View source for Wiki143:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 28

<noinclude><div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
|-
! width="50%" align="left"  | <span style="color:grey;">&lt;</span> [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 27|December 27]]
! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 29|December 29]] <span style="color:grey;">&gt;</span>
|}
</div></noinclude>

=== December 28 ===
<!-- Please do not add new nominations here.
     Use the current day's NEW NOMINATIONS section
     (to properly order entries and avoid edit conflicts).
     Thank you for your cooperation.
  -->
====[[:Category:Superhero Related]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''', there are already many superhero categories.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Another gem from {{vandal|EJBanks}}. Weak description and title seem to imply that this category is for anything related to [[superhero]]es. Peachy. As that is probably the broadest non-defining characteristic I've seen all day, I can't see any reason to keep or rename this. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 23:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 
**Update: Damn, Prov. You beat me to it! [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' ambiguous category. George Clooney's aunt Rosemary is superhero-related by being a Batman actor's relative. Freddie Prinze, Jr. desperately wanted to play Spider-Man. That makes his article superhero-related. Most superheroes wear [[boots]], so . . .  [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. People shouldn't create categories if they don't know Wikipedia guidelines well enough to know not to capitalize "related". [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 23:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as per nom... — [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom.  {{mono|[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]}}|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as too vague and broad to be remotely useful. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Superherocruft, where does it end. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 06:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*Anyone wanna '''speedy''' this up, seeing as it is you know... an abomination? ~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 03:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - All things being related at some point (See: [[Noah]] or [[Six degrees of separation]], depending on your preference : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:000-related films ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|000-related films}}<br/>
'''Delete''' - Undefined category which serves no conceivable purpose. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' undefined, pointless category. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. No idea what this is or is supposed to be, but with only one article it seems like clear cruft. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', undefined.  I thought at first it was for films released in the 2000s but with only one film in the cat, I couldn't be certain.  {{mono|[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]}}|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' If you are correct, it should be merged with [[:Category:2000 films]].  Otherwise, the film should be recategorized or an introductory statement header should appear for the category to properly justify category. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 01:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:*The film is already correctly categorized under its year of release. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 04:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above, and [[Special:Contributions/Comicfan]] seems to be full of candidates CfD. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====Subcategories of [[:Category:Bisexual actors]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''keep'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

It's been subcategorised by nationality, which makes the whole system useless and uninformative of bisexual actors as a whole and also incompatible with its contemporary categories, such as {{cat|gay actors}}. We have categories like {{cat|LGBT actors from the United States}}, which is far more useful for identifying LGBT by nationality. All the various subcategories of bisexual actors (e.g. {{cat|Bisexual American actors}}, {{cat|Bisexual Slovak actors}}) should be '''upmerged''' into bisexual actors!~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

'''Comment''' Unsure about upmerge suggestion.  Please provide category link and detail merge from and merge to categories. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and '''upmerge''' - if nationality is already sorted by {{cat|LGBT actors LGBT actors from the United States}}, then I don't see the utility in maintaining this subdirectory instead of upmerging to conform with {{cat|gay actors}}. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''' per nom. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 09:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' None of these categories are tagged. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:*All tagged.~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep all''' There is no reason to breach the usual approach of categorising by nationality. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
**Which is done by "LGBT actors by such and such". A bit like how Film actors and American actors were separate until recently. The categories serve no purpose whatsoever when they're "bisexual Slovak actors", containing one person. How does that serve ANY function whatsoever? It also depreciates Slovak actors by removing one of its articles. ~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' This is absolutely as useful as by nationality categories which are used in hundreds and hundreds of other cases, so what is the real reason for this nomination? [[User:Zythe|Zythe]]'s arguments lack logic as the same point could be made in favor of leaving everyone in [[:Category:American people]] and so on. We don't rely on one set of categories to define something and another to define nationality in other fields, so why should we in this one? What is the ideological (POV) reason for demanding it? As for [[:Category:Slovak actors]], that should contain zero articles, which is where all the national actor categories should be heading in the long run. There is no minimum category size and it was established a long time ago that single member categories are acceptable. If large categories are subdivided some single member categories are bound to arise unless people from smaller countries are deliberately not categorized with the same precision as those from large countries, which would be inconsistent, untidy and ridiculous. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 22:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:*I can't believe people are even considering this. LGBT by nationality and which letter of LGBT you are should be kept separate as both serve ''different purposes''. And exactly, "if large categories are subdivided some single member categories are bound to arise unless people from smaller countries are deliberately not categorized with the same precision as those from large countries, which would be inconsistent, untidy and ridiculous" as you said. Answer? Don't subdivide the category and make it ''useless'' as a collection of bisexual actors. If everything gets subdivided so much, they may as well be strings of words that don't link anywhere at the bottom of a page. "American bisexual television actors who committed suicide in their twenties" or "British lesbian composes who were victims of cancer", maybe? What's the point of categorising people into groups if they're so subdivided the groups lose all meaning. Should we subcategorize everything by nationality? How about {{cat|Deaths from diabetes in people from the United States}} or {{cat|Worst Supporting Actor Razzie (amongst United States persons)}}? Ludicrous. ~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Not a problem as people who want to see all the articles can click on the various categories in turn. The number of articles in each category adds context. [[User:Wilchett|Wilchett]] 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*<s>Subcategories by nationality can be a pain.  There is a dichotomy that everyone seems to be accepting in this debate.  On the one side are those that want small specific categories, and see a utility to it.  On the other is those that see value in the larger categories and don't want them diffused into smaller ones that may be tiny.  So why cant we have both?  What is wrong with duplicating membership in both the small and larg categories?  Nobody is advocating removing the large category, so why can't we just evaluate smaller subcategories on their own merits and decide if they are useful.  If they are, keep them WITHOUT unpopulating the larger categories.  As for the smaller subcategories, I think it is more reasonable to categorize actors by language than by nationality, but there is no reason that we can't do it more than one way.  So, I guess I'm saying '''Keep, but only if the larger categories are not depopulated.'''</s> Since nobody seems to be going for the idea of duplicating without depopulating, I must advocate '''Delete'''. --[[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 07:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep and make sure the parent categories are depopulated''' per best practice. [[User:Hawkestone|Hawkestone]] 15:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:*I can't believe this is going to end up getting no consensus. Crossing LGBT by occupation with LGBT by nationality is a bad, bad idea! None of the points made in favour of it are any good at all! You want their nationality? You look at the category next to it. I mean, for example, Margaret Cho says: LGBT Asian Americans | Bisexual American actors | LGBT comedians | LGBT rights activists | 1968 births | Living people. We already know she's an LGBT American, then it's like ... bisexual American. Why not LGBT American --> Bisexual actor. Crossing them over serves no purpose. It is a terrible, terrible idea and I'm afraid people seem to be voting in favour of because they're loving the ''brilliant'' chewbacca defense it's had.~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 02:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Nationality is a significant attribute. Worthy of recognition on an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. -- [[User:TrojanMan|TrojanMan]] 09:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
:*I swear, people aren't understanding this CfD at all! LGBT by nationality is still covered! I fear people perceive I'm attacking categorizing by nationality or by bisexuality but I'm actually trying to save the latter from becoming entirely useless. If bisexuality is subcategorised by nationality then '''everything else in all of Wikipedia must be'''.~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 15:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' What is supposed to be the problem with categorising everything by nationality? It's what I would expect to be done, and it is 99% done already. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 11:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Marvel actors ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Marvel actors}}<br/>
'''Delete''' as nom. Category seems to be for [[actor]]s in [[film]]s based on [[Marvel Comics]] properties. Poorly titled, ambiguous description in the category itself. Seems to be another one of the many lame "comic book actor" categories created this year. Wish I could prove they're all by the same di- ''person''.. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per discussions of [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_18#Category:Marvel_Super_Hero_actors|October 18th]] and [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23#Actors_by_involvement_in_adaptations_of_a_comic_book_character|November 23rd]] . -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per precedent, past discussions, poor title, and vague description. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as per nom... — [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. Very true. --[[User:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#90f">'''Tohru'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#f0f">'''Honda'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Tohru Honda13|'''13''']]<sup>[[User:Tohru Honda13/Autograph Book|Sign here!]]</sup> 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] 03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''''Shazam''''' - Oh, wait, wrong Marvel... '''Delete''' per '''''many''''' previous discussions : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. --[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]] • [[WP:TV|WikiProject Television]]) 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Muslim athletes ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Muslim athletes}}<br/>
'''Delete''', Delete as [[:Category:Sportspeople by religion]] was deleted.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''' as [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_12#Sportspeople_by_religion|recreated content]]. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy delete''' I second this.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Did someone mistake "Muslim" for a nationality again? [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - I created Hindu athletes purely out of my own accord, lets [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] that someone saw the need for this intersection of religion and sports.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 05:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
***What? Are you changing your position? [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
****I think he was just responding to the 'speedy as recreated content' that we should AGF regarding the reason for creation. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 07:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*****Correct, I dont think very many people think muslim is a nationality.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 17:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom, '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Misnamed in any case. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 11:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Managers in Argentina by club ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''rename'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Managers in Argentina by club]] to [[:Category:Football managers in Argentina by club]]
*'''Rename''', per standard for [[:Category:Football managers by club]]. [[User:Nathanian|Nathanian]] 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per convention, '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 07:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''rename''' per nom. [[User:Hawkestone|Hawkestone]] 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Sports teams in Phoenix, Arizona]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''rename'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge''' into [[:Category:Sports in Phoenix]], convention of [[:Category:Sports in the United States by city]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. [[User:Tuviya|Tuviya]] 19:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to convention per nom, '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - ABAsite(still trying to get the "talk" function down. Didn't see the other category(sorry!)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Philadelphia Whites players ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''rename'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Philadelphia Whites players]] into [[:Category:Philadelphia White Stockings players]]
*'''Merge''', Both were created for the same team, I nominate using the latter as this is the team name used by official records. [[User:Neonblak|Neonblak]] 17:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to the official name per nom, '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 07:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== [[:Category:Very Important Persons]] ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''

:''The result of the discussion was:''  '''deleted per author request and unanimous opinion here'''. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:'''''Delete''' Blatant POV''--[[User:Gkklein|Gkklein]] 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', as category with [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective_inclusion_criterion|subjective inclusion criteria]]. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 16:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy''', seen it before. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''  (speedily if, as Radiant said, it's already been through this process.)  Clearly a category with no objective criteria. --[[User:TheOtherBob|TheOther]][[User talk:TheOtherBob|Bob]] 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I created the category, please explain why irrelevant.
[[User:King of Anonymity|King of Anonymity]] 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:How do you define a 'very important person'?  It is impossible to define this without mnaking some kind of subjective decision as to who and who should not be considered 'very important'. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]]</small> 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' excessively broad, undefined category that requires heavy POV. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - I did want to place myself in the cat.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Per above.  [[User:Tuviya|Tuviya]] 19:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. [[User:Nathanian|Nathanian]] 20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', impossible to be NPOV. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. <span style="color:red;">« </span>[[User:Schlagwerk|<span style="color:gray;">S<span style="font-size:x-small;">CHLAGWERK</span></span>]][[User_talk:Schlagwerk|<sup>''Talk to me!''</sup>]] 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I created, but understand point.  Go ahead and delete. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:King of Anonymity|King of Anonymity]] ([[User talk:King of Anonymity|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/King of Anonymity|contribs]]) 22:59, December 28, 2006</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*'''Delete''' per nom. It is oddly worded as well. Wait, isn't that the same thing as the nom? Woops. Either way, delete. ^_~ --[[User:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#90f">'''Tohru'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#f0f">'''Honda'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Tohru Honda13|'''13''']]<sup>[[User:Tohru Honda13/Autograph Book|Sign here!]]</sup> 03:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
----
:''The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Fooian films ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''split/rename per revised nom'''. Can someone in the know perform the split? [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Wisconsin films]] to [[:Category:Films set in Wisconsin]] and [[:Category:Films shot in Wisconsin]]
:[[:Category:Idaho films]] to [[:Category:Films set in Idaho]] and [[:Category:Films shot in Idaho]]
:[[:Category:Films featuring Brighton, UK]] to <s>[[:Category:Films set in Brighton, UK]]</s> [[:Category:Films set in Brighton]] and <s>[[:Category:Films shot in Brighton, UK]]</s> [[:Category:Films shot in Brighton]] modified nom per comment below. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:[[:Category:Montana films]] to [[:Category:Films set in Montana]] and [[:category:Films shot in Montana]] 
*'''Split and Rename''' - these are the only sub-cats of [[:Category:Films by location]] with a "Fooian films" name. If "Films set in Foo" and "Films shot in Foo" are the prefereable constructions then the cats should be split and named appropriately. Of course if a combined "Foo films" is preferable then all the others need to be nominated and renamed. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Split and rename''', per nom.  I created ''[[:Category:Films by location]]'' and it seems like a reasonable thing to do. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename to ''' I don't see a need for "Films shot in...": Many Hollywood pictures, especially the more recent ones, are filmed in a variety of locations to take advantage of tax credits and other arts incentives—and for that matter to avoid some of the taxes and regulations imposed by the City of Los Angeles. As proposed the categories are open-ended; no distinction is drawn between a scene filmed in half a day and an entire feature filmed over a year, but at the same time any line drawn between the two is surely to be arbitrary. To draw a comparison, we wouldn't call the [[McDonnell Douglas DC-10|DC-10-40]] an "Aircraft manufactured in Connecticut" on account of its Pratt & Whitney engines; on the other hand, we don't have [[:Category:Aircraft manufactured in California]] either because the mere fact that both the DC-10 and the [[F-117 Nighthawk]] have this characteristic implies no natural relationship between them. To reverse the perspective, I can see how a film or films may have some importance to the identity of a place, the way a local newspaper does; however, in most such cases the setting will no doubt take precedence over the actual shooting, leaving the "Films shot in" category to be redundant. If the film is only loosely identified with its location, we have a clear-cut case of overcategorization—grouping articles about things loosely associated based on the circumstances of their creation, at the sub-national level of granularity. The cases where "the movie is set in X but everybody knows it was shot in Y" are going to have even less in common with each other, and while I'm no film geek, I have to think that by that point we are truly at the level of trivia. -[[User:Choster|choster]] 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' as per Choster, but the Brighton one should simply be to [[:Category:Films set in Brighton]], partly to avoid abbreviation, and partly because the article on that city is at [[Brighton]]. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small style="color:#008822;">wha?</small>]]'' 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Split and Rename''' per existing convention with Grutness' caveat, '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Split and rename'''. Just makes sense. Plus it matches the convention used for other states. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 08:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Split & rename''' per nom & convention. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] [[User talk:Pegship|<small style="color:green;"> (tis herself)</small>]] 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' certainly but not sure about splitting out "shot-in" vs. de-catting those. As Choster points out, a film may be shot in multiple locations and be set in none of them (and vice versa!) which could lead to multiple "Films shot in..." for a film. Then there's always the intersection: Films set in ''x'' but shot in ''y''!--[[User:RCEberwein|RCEberwein]] | [[User talk:RCEberwein|Talk]] 17:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' on "shot it" categories. I see the point of the objection but I think it can be made clear that the cats are for films primarily shot in Foo as opposed to films shot in Hollywood with a couple of days of location Foo shooting. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Victoria'a Secret models]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''', as a repost of [[:Category:Victoria's Secret models]], see [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_9#Category:Omega_models_.28and_related_categories.29|June 9th]] discussion.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 13:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' At one point (June 15, 2006) [[Cindy Crawford]] belonged to well over 100 categories, the most in all of Wikipedia. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Nathanian|Nathanian]] 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''STRONG KEEP''' Procedurally, we are suppose to delete as before.  However, previously, the category was lumped in with 100 other model categories that were deleted and this one was brought down by many lesser categories including the nominated one [[:Category:Omega models]] although it is hard to determine where to draw the line with prestigious brand lines such as [[Omega_Watches]].  If [[Cindy Crawford]] had only had 2 or 3 premier modelling company categories listed, this would have survived.  It is one of the most prestigious modelling affiliations (along with [[:Category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models|Sports Illustrated]]).  Both of these two are hugh marketting phenomena.  Most of the other 100 are just that, other companies.  It has its own annual Television show and its own mail order catalogue.  It is very different from most of the other 100. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' In addition to keeping, all women listed on [[List of Victoria's Secret fashion models|this notable list of VS models]] should be added to the category.  P.S. a few other model categories got thrown out with the bathwater in the prior debate.  I believe Calvin Klein, Guess Jeans and Polo models are nearly on par with VS and Sports Illustrated.  However, since they don't have calendars, catalogues, or TV shows they are harder to distinguish. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
**That's nice. It's still misspelled. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Victoria's Secret models]]. Current recreation may indicate a need for this category. Furthermore, fear of clutting the Cindy Crawford article isn't a strong basis deletion. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 02:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename as above.''' It's a notable sorority of models, like [[:category:Playboy Playmates]] and [[:category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models]], so I'm in favor of it staying.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*ooops i mispelled it huh well yeah move it to Victoria's Secret models and keep its notable blah blahqrc2006/email 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' - it is certainly as notable as Playboy and Sports Illustrated, though with some caution not to become overcategorised again. '''[[User:Tewfik|<span style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik</span>]]'''[[User Talk:Tewfik|<sup style="color:#888888;">Talk</sup>]] 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Just use a list. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as category clutter and recreated content. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Delete''' as recreated category per above.  Listify contents to reduce chance of recreation. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - per the many previous discussions. Listify if wanted. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' previous discussion about deleting 100 categories is not really relevant to the most important of those 100. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
::* There have been a ''lot'' more than a single CfD about models. The person to ask is [[User:ProveIt]]. I've always been amazed at that person's ability to find previous CfD discussions on any topic. : ) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 07:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' There is nothing notable about this grouping if one has a basic level of resistance to marketing hype. [[User:Hawkestone|Hawkestone]] 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename per above''', or else '''listify'''. &mdash; [[User:Instantnood|Insta]][[User_talk:Instantnood|ntnood]] 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per previous discussion. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 11:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' previous discussion about deleting 100 categories is not really relevant to the most important of those 100. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***I don't agree and I don't think this category is important. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per previous discussions. Categorization is "monkey see/monkey do".  We have to draw a line.  I'd advocate getting rid of the Sports Illustrated cat as well. This type of information is much better presented with a list. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 05:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' recreated, as above. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Soap Opera characters]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Merge / Redirect''' into [[:Category:Soap opera characters]]. I think a redirect is needed in this case.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' as per nom at the very least... '''Delete''' may be more accurate if its population is already in the others sub-cats. — [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge/Delete''' - per J Greb, and '''Redirect''', per ProveIt. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep as redirect''' [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 11:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Vanity Fair's International Best Dressed List for 2006]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''' as copyrighted [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Published_list|published list]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as cruft and trivial.  [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 13:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Wikipedia is not a gossip column. [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**I'm not sure. I'm on the fence, I guess. I opened the category and thought it was appropriate since it is a documented list and there is a relevance to fashion history. However, I can also see the flipside of the argument, that it would be or could be superfluous to have category listings for each year or something or other. That said, I won't be devastasted if the category gets trashed. I leave it to the better and higher authorities. --[[User:Casiraghitrio|Ashley Rovira]] 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*Delete! I change my mind totally because it falls under the category of Published List, as stated before. Thanks for clearing it up. It is a copyright violation. I'm sorry.--[[User:Casiraghitrio|Ashley Rovira]] 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**As the original creator, you can just tag it with {{t1|db-author}}. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**I don't see how it's more of a copyvio than a list of 2006 Oscar winners, but as a published list it's not such a good category for other reasons. [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 15:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as cruft and trivia + Wikipedia is not a gossip column. [[User:Nathanian|Nathanian]] 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' overcategorization. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete (move to list)''' The article [[International Best Dressed List]] remains as notable.  If category is removed a list should be created for years IMHO.  If list is inappropriate, external link should be provided.  However, I believe [[Forbes 400]] lists, and [[Billboard Lists should exist and they do not.  [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' An emphemeral, category-clutter creating bad precedent. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 22:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - And don't listify. (Due to copy vio reasons, from what I understand from previous discussions.) - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Brahe ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''nomination withdrawn by proposer'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Brahe}}<br/>
*<s>'''Delete'''</s> - This appears to be an ad hoc category containing any individual with the name of "Brahe" (not just people related to [[Tycho Brahe]]) as well as a couple of articles on places where people named Brahe lived.  The category should be deleted. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''<s>Unclear</s> Keep''' see [[Brahe]], these do refer to a specific pair of families unless I missed a few (which might have been misplaced).  Possibly should be renamed.  Suggest discussing it with the category creator. [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::*Changed to "keep" based on [[:Category:Swedish noble families]] containing a bunch of similar subcats to this one.  If the Brahe subcat is a bad idea then all of them are and there should be a new nom to discuss this. [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 23:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - Combining two unrelated families with the same surname in one category is not useful.  I would advocate creating two separate categories, but it does not look like the relations of [[Tycho Brahe]] need to be linked via a category (as they can be linked more easily and more meaningfully through the articles' texts), and I am not entirely convinced that a category for the Swedish family is useful.  Do other Swedish nobility get family categories?  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 14:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
***But the article says they're related.  And yes, [[:Category:Brahe]] is a subcat of [[:Category:Swedish noble families]]. [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' The two families are not unrelated. When [[Scania]] was ceded from Denmark to Sweden in 1658, one part of the family stayed and became part of the Swedish nobility. The other left for Denmark and remained part of Danish nobility. In the 19th century, the Reventlow and Moltke families broke into Danish and German fractions pretty much the same way. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Withdrawl of nomination''' - The arguments for keeping the category make sense.  However, I suggest that '''''referenced information''''' on this complex family relation should be added to [[Brahe]]. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*Shouldn't we '''rename''' this to "Brahe families" or somesuch? [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
::I just realised that I made a slight error. The branch settling in Funen (modern Denmark) did so a few decades before the war that transferred Scania to Sweden. My error. This topic is a bit tricky. The [[Store Danske Encyklopædi]] describes them as one family. The Swedish Wikipedia as two. I don't have a login to the Swedish encyclopedia, [[Nationalencyklopedin]], but their article begins with "Brahe, an originally Hallandian noble family, first documented with certainty from Peder Brade (d. 1390), by four [male] generations the ancestor of Niels Brade (d. 1529 executed for supporting Christian II) and his cousin [[Rigsraad]] member Axel Brade (d. 1551)." ... It seems to me like both the Danish and Swedish encyclopedias untimately consider them to be one family, but I could be wrong. I can't promise to do it in the coming days, but the Swedish Wikipedia has more information - most importantly about the Swedish line - so I'll try to translate it and incorporate material from the SDE. Anyway, according to the SDE the ancestors of the two branches were brothers. At first glance it looks like the family both had times when the two branches cooperated and when they didn't. I still think the category should stay, but I'm in two minds regarding the name. But if you go back long enough it definitely is the same family. [[User:Valentinian|Valentinian]] <sup>[[User_talk:Valentinian|(talk)]] / [[Special:Contributions/Valentinian|(contribs)]]</sup> 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:History of Methodism in the United States ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''no consensus'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|History of Methodism in the United States}}<br/>
*'''Delete''' - This category is an ad hoc category encompassing articles on people and articles on various denominations of Methodism.  This category fails to organize articles in any useful manner, and the designation of what or who is historical may be vaguely applied.  The category should be deleted.  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 12:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:*Please see the category for edited language responding to the above criticism, further clarifying the usefulness of this category, especially as a subcat of [[:Category:Religious history of the United States]] (just as [[:Category:History of Catholicism in the United States]] is also a subcat of this cat, as well as [[:Category:Jewish American history]] and [[:Category:History of the Latter Day Saint movement]].  Indeed, Methodism plays/played as important a part in the religious history of the U.S., if not more so [in some ways], than any of these).  Thanks.[[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::*The "history of X" structure to categorize people and things in general is problematic.  The categories generally tend to sweep up any person, any place, or any thing that appears to be "historic" according to someone's point of view.  However, if the categories are restricted to articles on historical events or categories that describe the general histories of a broad topic (such as "History of X"), then the categories are useful.  In this light, the articles on people and [[:Category:History of Catholicism in the United States]], [[:Category:Jewish American history]], and [[:Category:History of the Latter Day Saint movement]] need clean-up, but they do contain articles on general histories or historical events (such as [[Know Nothing]], [[History of the Jews in the United States]], and [[Amboy Conference]]).  In contrast, all the articles in [[:Category:History of Methodism in the United States]] only contains articles on people (which are covered in categories on Methodist bishops) or denominations of Methodism (which can be covered in a category on Methodism).  These articles are better organized in other categories; an ad hoc category only dilutes the effectiveness of the category system.  No articles on Methodist events or articles on general methodist histories currently exist.  Therefore, the category serves no purpose and should be deleted.  [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 14:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:::*I disagree.  There are plenty of articles about the History of Methodism in the U.S.A.!  There are being categorized properly, just as are those about the History of Catholicism or any other religion.  No, not all articles about Methodism are about its history (so should thusly NOT be included in this cat, but instead in the cat Methodism, as they properly are).  But for those articles (and possibly subcats) having direct relation to the history of Methodism in the U.S.A., this is an altogether appropriate and helpful, even needed, cat.  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as an important subcategory of [[:category:Religious history of the United States]]. [[User:Nathanian|Nathanian]] 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' in agreement with [[User:Nathanian|Nathanian]] above!  Thanks. [[User:Pastorwayne|Pastorwayne]] 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Family Guy actors]], [[:Category:The X-Files actors]], [[:Category:Murder, She Wrote actors]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''no consensus to delete. Rename per nom. Can those in the know prune them down?''' [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

These presently contain every actor that has appeared in a single episode. That's quite a lot, and not a defining characteristic. Per the standards, we should '''rename''' those categories to "cast members", and '''prune''' the excess. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 11:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' to "XX recurring actors" or "XX cast members" to prune it to the main cast.  Actors who were in one episode don't need yet another cat at the bottom of their articles.  Character actors could end up in the same situation as [[Cindy Crawford]] whose article at one point had over 70 cats because there was one for every clothing company that she had modelled for.  If a person appears in only one episode, their actual involvement may have only been for a couple hours to a day.  I don't feel that is a large enough involvement to justify them being identified with the show in this way.  {{mono|[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]}}|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename and prune''' <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Miltopia|Miltopia]] ([[User talk:Miltopia|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Miltopia|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
*'''Keep''' or '''rename and prune'''. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 14:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Not a defining characteristic. [[User:Nathanian|Nathanian]] 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete this and all categorizaton of actors by the productions they appeared in.'''  This is a bad use of the categorization system.  It is much better handled with lists.  However, as Radiant!'s rename proposal is better than leaving things as they are. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**What despite there being no consensus to do delete all such categories? [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 11:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep all'''.  Useful categories. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 22:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' this and '''all other''' "XYZ actors" categories, as they are totally useless in research, are trivial and non defining. It's Wikipedia, not IMDb.~[[User:Zythe|<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Zythe|Talk to me!]]</sup> 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**So [[David Duchovny]] is not defined by being in the X-Files? [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 11:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' and prune as per nom. If it's desired to know who had single appearances on the shows, listify. If a particular celeb feels it is a defining moment to have cameoed on a show, note it in the article of the celeb. — [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' these just like we deleted [[:Category:Batman actors]] and a umpthundred other such actors by program categories. Notice that the Batman category is even protected against recreation. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' ''Notice that the Batman category is even protected against recreation'' - ahh, great!  Recommend these 3, plus The Simpsons one from Dec 25th get the same treatment. [[User:Lugnuts|Lugnuts]] 10:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] and [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]].--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:Radiant! proposed a rename, and I said delete is better than renaming. --[[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 10:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comments'''
:#Deleting these three cats is over kill. They serve a purpose, if limited to recurring cast, This is supported by the nom with "Rename and prune". No Zythe, this isn't the IMDB, but the recurring cast is important to the shows. The cat facilitates that link.
:#The ''Batman'' salting is a very, very bad example. The reason that happened is that the cat was being used to lump ''all'' actors that participated in ''any'' way, in ''any'' television show, movie, or video game. That isn't the case here, nor for ''most'' of these types of cats.
:— [[User:J Greb|J Greb]] 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] [[User talk:Pegship|<small style="color:green;"> (tis herself)</small>]] 17:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to '''X cast members'''. Oppose "recurring characters" categories. '''Weak Oppose Delete''' for Radio/TV series cast categories. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''Rename'''. Useful to those interested. (Including myself.) [[User:Dark jedi requiem|Dark jedi requiem]] 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Delete''' per [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] and [[User:Radiant!|Radiant!]]. --{{mono|[[User talk:Trogga|(]]}}[[User:Trogga|trogga]]{{mono|[[Special:Contributions/Trogga|)]]}} 20:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - oppose all "performers by performance/series/film" categories, as they proliferate potentially endlesly --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 08:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - potential for every TV series or film to be categorised by cast.  A cast list in the article for each series should suffice, without cluttering the categories. [[User:Rossrs|Rossrs]] 10:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 11:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
**The nomination is to rename, not delete. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 11:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
***Regardless of what the specific nomination was, once a category is opened for discussion it's open for any vote, whatever Wikipedia editors deem most appropriate to serve Wikipedia project goals. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 09:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
****I don't think [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] is saying that delete isn't an acceptable vote.  I believe that he was pointing out that [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]]'s vote doesn't make sense as stated.  It's a little like having a waiter recommend the roast beef and your reply is "That sounds great!  I'll have the turkey!"  If Pinoakcourt agrees with the reasons stated in the nom but would recommend deleting over renaming, then that's fine but it's not exactly what he said.  Or at least it's not the way I, nor Tim! it seems, read it.  {{mono|[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]}}|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*These categories remind me of the proliferation of categories for models' jobs. At one point Cindy Crawford had over 100 categories because she'd gotten categorized for every job. Those categories have been broadly deleted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_9#Category:Omega_models_.28and_related_categories.29] [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 13:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I just remembered that the model thing is even mentioned in another CfD on this same page. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**It's actually mentioned in this very CfD.  By me.  Although I had forgotten that it ended up over 100 cats for C.C., I thought it was 70.  {{mono|[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]}}|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename and prune'''.  Notable guest appearances should be incorporated into articles themselves.  --[[user:Cholmes75|cholmes75]] <sup>([[User talk:Cholmes75|chit chat]])</sup> 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' this is not trivia, they are notable programs so anyone who appears in them has added importance. [[User:Mr. Stabs|Mr. Stabs]] 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename and prune''' - Only actors that are an integral part of the TV show should be in the category
*'''Delete or rename/prune''' - I suggest deletion as all of these are sufficiently handled by cast lists in the main article or a subarticle.  As per some of the comments above, it is a bad idea to create individual actor categories for shows.  Assuming the category is kept, though, rename/prune as suggested. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Schools in the MEC sports conference ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''listify'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Schools in the MEC sports conference}}<br/>
Over categorization. Maybe as a list. Also it is more of an article rather then a category.  [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Video game covers ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''rename'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Video game covers]]
'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Computer and video game covers]] to match naming conventions. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per naming convention. (Shouldn't this and all its subcats be renamed to: "Images of..."?)- [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Video game mascots ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''rename'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Video game mascots]]
'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Computer and video game mascots]] to match naming conventions. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename per nom'''<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:purple;">Baka</span>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<span style="color:red;">man</span>]]</b> 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' for reasons stated above. [[User:Shoester|Shoester]] 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per naming convention. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:Computer game design ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''rename'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:Computer game design]]
'''Rename''' to [[:Category:Computer and video game design]] to match naming conventions. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 06:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' - agree with nominator
*'''Rename''' - per naming convention. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' - per nom. &mdash; [[User:Frecklefoot|Frecklefoot]] | [[User talk:Frecklefoot|Talk]] 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:People with Poland Syndrome ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|People with Poland Syndrome}}<br/>
[[Poland syndrome]] is a rare congenital defect. There is only one entry in this category, and I see no growth potential beyond that. [[User:Szyslak|<span style="color:green;">szyslak</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Szyslak|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|c]], [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]])</small> 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.  Being rare, it would lend credence that sufferers would likely meet our standards, allowing for better populating.  --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 20:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' too small for growth. [[User:Circeus|Circeus]] 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' underpopulated category. [[User:Shoester|Shoester]] 08:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', but add the example to related article(s). - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', not needed, and most of those sub-categories are based on no references, and are a bad idea.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Bad precedent to create thousands of hard to impossible to verify and low value categories. If it is important it belong to the text. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 03:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Category:American people with disabilities ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''no consensus to delete. Rename per nom.'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:[[:Category:American people with disabilities]] to [[:Category:Americans with disabilities]]
*'''Rename'''. The term "American people" is unnecessarily wordy, when "Americans" alone will do. I wonder if the phrasing of the current title is based on a literal reading of "person-first language", in which some variant of "person" or "people" must appear no matter what, even if it's unnecessary. [[User:Szyslak|<span style="color:green;">szyslak</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Szyslak|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|c]], [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]])</small> 06:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete altogether.''' Characterizing individuals by disabilities is inappropriate and not as neatly defined as one might think. How many senior citizens have handicapped license plates? Does Paul Newman have one? Do we even know? He is old now, after all. Define "disability". Do we include Tom Cruise and Cher because they're dyslexic? [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:*That's why we have subcats, to specify which particular "disability" the people in question have. It is not useful to just say someone "has a disability", but more people would argue we should say Tom Cruise is dyslexic, or George Lucas is diabetic, or [[Max Cleland]] is an amputee. Though there are a few individual articles in this cat, I think they should be recategorized or removed from this category. [[User:Szyslak|<span style="color:green;">szyslak</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Szyslak|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|c]], [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]])</small> 11:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::Diabetes is a disability? Almost everyone has some physical problem. How about arthritis? How about severe allergies? [[User:75.10.32.110|75.10.32.110]] 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' I acknowledge there is some tendency to debate on who is disabled and I don't think all of these conditions should be classed as disabilities. Still there's also debate about who is a Bisexual or a Christian, but we have [[:Category:Bisexual actors]] and [[:Category:American Christians]]. There are inarguable cases of disability, debatable cases don't negate that.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:"Christian" and "bisexual" are more clearcut terms than "disabilities". There's wiggle room in both, yes, but not like with disabilties. Those can be restricted to self-affirmed Christians and self-affirmed bisexuals. Diabilities, though . . . not so clear. Again, why include diabetes? Why not dyslexia? Or why dyslexia? It's a difference, not necessarily a disability. Who gets to judge? [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
::They're only somewhat more clearcut and I wouldn't include diabetes myself. Still that there are areas at the fringes where things get debatable doesn't negate the fact there are disabilities. I don't think of myself as disabled, but I'm not unaware that using a wheelchair and having brittle bones means I need extra aids. I am disabled for all legal or medical purposes. Sometimes I think people here make things more difficult than they need to be just so they can make a point.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. Oppose deletion due to other similar category types (as discussed above). - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''.  Inherently vague, POV, and often unreferenced.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak Delete''',  This category is possibly subject to abuse and adds very little in terms of indexing.  But in terms of some of the above arguments, we should also take a look at the higher level category [[:Category:People with disabilities]] and the categories like [[:Category:Politicians with physical disabilities]] and [[:Category:Disabled sportspeople]] --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] 05:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
**That last would be really silly. [[Disabled sports]] is both an article and a [[:Category:Disabled sports|Category]] so "disabled sportspeople" is just for those who do it.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 13:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Black Ice Hockey Players]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:'''''Delete''', or at least '''Rename''' to [[:Category:Black ice hockey players]].  If kept, we should create [[:Category:Ice hockey players by ethnicity]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', racecruft. There are any number of sports the demographic of whose participants does not map to the population as a whole, no need to single out ice hockey, or black people, or the intersection thereof. -[[User:Choster|choster]] 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' We have [[:Category:African American football players]], [[:Category:African American basketball players]], [[:Category:African American baseball players]], [[:Category:African American tennis players]], [[:Category:Jewish baseball players]], [[:Category:Jewish cricketers]], etc. Also many blacks in hockey are notable for being black and in hockey. This really shouldn't be so, but it is.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:Although rename is also good.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
'''Keep and rename''' as [[:Category:African American hockey players]] for consistency. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:I almost said that myself, but some of the names here are Canadians. Would "African American" still work?--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
::No. See ''[[:Category:Black Canadians]]'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' after looking at [[:Category:African American basketball players]] I'm doubtful these African-American categories are useful since the sports are very international.  E.g., [[Hakeem Olajuwon]] (from Nigeria) is not in the basketball category, which is logical given the category name, but most people think of him as a famous former Houston player.  That suggests the category is too specialized. [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 11:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Yes, we already have these kinds of ethnicitiy/sport intersection categories already, but considering almost all of them have been up for CFD at one point and they usually squeak by with no consensus I think [[WP:INN]] would apply here. Even hockey is becoming international to the point of these categories becoming useless; where does [[Akim Aliu]] go? [[User:Recury|Recury]] 15:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Skin colour does not affect performance levels. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 11:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as a pointless distinction.  If a hockey player's being black is significant, write how that is in the article.  --[[user:Cholmes75|cholmes75]] <sup>([[User talk:Cholmes75|chit chat]])</sup> 15:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Administrators open to recall‎]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} Probably the longest discussion I've yet closed but there are more keeps than deletes so '''keep'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

'''Delete''' Actively unhelpful to the encyclopedia. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::[[Category_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests|past recall requests]] (for those who are interested.--[[User:Kchase02|Kchase]] [[User_talk:Kchase02|T]] 22:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
::Second nom. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_14#Category:Administrators_open_to_recall First nom] - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|crz]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|crztalk]]</small> 04:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:::For more history (which I eventually tracked down and found very helpful), see [[User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_19#Recall_.28see_also_.5B1.5D.29|a previous (successful) recall]] (followed by a successful [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Crzrussian_2|re-RfA two months later]]. Have there been many/any other recalls? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 20:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Also, note the discussion at [[Category_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall]] and the archive page at [[Category_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall/Archive_1]] - these pages should be moved and kept somewhere, even if the category is not kept. Also, the record of this category surviving the previous CfD nomination should be copied from the talk page archive to the front talk page. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::::From the above, and the below, I have found at least four examples of admin recall in one form or another: Silsor, Crzrussian, Bunchofgrapes, Friday. Any more? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::Not everyone considers Silsor an example under this category, though as there wasn't a recall petition I don't think (glad to be corrected as I collect the links to them!). But the mechanics of how the re-RfA went are interesting. We have had other re-RfAs of course... Sean Black stood down then stood up again, for example. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]] had an [[User:Merovingian/archive-13#Administrators_open_to_recall|abortive appeal]] by Hipocrite back in July. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.  Immensely helpful to the encyclopedia, and entirely voluntary. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 04:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
** Volunteering to feed the trolls is unhelpful. Referencing the actions taken regarding members of the category, please demonstrate the utility to the encyclopedia? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 04:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
***So trolls ousted [[User:Crzrussian]]?  How about [[User:Friday]]?  The simple fact is that the category works.  It provides optional accountability to admins, and, from the looks of things, admins in the category tend to be less abusive than their non-categorized counterparts.  It's a shame we can't expand it to everyone in some form.  Finally, if you're an admin who doesn't want to "feed the trolls," the category is optional, so they don't have to worry about it.  You have no argument here.  --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**** crz - since he was resysoped, his recall was a waste of time. Friday? Yes, those are trolls. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] - [[User talk:Hipocrite|&laquo;<small>Talk</small>&raquo;]] 04:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*****It was a waste?  I wouldn't say that at all.  I'd say it worked perfectly.  With [[User:Friday]], it appears unlikely that the petition will succeed because of the circumstances, again meaning it worked perfectly.  We're two for two, and early returns say the system works. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
******And don't forget [[User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive Recall Petition]]. Three attempts in half a year is no avalanche. - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|crz]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|crztalk]]</small> 04:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*******I'd go so far as to say that you, Crzrussian, are a ''better admin'' for having undergone the process. You flubbed up, seriously, you were a ''mensch'' about it and gave up your bit, you learned your lesson and changed your ways, and I was extremely proud to have co-renominated you and extremely delighted when your nomination succeeded. Hipocrite: To call the likes of Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and FloNight among others, "trolls" may be just a bit off. Contrast how a fractious RfAr may have went instead. This process works. I find it interesting that this nom is coming up at this time, from this nominator... ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
********Sliding completely off-topic, I agree - I like you more as an admin now than I did then, and in the off chance you were recalled again, I'd support.  You've come a long way, baby, or something. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Who cares?''' With the cat or without it the people have chosen to be accountable in this fashion. If you get it deleted, you'll un-systematize recall and confuse the populace. This way at least there's a centralized record. - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|crz]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|crztalk]]</small> 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', only because it's voluntary. [[User:Tuviya|Tuviya]] 05:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Perennially divisive topic and category; stepchild/second-bite-at-apple of the long dead failed project [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall]]. This category is flawed and troublesome for the same reasons as its predecessor. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 05:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**What predecessor? This category '''has''' no predecessor. I strongly oppose [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall]] since it is mandatory, and don't think you've made the link between that failed idea and this sucessful one at all apparent. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The administrators in this category have chosen to be in it, and welcome the opportunity to show that they are accountable to the community. I think any trolling can be dealt with simply by denying the recall attempt, or dealing with it in some other way. Most of us know a troll when we see one. [[User:Szyslak|<span style="color:green;">szyslak</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Szyslak|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|c]], [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]])</small> 06:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:*Trolling is not the primary problem with the category; administrators in the category trying to lord it over those who are not is. The category sets up a situation in which administrators in the category are perceived as more "accountable to the community", as your own choice of words demonstrates, regardless of whether they actually are or not. That artificial arrangement is unnecessarily contentious and divisive; the project already adequately provides for administrator accountability, WP:RFC and WP:RFAR, and this category adds one more unnecessary layer. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 06:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::*I agree that there are far more sides to this issue than just trolling. When I addressed the trolling issue, I was primarily responding to nominator [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]]'s points. Anyway... CAT:AOR is neither contentious nor divisive. Personally, I think it's fine for an admin ''not'' to be open for recall. It's purely a matter of choice. And I agree with you that our existing dispute resolution processes are adequate for dealing with truly bad sysops, as rare as such cases may be. However, I'll have to disagree with your statement that admins in CAT:AOR have any interest in "lording over" those who aren't. [[WP:AGF|Let's not attribute ulterior motives where none are warranted]]. [[User:Szyslak|<span style="color:green;">szyslak</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Szyslak|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|c]], [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]])</small> 07:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom and FM.  The original proposal was bad, this is also disruptive.  ''All'' admins are subject to community comment (via RFC).  Whether the subject of an admin conduct RFC chooses to ignore the input, try to improve, or voluntarily request that their sysop flag be removed is their decision.  Adding yourself to a category like this is nothing but false showiness.  Anyone who uses admin powers will get lots of feedback on their actions if they do anything that other editors see as misuse of those powers.  Does membership in this category mean that you will ''only'' listen to feedback from people who go through the "recall" procedure, and not to your fellow editors when they ''don't'' get the 6 required signatures (or whatever the system ended up as)?  [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 07:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom and FM. Divisive. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup style="color:purple;">(talk)</sup>]] 07:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. The category's usage implies to me that those who choose to place themselves in this category think that those who don't see themselves as being above the law, as it were. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 07:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**These opinions are so wrong. Why don't you ask people what they're implying instead of imagining it? - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|crz]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|crztalk]]</small> 09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The cat is disruptive nonsense, a fact that is not mitigated by its voluntary nature.  As noted above, a mechanism already exists for resolving any issues that might arise with admins.  [[User:Jim62sch|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#FF2400;">&#0149;Jim</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#F4C430;">62</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#000000;">sch&#0149;</span>]] 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' existing constraints on administrator action are '''not''', IMHO, sufficient.  And this category is a useful antidote.  No evidence has been presented of either disruptive abuse or use to belittle those who avoid it.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**Antidote?  Try again. [[User:Jim62sch|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#FF2400;">&#0149;Jim</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#F4C430;">62</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#000000;">sch&#0149;</span>]] 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. There may be benefit in some community-based deopping process, although I have yet to see a proposal that isn't all-too-easily abused by axe-grinders, trolls and troubleseekers. This category doesn't help. Additionally, the way it is worded it is meaningless, since an admin in this cat can still (by its wording) choose to ignore any and all motions for any kind of reason. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 10:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', I wouldn't want to be a part of it, mostly because I am a thick-skinned son-of-a-bitch, however it's less of a trouble ousting Rouge ops who are in the category, than going to ArbCom. Also, it is not the trolls who have a say in the process, but six administrators who think the administrator did not do his job nicely. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<span style="color:black;">'''Nearly Headless Nick'''</span>]] 10:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**It's not "six admins" but "six users" who need to think he didn't do his job. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 11:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
***It's not "six users" but "six users in good standing" as defined by the admin who has voluntarily chosen to place themselves on the board.  [[User:Tuviya|Tuviya]] 12:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*I'm '''inclined to keep''' it, so long as a decent numbers of admins choose to be a part of it. If one wants not to be in the category, one simply need not add themself into it. [[User:Luna Santin|Luna Santin]] 10:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - it's voluntary.  Saying it's divisive may indicate a guilty conscience.  If someone wants to make himself actively accountable, why not let them?  That doesn't make any sense.  Note that nominator once tried to recall someone even.  Over an AfD vote.  [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 12:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.  Nobody's forcing sysops to put themselves in the category.  [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]]</small> 13:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' attempt to create a "POV fork" of rejected admin recall policy attempt per FeloniousMonk.  And the Crzyrussian recall drama was unnecessary and pointless.  If an admin wants to resign on their own initiative or at someone else's request, they can do it without the kabuki dance [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&diff=490011&oldid=489990] (or not: [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&diff=490984&oldid=490756] after the arb case kept moving anyway). [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Felonious Monk; further, the text of the category must be constantly policed to be sure that it isn't incrementally made less voluntary.  I believe that the category is confusing to newcomers interested in adminship, and it is producing peer pressure to join.  It has come up at some RFAs.  There should not be two sets of rules, and the consensus of the project is that de-adminship matters should be addressed by the arbcom. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as we keep other user categories. Nobody forces anyone there, either; and I don't see how a cat containing just ~10% of the admins would create pressure. [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]<sup> [[User talk:CP\M|comm]]</sup> |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 15:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom, FeloniousMonk. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</small>]]</sup> 15:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep.'''  This category and its associated process are voluntary.  Admins decide whether to join, how to set their renomination criteria, and what to do when those criteria are met.  My own preference is actually for all admins to be subject to recall: not by ArbCom, but by the community which granted them their tools.  Accountability requires not merely that admins ''earn'' the trust of the community, but that they ''keep'' it.  Pending a more universal mechanism, though, this category is a useful experiment in community-based recall, as well as an admirable display of respect and openness on the part of its members.  I commend them. [[User:Tim Smith|Tim Smith]] 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as before. Nothing has changed since last time, except that we have another new recall under way, one that, if we can judge from the outcome of the two previous attempts, will be a harmonious process, unlike some other things around here. I admit bias, I'm clerking it, as I have twice before, so of course I think this category works and works well, for those that choose to voluntarily be in it. I continue to oppose making it mandatory although I understand not all agree, just as I oppose not allowing admins to organise themselves this way. If the category is deleted I will nevertheless continue to consider myself subject to recall, and will nevertheless continue to list my criteria for doing so on my user page. I think there is more divisiveness at this point from trying to agitate against admins voluntarily being accountable, than there is from admins voluntarily being accountable. Note further that this category got me an [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards%2Felections_2006-2&diff=480256&oldid=480233 oppose] in the steward election... well so be it. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' No problem with your putting something like that on your user page, or your removing it from your user page later if you change your mind.  People who add themselves to this category and then remove themselves later are likely to be in for grief, especially if they claimed during their RFA candidacy that they add themselves (and they do sometimes get asked point-blank at RFA whether they'll add themselves).  Anyway, judging from recent arb cases, arbcom is getting a lot quicker on the desysopping trigger than they were in older cases.  Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.  I do remember that Karynn even ran for arb on the platform of promising a desysopping spree.  [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 23:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.  People can put themselves in it if they want, and how to handle any petitions they get is entirely up to them.  However, efforts to precisely specify the rules and procedures for dealing with recalls, in general, should be met with the strictest of opposition.  I think I'll go edit the category a bit right now, in fact. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
* Again, the suggestions that this are "divisive" seem to be lacking in evidence and should be ignored.  So far, it's barely been used, the two closed recalls went just fine, and the open one is just the same shambles that we'd have had if the *cough* litigants *cough* had raised an RfC.  Heck, if we want to delete something "divisive" that's it right there.  So, yeah, here "divisive" is a code word for "I don't like it" and the people using that code should really be brave enough to just say it right out. - [[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|<span style="color:black;">brenneman</span>]] 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC) <small> I'm not going to write <keep|delete> in bold, figure it out yourself, closer man, this isn't a vote.</small>
:*I agree 100%. Another code word for "I don't like it" is "disruptive". So not everyone agrees 100%. That's OK. It's a free encyclopedia. [[User:Szyslak|<span style="color:green;">szyslak</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Szyslak|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|c]])</small> 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
::*It's definitely divisive since it's used as an RFA question which affects people's votes, and some candidates probably answer "yes" in the hope of gaining more support even if they have reservations inside.  The whole point of any RFA question is to be divisive (i.e. to help refine the division of participants into supporters and opposers).  What's at issue is whether this question is ''appropriately'' divisive, given that it's used in that context.  Also, "it's a free encyclopedia" doesn't remotely mean that every type of conduct and content within the encyclopedia is ok.  Szyszlak should know better than to think users are entitled to create any categories that they like.  This kind of info belongs purely in userspace if anywhere at all, similar to political userboxes.  [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:::*By "it's a free encyclopedia", I mean we should respect the choices of administrators who make themselves open for recall ''and'' those who don't. I didn't intend to suggest I tolerate "every type of conduct and content within the encyclopedia". But I ''do'' think people on both sides of this issue should, well, agree to disagree. Neither side is causing irreparable harm to the encyclopedia. (By the way, I hate political userboxes.) [[User:Szyslak|<span style="color:green;">szyslak</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Szyslak|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|c]])</small> 06:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': shouldn't this be at [[WP:UCFD]] instead? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coelacan|coe<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">l</span>acan]] [[User talk:Coelacan|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">t</span>a<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lk</span>]] &mdash; 03:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Kill it with a stick''' - immensely counterproductive to the actual process of writing an encyclopedia, ill thought-out, a bad idea in just about every way I can think of - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 09:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Another one of these extinction dramas by the "kill with a stick" defenders of Wikipedia? :-). When is the next round scheduled? Starts getting boring. Isn't it sufficient that those who disagree with the cat simply don't add themselves? --[[User:Ligulem|Ligulem]] 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Because it's voluntary. (You know something is wrong when you're giving the same reason as someone else but a different !vote...) Either all admins should be up for recall, or none. Everyone is accountable to the community, recall is just adding another way for the community to hold admins accountable. Procedure should be the same for everyone, and procedure is that if you want an admin desysopped, you take it to ArbCom. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 13:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' because I see no harm in it, and I've never seen the slightest coersion by anyone to get an admin to "sign up". --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] [[User talk:Fang Aili|<sup style="color:green">talk</sup>]] 14:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' this is useful to the management of the encyclopedia.-- [[User:danntm|danntm]] <sup>[[user talk:danntm|T]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Danntm|C]]</sub> 15:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I can't really see anything bad in this. Trolls always find a way to misuse any kind of rules, guidelines or recall systems, that doesn't mean that these rules, guidelines and recall systems are bad. --[[User:ContiE|Conti]]|[[User talk:ContiE|&#9993;]] 16:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''.  It doesn't do what it's supposed to do and it is an absolute trolls' charter.  We need to come up with a better idea. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 17:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
* '''Who cares?''' It's not Wikipedia policy. If admins want to subject themselves to this, that's their own business; and it's completely up to the admin to abide by, or not abide by, any result of any such recall. The only real argument for deletion is that it gives the false impression that it ''is'' Wikipedia policy, and encourages people to waste time. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]]</small></sup> 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. The ''opinions'' of some people on this are, of course, perfectly valid. But this is a volunteer catagory. And as a matter of fact, many of us keep voters '''feel very much''' that the admins in this category are far more accessible , open to comment, and cognizent of their position being one of the use of tools rather than some sort of upper class of user than, say, some who aren't in this category. It's a matter of trust for me. --<span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Elaragirl|<span style="color:SteelBlue;">Elar</span>]][[User:Elaragirl/a|<span style="color:orange;">'''a'''</span>]][[User:Elaragirl/Signatures|<span style="color:SteelBlue;">girl</span>]]<small><sup>[[User_Talk:Elaragirl|Talk]]|[[User:Elaragirl/EditCount|Count]]</sup></small></span> 17:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', pending any evidence that it is a "troll's charter". I'm seeing a lot of unverified assumptions about how this could/should/would work. Of the <s>three</s> four instances I'm aware of it being used, one (the first) resulted in a immediate self-desysop and later landslide re-sysoping, two failed to achieve majority, and the other was withdrawn without drawing a single supporter. I'm not seeing the problem here, and if anything the "lording it over" has lessened, not worsened, since the first CFD. Like the [[WP:MEDCAB|Mediation Cabal]], this is a voluntary, informal, alternative to some of our drama-laden and process-heavy procedures here at Wikipedia. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', the system is voluntary and works as it should.  Also note that [[WP:UCFD]] is a more appropriate place for this listing.  —[[User:CComMack|CComMack]] ([[User talk:CComMack|t]]–[[Special:Contributions/CComMack|c]]) 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. Does this really need to be nominated every few months? The admins in this category volunteered to place themselves in the category. I'm not sure who really thinks the admins in this category are "lording it over" others, but I think that's the product of imagination. As Nae'blis says, this is a voluntary, informal alternative to the often overly dramatic desysopping processes; I'm not sure what is divisive about ''less'' drama, and I have found the category entirely helpful on a personal basis. [[User:Firsfron|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Firsfron of Ronchester</span>]] 20:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''', it doesn't seem to be hurting anything should [[Wikipedia:Admin recall (August 2006 proposal)|Wikipedia:Admin recall]] ever go live.  Although as it is currently {{t1|rejected}} this category doesn't appear to be serving any use. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype; font-size:larger;">xaosflux</span>]] [[User_talk:Xaosflux|<sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</sup>]] 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*:I suspect you may be confused, xaos. [[CAT:AOR]] isn't (now, not sure about originally) related to any of the failed mandatory recall/de-adminning proposals. It has no Wikipedia: page, just the description on the category itself (and of course discussion on the cat's talk page). By design it's extremely lightweight and informal. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*::I'm not confused, that is acutaull my point--this appears to be a user category for something we have no process and/or policy for; although it also appears to be attempting to be a project page by giving editor directions in the "process" section.  I'm not for against the concept of admin recall right now, but there should be a project page to back up this category, and if the community has rejected the concept then there is a diminishing value in the category. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype; font-size:larger;">xaosflux</span>]] [[User_talk:Xaosflux|<sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk</sup>]] 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - No one (editors, admins or others) should need to join any group or category to establish trust with the community.  Ideas like this mean well, but eventually they simply divide people to the detriment of the project.  --[[User:InkSplotch|InkSplotch]] 00:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' [[User:Rebecca|Rebecca]] 04:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''delete''' borderline nonsensical -- <small> [[User talk:Drini|Drini]]</small> 06:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. If kept does this belong in the main encylopedia name space?  This seems to be user related and not encylopedia related. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 06:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Admins should be open to recall but this is too silly to be tolerated. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 09:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Since there is no associated Wikipedia project page, there are technically no standards, no system under which such a things should work. This means that not only is being in the category voluntary, but how one interprets being in the category ''could'' be subjective to each person. Also, this category is more than indicating that the included member supports such a thing, but that they are applying some form of it to themself. If this was just a "supports" category I may have said "Keep", but in its current form, it just has too many problems. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - It is my firm belief that the single greatest problem facing Wikipedia is the lack of admin accountability to the community. It has caused an obvious and growing rift between the community as a whole and the admins who are supposed to represent them. Over and over again it has resulted in massive disruptions and the loss of good contributors on both 'sides'. Only by making admins accountable to the community they are supposed to represent can these problems be solved. This category is presently the only way of supporting that belief. As a representative of the community, chosen BY the community and supposedly acting with their trust, I would feel like I was acting improperly if I ''weren't'' answerable to the community for my actions. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 13:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - It's a totally pointless waste of time and space. There are no hard and fast rules to protect a good admin from suffering a recall petition and to protect the community from a bad admin. There's no impartiality when the admin gets to decide which voters are in good standing and it's grossly unfair when there's no mention of needing a majority or clear consensus. As with Friday's recent recall, there was sizeable opposition to the recall but the hardy band who wanted the recall to go ahead persisted citing the "six users in good standing" which is just plain wrong but they did have a valid point, Friday had enough support on his recall petition to pass any RfA so how can a recall possibly be considered in those circumstances. I'd like to see a consensus with a rough 75% support for the recall being brought in and any user blocked by the admin in question barred from making any !votes or comments to the recall. There's no mention of petitioning or canvassing for votes either, so it has all the hallmarks of being another classic piece of ill thought out WP policy. If there was to be discussion with a view to introducing hard and fast rules which would give protection to admins and enshrine the idea of a consensus being required, then I'd keep, but at the moment it goes against the whole idea of consensus building and is so open to trolling and it's not beneficial to Wikipedia. --<span style="color:#27408B;font-size:small;">'''Kind Regards - '''[[User:Heligoland|'''Heligoland ''']] |  [[User talk:Heligoland|'''Talk''']] |  [[Special:Contributions/Heligoland|'''Contribs''']]</span> 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep and discuss further''' - I don't think it is ideal in its current form. I personally would support a system where admins voluntarily put themselves up for re-approval at set intervals, but do this by re-opening their RfA (actually, making a copy of it would be better) and notifying those who voted previously (who could change or re-confirm their vote) and allowing new votes to be added. This would indicate how much support has changed for that admin, if at all. Being open to recall doesn't address the problem of admins who are on the borderline of causing enough concern for recall, but not being quite disruptive enough. Re-election would ensure that admins are representative of the community. Of course, if the community make-up changes drastically in a bad way, that could be a bad thing. Maybe having admins who are 'out of touch' is no bad thing until the community make-up improves again after the latest batch of users moves on to other things. Difficult, but I think this voluntary, one-size-doesn't-fit-all approach is the best we have at the moment. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 15:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Guettarda on the mailing list. [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/059707.html]. The more I thinkk about it, the more I think any admin who wants to do this in any way other than what we have simply has to restand every year or so.  RFC and Arbitration should work to catch admins who are abusing the tools. I appreciate the ideals that went into creating this, hell I even discussed them and stood in the category, but I just don't think it works.  It's messy, it's subjective and it seems to be creating disruption and factions.  I guess to me, the encyclopedia is more important. '''I am always open to recall, whether I stand in this category or not'''. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|Talk]]</small> 17:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' as an admin who is in the category, and per my comments in the last CfD. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to call myself an "admin open to recall". It is entirely voluntary, and doesn't harm Wikipedia as a whole. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
**Regardless of the outcome also, I will continue to display the category on my userpage, whether it's blue or red. You can't tell me I can't do that. -[[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]]<small>([[User talk:Royalguard11|Talk]]·[[User talk:Royalguard11/Desk|Desk]]·[[User:Royalguard11/ER|Review Me!]])</small> 05:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. This plainly is a back-door display of advocacy for a process that's been rejected for the present.  If there's agreed to be a genuine need for recall, it should be dealt with directly and re-consensused accordingly. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Useful category, is voluntary.  If you don't like it, don't put yourself in it.  Obviously many admins consider it useful and appropriate judging by the number who have placed themselves in it. This CFD is harmful to the encylopaedia by wasting editors' time.  Original nominator is supposedly on a long wikibreak anyhow. -[[User:THB|THB]] 23:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

====[[:Category:Days of our Lives characters]]====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''merge'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

* [[:Category:Past Days of our Lives characters]]
* [[:Category:Past and Present Days of our Lives characters]]
:'''''Merge both''' into [[:Category:Days of our Lives characters]], current / former.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|ProveIt]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
'''Agree''' - it is the most reasonable thing to do, especially since they recur all the time.  [[User:Tuviya|Tuviya]] 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - sensible for simple enough reasons.  [[User:Miltopia|Milto LOL pia]] 13:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - per nom. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep both.''' There is a [[:Category:Past Coronation Street characters]], which I modeled this after. If you merge these, you must merge this as well. [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|I did "That's hot" first!]] 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge both.''' Wikipedia guidelines stress that fiction is in present tense. Also, past characters are still characters. Some get mentioned. Some influence events without appearing. That still makes them characters in the stories. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. Oh, yeah, and some come and go. [[User:Wryspy|Wryspy]] 11:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

==== Fictional misanthropic character categories ====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  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 {{{1|}}} '''listify and delete'''. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] 01:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC) 

:{{lc|Fictional misanthropes}}<br/>
:{{lc|Fictional human misanthropes}}<br/>
'''Delete'''. Category is not specific enough and requires much POV invocation. You might also '''listify''' because a list can be properly annotated with external links sourcing when each character was identified as a misanthrope. When a category includes everything from the Cylons' determination to wipe out the human race to Moe's surly attitude on ''The Simpsons'', the category is excessively broad. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. "Misanthropy" is far too nebulous a subject for categorizing real or fictional people. [[User:Szyslak|<span style="color:green;">szyslak</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Szyslak|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Szyslak|c]], [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]])</small> 07:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', not objectively defined. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' sheesh. [[User:67.117.130.181|67.117.130.181]] 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- We went through this already with the "sarcastic characters" category attempt. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''KEEP'''. See [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_24#Category:Fictional_characters_who_are_opposed_to_humanity]]; the '''consensus was to move the category to Fictional misanthropes'''. I fail to see how it's too broad; the '''main category''' is for fictional characters (usually non-human) who posess either  either a hatred or distrust of mankind (like the '''Cylons''', who want to wipe out humanity). '''One of the subcategories''' is for the human misanthropes (like '''Moe''', who openly admits that he supports every prejudice known to man, and regularly threatens his customers, friends and complete strangers). It's not like it's one big category filled by different types of misanthropes. And while it may be arguable how the Human misanthropes category is POV, I fail to see how the main one is. '''Is it really open to interpretation, or POV, that the various characters who hate humans are misanthropic'''? The whole point of the category was so that the non-human characters who hate humans aren't put in the "Fictional racists" category (which they aren't, because racism is hating different races of your own species, not hating a different species altogether). --[[User:DrBat|DrBat]] 23:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Wikipedia's broad definition. "Misanthropy is a hatred or distrust of the human race, or a disposition to dislike and mistrust other people." That's hatred OR distrust OR a disposition. [[User:Shoester|Shoester]] 08:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Listify''' ''then'' '''Delete''' - I'm starting to think just about any of these "Fictional character" categories should be listified as subjective. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Pinoakcourt|Pinoakcourt]] 11:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Listify then Delete''' Categories like this seem much better suited to become articles or lists.  -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 05:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:I've started a list, but I'm not finished. [[User:DrBat/List of fictional characters who are opposed to humanity]] --[[User:DrBat|DrBat]] 21:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>