplaced Pages. WP:NPOV, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, if this were better policed it might be a fine category, however it is not. Regardless of content authenticity, I see no reason for "Anti" categories. Has someone started a "believers (or not) in the Armenian genocide" category yet to tag peoples Bios with? - I'm scared to check... Just doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Rcnet 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

This category is being used a libel tool by IP anons all too often, I just found William Rehnquist tagged by a single edit IP, with an edit comment offering a woefully inadequate "source". Political activism does not belong in the US supreme court - nor does it belong on wikipedia. And for the record I can't stand the US republican party, which I equate to fascists in my own POV - defending republicans is not my thing. Rcnet 05:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete I can't imagine this category serving any real purpose as it stands - it seems more accusatory than anything. I suppose someone like Adolph Hitler might fall into this category, but aside from a few historical figures that are documented as creating or following the policies of a group, nation-state, or organization, I can't see the value or reliability of placing people like Mel Gibson (for example) in this category. I agree with the above that if this were both policed and strict guidelines in place, it may serve some purpose from a socio-political or historical standpoint, but even then it would be questionable. I also agree that if it is pertinent to the article, then put it in, but I question a category dedicated to it. It has about as much value as a category called "Racists". That aside, is this a can of worms that editors and admins really want to get into? --Kuuzo 05:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Category:Antisemitism has this comment: "This category's significance when added to an article about a specific person relates to notable and reliable references mentioning antisemitism in regards to that person. For individuals that are generally recognized as being antisemitic see Category:Anti-Semitic people." This seems unworkable. It is not the job of Misplaced Pages to determine who is and is not generally considered an Anti-semite. I have no problm with a category for people accused of anti-semitism, of self avowed anti-semites, of people involved in incidents that were called anti-semitic, etc... All of these could be NPOV. I would not have a problem putting all these people in the parent antisemitism category because the topic of antisemitism is relevant to people if it is discussed in the article no matter whether the claim is true or not. I do have a problem with Misplaced Pages being the arbiter of truth. --Samuel Wantman 08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, POV magnet. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This category has a deep want for citations/references, which obviously cannot be done in a category in this case. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per Jc37 ; comments on anti-semitism should be placed in articles, and be properly sourced.Oc t ane {{subst:#time:d}}.{{subst:#time:m}}.{{subst:#time:y}} {{subst:#time:H}}{{subst:#time:i}} (UTC)
Keep but only in cases of documented anti-Semites, of which there are far too many. How can there be Antisemitism without Antisemites? Would it be possible to say that there is Communism without Communists or Christianity without Christians? Surely not! Most famous antisemites can be known from their own writings, statements, proven factual historical records, and multiple news reports. Many of these people were/are indeed very proud of being antisemites and did not hide that fact, so we needn't give in to false alarms that try to mimic political correctness but are just excuses to cover-up real antisemites. To say that this is "only about Hitler" is silly, because sadly why go into a state of denial that such people do exist and always have, which is pretty much as NPOV as you can get. IZAK 10:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If this was about Hitler, and all documented anti-Semites, I would agree wholeheartedly, but it has proven to be unpolicable. People routinely tag Bios with the category, instead of supporting it in the Bio - and example would be the William Rehnquist case I unearthed today. This category has been hijacked by some for the pursuit of an agenda and is riddled with POV. This category is totally subjective, and just doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages - there are better places for things like this.

As per what Blast said, instead of a category, why not handle this with an article listing anti-Semites? Then at least the points would be referenced. The Bios of those concerned could be then linked back in a section of the Bio that deals with anti-Semitism. As it stands, many of the Bios are tagged (like graffitti) when the content offers no reference to the allegation. Rcnet 10:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rcnet: Lists become categories and categories can become lists on Misplaced Pages, so it's a weak argument you are making, that's how it goes on Misplaced Pages. To the above anon who did not sign his name with the four tildes ~~~~ Misplaced Pages is not a "police state" where if things get too cumbersome or "uncomfortbale" for the likes of some folks, then they get removed because we are just too lazy or indifferent to moniter our "my watchlist" all the time. So that if you notice errors, then correct them, or bring it to the attention of the editors who wrote the articles or were most recently busy with it. But this suggestion is ridiculous, that because errors are happening that an entire significant category should be wiped out of existence. Quite honestly, from some of the anonymous lobbying I am noticing right now, it is very clear that the people who are pushing to get rid of this category are not doing it for the reasons you outline, but merely wish to do some historical revisionism the easy way, by clearing the authentic, true, verifiable, and notable "criminal historical records" of famous antisemites, of which there have been far too many documented and proven and even sentenced to jail in recent world history. IZAK 11:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Me before, but not campaigning. Moved to your talk. Rcnet 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon campaigning (even though it seems biased to my POV) is not good - is it appropriate for me to use the {{Not a ballot}} tag here? Rcnet 11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete For the many reasons given above. Thethinredline 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, though reluctantly. Should be reserved for people who have made a political point of expressing an explicitly antisemitic outlook, and not for people who are suspected of such views. Unfortunately, there are people who fit the bill. --Leifern 11:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- A[REDACTED] can't be "reserved" for certain items as anyone can add items to it at any time. Choalbaton 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It is easy to point to quite a few individuals who are generally considered to be antisemites, including self-descibed antisemites. At the risk of breaking Godwin's law, I'll mention just one category of such people. If some editors fear that some people are placed into this category unfairly, these issues must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Beit Or 12:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep it. Unfortunately there is people in our world with such a deplorable conduct, so I guess such a conduct should be listed and documented since not all of them have acted the same way. --JewBask 12:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- That isn't under dispute, but why do you "guess" that a category is appropriate? Choalbaton 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nominator, Radiant, and Jc37. There is no category called "Racists". Anti-semitism is a form of racism and discrimination, a sub-category of that larger category, of which there is not one on Misplaced Pages, for good reason I think. These are judgement calls, we should not be making those judgements for the reader. Unless the person under discussion self-identifies as "anti-Semite" or "Racist", such categorization could lead to violations of WP:BLP. Tiamut 13:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP says "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims." I quite agree that this category should only be used if backed up by a reliable source. If there is such a source, WP:BLP is not violated. Many other categories could be defamatory if untrue; must they all be deleted?--Brownlee 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete This term is highly aggressive and polemical and there are no references or other evidence attached to names when one sees them in a category. All significant members should be linked from the articles on the subject in any case. Choalbaton 13:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Potentially libelous and many cases could be based on POV of someone's politics who is not in fact an anti-Semite. -- Voldemort 13:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, has no place in a serious encyclopedia. There is no precise definition of this classification, and as Choalbaton notes there is no place to put a citation when categories are added. Mostly this is used as a way of expressing an opinion on the subject of the article, which is contrary to the principle that we quote reliable sources and don't state our own opinions. If it is (unfortunately) not deleted, inclusion of living people should be prohibited as almost always WP:BLP will be violated. --Zero 13:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep not only is this important and useful information, for some persons it is the only reason that they ever got known. Unfortunately there were many self-described antisemites throughout history and antisemites beyond doubt. I do not think it is wise that for political correctness concerns towards people who were racists we should water down history. gidonb 13:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. This is now the fifth time this category has been nominated for deletion. It is hardly earth-shattering for Misplaced Pages to acknowledge that such people exist.--Mantanmoreland 14:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per gidonb. The care with which it needs to be applied does not invalidate the category as a whole. Further, constant re-submission for deletion may imply a lack of good faith. -- Avi 14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
KEEP The concerns raised by the nominator and other deleters are addressed by WP:BIO. It is already against the rules to post slanderous information, so the onus is on us to police the category and ensure that any claims made of anti-Semitism are backed up with facts. -- Chabuk 14:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Anti-Semites exists, whether we like it or not. If someone is documented unambiguously as an anti-Semite (e.g., the current president of Iran, who has made it unequivocally clear that he wants to destroy Israel), it makes perfect sense to categorize him/her as such. I do agree this category should be applied with care; Misplaced Pages should be about facts, not slander. Hiergargo 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Like any category, its applicability to any given article may be challenged, but if there is a good source that someone is anti-Semitic then he or she belongs in this category. Anything else violates WP:NPOV.-Brownlee 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete. This is the type of assertion that collapses into a POV attack when stated without explanation or citation, as categories always are by nature. It is also completely devoid of focus on whether the individual was definable in some way as an anti-Semite (i.e., a professional "Jew-baiter" such as the Nazi Julius Streicher), or merely happened to harbor or express anti-Semitic feelings (which will include most members of certain cultures at certain times). Judging merely from the comments on this page alone, there is also no clear concept of what it means to be an anti-Semite; apparently simply being anti-Israel is sufficient. Keep this category and there is also no reasonable way to keep similar categories from proliferating, Category:Anti-Christian people, Category:Anti-homosexual people, Category:Anti-Gypsy people... One would imagine that KKK members and Nazis would have hundreds of such categories for every group that they are against. Stating that the category should be "reserved" for those who have "prominently" expressed their anti-Semitism in some way is meaningless, as this category is named without qualification, and so is not structured to make that distinction. Address the category as it is, not as you would like it to be. That "anti-Semitic people" exist is also irrelevant as to wheter it makes for a useful, meaningful, or manageable category—make a list of anti-Semitic people to document that phenomenon, where you can explan its relevance to the individual and provide citations. Postdlf 18:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep & comment: I say we keep it with the following caveat: This category can be a very dangerous tool for libel. Sure there are some clear-cut people like Hitler, Ahmadinajad, Haman, and Torquemada, but there will be edit wars over people like Mel Gibson. I don't want to name other names but this is one which would be controversial. It would be very bad publicity to be labeled an anti-Semite on Misplaced Pages. This is as bad as something like "Category: People who prefer blondes". If we are going to make a category, let's make it only for notorious anti-Semites and Nazis. Valley2city 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you're actually supporting the creation of a different category than the one that actually exists, not voting to keep this one. Postdlf 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep & comment: Funny, I also think there should be a weak keep here, with clear criteria for exclusion, but would not consider Torquemada as belonging, and I'm not at all sure about Ahmadinajad. Ahmadinajad is virulently anti-Zionist, but I don't think I've ever heard him say anything specifically anti-Semitic: in several speeches I've seen transcribed, he's actually been surprisingly circumspect about distinguishing Israel (or "the Zionist entity" or whatever) from the Jews. Torquemada's focus was heretics: he may well have been ethnically Jewish himself. As Inquisitor, he had no power over someone who did not claim to be Christian, and his main target was people who had converted insincerely in order to remain in Spain after the (civil, not canon-law) expulsion of te Jews. Hitler and Haman, certainly, but more importantly the theoreticians of anti-Semitism, such as Arthur de Gobineau or Alfred Rosenberg (amazingly the former isn't even in the category right now). If renaming the category or sub-dividing it would help make it more clear, I could almost certainly be convinced to do so. By the way, I'm not at all sure that being a Nazi—or even a Nazi propagandist—is sufficient to qualify one as being an anti-Semite: Leni Reifenstahl leaps to mind as at least a controversial case. - Jmabel | Talk 19:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep per gidonb. Amoruso 20:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep, and improve.
keep for all the keep reasons listed above Hmains 21:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but agree that it should be reserved only for people that, in one way or another, described themselves as anti-Jew. Grika Ⓣ 21:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:U-Boats

Delete/redirect - Category is redundant to Category:U-boats . Megapixie 04:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy redirect - This is a clear duplication. The action to be taken is obvious. George J. Bendo 07:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Merge/Redirect/Delete - per above. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect - Clear duplication, delete & redirect. - Rcnet 10:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Party leaders

Delete - Duplicate of Category:Leaders of political parties. Placed under Category:Parties which refers to the social as opposed to political party. Regan123 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge/Delete as appropriate. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
merge/delete after articles are placed in other appropriate locations Hmains 21:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Films about robots

Merge into Category:Robot films, seems to be a duplicate... -- ProveIt 02:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Cbrown1023 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy merge - This is obvious duplication. The merge does not need additional debate. George J. Bendo 07:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Merge per GJB. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Charities based in New Zealand

Delete, only member does not appear to actually be a charity. It's a reasonable category otherwise. -- ProveIt 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Given those comments, wouldn't populate be a more sensible move? Sure, if it can't be populated, then delete, but it seems like it might be worth giving it a chance... Grutness...wha? 05:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Aside from missing articles, the category is fine. This category can probably be filled later. George J. Bendo 07:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - it still only has one article in it, but at least that one belongs there - a charity based in New Zealand :) Grutness...wha? 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep' per Grutness Choalbaton 13:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn, since it now contains an actual New Zealand charity. -- ProveIt 14:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Japanese military strategists

Delete This category is purely subjective - any biography added to this category is done so out of pure subjective choice. There is no objective standard with which to qualify Japanese historical figures as "strategists". The end result of this category would be somewhere between a random subjective collection of names and a popularity contest. Pure POV. --Kuuzo 02:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - The word "strategist" is being loosely applied to any Japanese military leader or other well-known military figure. The categorization is not useful. George J. Bendo 07:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was duplicate listing. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-war_films

Delete, Blatantly and essentially POV.

See November 22nd discussion, duplicate listing. -- ProveIt 02:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:B-Class New Jersey Road articles

Delete - I assume that the "B-class" refers to a ranking within Misplaced Pages and not a ranking by New Jersey. If so, then the internal Misplaced Pages ranking is inappropriate to use for categorization. George J. Bendo 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Category:B-Class U.S. road transport articles. The {{NJSCR}} tag is supposed to go on the talk page. -- ProveIt

Category:Western New York

Merge into Category:Universities and colleges in New York, or Rename to Category:Universities and colleges in Western New York. -- ProveIt 01:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:University shootings

Delete per discussions of Septmber 19th and November 9th. -- ProveIt 01:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep unless editor above recommends a replacement category. Your actions are unhelpful unless you provide a category you believe to be superior. The category is accurate, and a "university" or "college" is not the same as a "school," thus the "School shootings" category is inappropriate. Editor:ProveIt previously stated: "Delete, or at least Rename to Category:University shootings. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)" (emphasis added). Badagnani 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A solution would be to rename the "Category:School massacres" category as "Massacres at educational institutions." Then the subcats would be "Massacres at primary schools," "Massacres at secondary schools," (or these two could be combined into one category, such as "Massacres at K-12 schools") and "Massacres at colleges and universities." This seems the most logical way to proceed. Contrary to earlier comments, a college or university is not generally described as a "school," although it is an "educational institution." Further, it does not make sense that all other cats for school massacres are described as "massacres" in the cats, and the only nation to use a different terminology is the United States, where it is "Killings." Let's try to be as logical as possible with these categories. Badagnani 01:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as recreated content. Otto4711 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy, recreation. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Private schools in indianapolis

Merge into Category:Private schools in Indiana, or Rename to Category:Private schools in Indianapolis. -- ProveIt 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge or Rename per nom, in that preference order. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:High schools in Rosenberg, Texas

Merge into Category:High schools in Texas, overcategorized. -- ProveIt 00:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actors by involvement in adaptations of a comic book character

Category:Hulk actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fantastic Four actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wonder Woman actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:X-Men actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per precedents on categories for Batman actors and Spider-Man actors. These are not mere actors by series categories, despite their presence as subcategories of that parent, because they actually indiscriminately lump together actors from all films, television series, and video games (!) featuring the characters. This has the result of linking together people who never actually worked on the same project merely because the same licensed comic book character was involved in at least one of the films, television shows, or video games on which the actor worked. This is trivia, best handled by a list instead of cluttering the actor categories. Lest someone object that these could be broken down into categories for the individual television series or films, this deletion vote has nothing to do with such completely different categories (some of which may exist, such as Category:X-Men film actors). The ones proposed for deletion don't tell anything about how the category applies to the actor—even with the films separated out for the X-Men category, for example, the actor could have actually played an X-Men member in a cartoon series, played the voice of a supporting character in a single episode of a cartoon series, played an extra in a single episode, or contributed the voice of an extra to a single video game; it's all lumped in together with these. Postdlf 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom — J Greb 03:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - These types of categories are clearly dysfunctional. George J. Bendo 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and break down into the actual series. Tim! 07:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 08:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, don't cat actors by film. (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per previous discussions. - jc37 09:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I further suggest that these all be preemptively salted, as they are likely to be recreated. Postdlf 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I also support salting. George J. Bendo 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Georgia

Rename All as Georgia (U.S. state).Lwueid 21:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

rename all per nom Hmains 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't "U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state)" rather redundant? --NE2 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't "U.S. state" rather redundant? :) (Radiant) 09:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so - see state. --NE2 10:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
rename all per nom Choalbaton 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)