|
__NOTOC__
<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">
<noinclude><div class="usermessage plainlinks"><div class="plainlinks">You have <font color=002BB8>[[User:The Transhumanist/Gotcha!|new messages]]</font> (<font color=002BB8>[[User:The Transhumanist/Gotcha!|last change]]</font>) </div></div>
{| width = "100%"
</noinclude>
|-
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="grey"><</font> [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7|February 7]]
! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9|February 9]] <font color="grey">></font>
|}
</div></noinclude>
=== February 8 ===
<!-- 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.
-->
==== NEW NOMINATIONS ====
<!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->
==== Category:Housing cooperatives in Madison, Wisconsin ====
:{{lc|Housing cooperatives in Madison, Wisconsin}}<br/>
{{{3|'''Delete''' - the category contains three articles (one of which I just put up for deletion) and given that most of the other articles that would be housed there have been deleted (other articles on other non-notable co-ops) thus the sategory is unlikely to expand any time soon, and that all of the articles are housed both in [[:Category:Housing cooperatives]] and [[:Category:Madison, Wisconsin]] there seems little need to categorize by this intersction. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
==== Category:American constitutionalists ====
:'''Propose renaming [[:Category:American constitutionalists]]''' to [[:Category:Constitutionalists (United States)]]
:'''Nominator's Rationale:''' {{{3|'''Rename''', originally intended (and noted that way, before [[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] deleted it—accidentally?) to be for [[Constitution Party (United States)|CP]] party members, and this seems to be the formatting convention adopted for other parties. Subcats should follow, similarly. [[User:ChristTrekker|ChristTrekker]] 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
[[Image:Bouncywikilogo.gif|120px|left]]
==== Category:Avifauna of Canada ====
:Hello, and welcome to my user page. Please, if you have any tips, questions, comments, etc., leave them on [[User talk:Kevinwong913|my talk page]].
:'''Propose renaming [[:Category:Avifauna of Canada]]''' to [[:Category:Birds of Canada]]
:'''Nominator's Rationale:''' {{{3|'''Rename''', I apparently neglected to nominate this last time around. All of the other "Avifauna of Fooland" categories have been moved to "Birds of Fooland." See [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_27#Birds_by_country|this discussion]]. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 20:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
:I would like to give credit to many users, from whose userpages I have copied ideas for mine. Feel free to edit this page, or to copy content from it.
:Also, if you have come here to vandalize, please go ahead. It will be quickly reverted, without any damage done. However, this will leave an ugly warning message on your userpage, which are not generally objects of envy.
[[Image:NotSuckBanner.jpg|center]]
<blockquote>
{| style="text-align:center; border: 1px solid #ffc9c9; background-color:green""If all else fails, read the manual."
</blockquote>
{| style="text-align:center; border: 1px solid #ffc9c9; background-color:green"
|- padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"
|style="font-size: 85%"|'''This is a <span style="white-space: nowrap"><span>Wi<!-- Wikipedia -->ki</span><span>pedia</span></span> user page.'''
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than <span style="white-space: nowrap"><span>Wi<!-- Wikipedia -->ki</span><span>pedia</span>,</span> you are viewing a mirror site(that's not a good thing...). Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than <span style="white-space: nowrap"><span>Wi<!-- Wikipedia -->ki</span><span>pedia</span></span> itself. The original page is located at ''<nowiki>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:</nowiki>''Kevinwong913 '']''.</span>
|[[Image:Wikimedia.png|60px|none|Wiki<!---->media Foundation]]
|}
{{Pic of the day|center}}
====Convention venues====
:'''[[:Category:Democratic National Convention venues]]'''
:'''[[:Category:Republican National Convention venues]]'''
The venues which host modern [[United States presidential nominating convention|national conventions]] host many major events. A raft of ''BiMonSciFiCon venues''-type categories which impart little additional information about them or their commonalities with each other is sure to follow. I consider this is a corollary case of performers by performance. -[[User:Choster|choster]] 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' <s>and listify within the general articles for the conventions, if there is an article for the convention, otherwise just delete</s>. The convention sites are already listed in the appropriate articles. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. If people want to know this sort of information, they'll likely go to the articles, where the cities are listed. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', category imparts little usefulness. ⇔ [[User:ChristTrekker|ChristTrekker]] 21:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:People without hands ====
:{{lc|People without hands}}<br/>
{{{3|[[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic|Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic]]. Someone's disabilities should not be a categorization criteria. Category is underpopulated and is sub-standard as well. Listify if you must. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Keep''' per [[WP:POINT]]. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It seems to me that being without hands is fairly defining, whether that is what these people want to be known for or not, and it isn't a trivial characteristic. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[[image:8GBipodnano.JPG|right|thumb|Oooooh... Ipod...]]
==== Category:Eden ====
:{{lc|Eden}}<br/>
{{{3|'''Delete'''. Category is essentially empty after more than one year, has a misleading name (it's not about [[Eden]] in general), and is unlikely ever to attract much in the way of additional contents. It was created in 2005 for articles about [[Eden, North Carolina]] (a fairly small town) and it still includes only one article.[[User:Orlady|orlady]] 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
:'''Speedy Delete''' - should never have been created <math>Insert formula here</math>
:'''Delete as empty''' Category has no articles at all. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Dugwiki. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten filled accidentally with [[Garden of Eden]] articles though. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 20:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Fox News Channel personalities ====
:{{lc|Fox News Channel personalities}}<br/>
{{{3|*'''Delete''' - (Begin cut and paste of "network personalities" discussion.) Grouping people together according to whether they have been on a specific radio or TV network is not useful, as many people work for many different radio and TV networks over the course of their careers. This categories (and other similar categories) should be deleted. Also note the multiple discussions on [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 2|2007 February 2]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 3|2007 February 3]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 4|2007 February 4]], and [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 7|2007 February 7]] discussions on related categories. (End cut and paste of "network personalities" discussion. I wish I could locate these all at once; they do not seem to be located in any common parent category.) [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Delete''' per Dr. Sub. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:Villianc.svg|300px|left|Villain character]]
==== Category:Kids' Choice Awards winners ====
:{{lc|Kids' Choice Awards winners}}<br/>
{{{3|*'''Delete''' - This is another award that is given to people who are so notable that they win many awards anyway. This category, like many other award categories, contributes to the category clutter in articles on individual people while revealing little about the individuals' careers. The category should be deleted. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Delete''' Better to use list articles for award winners. See [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award Winners]] for discussion. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Detroit Music Award winners ====
:{{lc|Detroit Music Award winners}}<br/>
{{{3|*'''Delete''' - This is a minor music award given specifically to people from Detroit. This category is one of many music awards these people wins, and it adds to category clutter; see [[Stevie Wonder]], for example. The category should be deleted. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Delete''' Better to use list articles for award winners. See [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award Winners]] for discussion. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Black lawyers ====
:'''Propose renaming [[:Category:Black lawyers]]''' to [[:Category:African American lawyers]]
:'''Nominator's Rationale:''' {{{3|'''Rename'''. We don't categorize by skin color ([[:Category:Black people]] has been deleted). The parents of this category are [[:Category:American lawyers]] and [[:Category:African Americans]]. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Rename, but prune lawyers from category''' The rename makes sense to be consistent with the parent categories. Note, though, that as a general rule we don't categorize by ethinicity unless the ethnicity is somehow significant in the career. So this category should be restricted to lawyers for whom being African American is notably mentioned in their article as having an impact on their legal career. An example of an appropriate article would be an African American lawyer whose ethnicity led them to take part in various race-related legal actions. A bad example would be a lawyer who happens to be African American but whose article doesn't mention ethnicity playing a part in their legal practice. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC
*'''Rename and Keep''' I disagree with [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] because artilces with incomplete leads such as [[Thurgood Marshall]], who had a record of 29 wins and 3 losses as a lawyer in cases before the [[Supreme Court of the United States]], might be removed because they don't mention that a person was a significant lawyer. The lead could be revised to include his prominence as a lawyer without mentioning that his race had an impact on his career and still be removed by this criterion. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
**'''Note''' I just added a sentence to the [[Thurgood Marshall]] page so that the lead is more appropriate. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I make the same comment I have made many times before: the list contains a number of non-Americans, and so it will need to be pruned and a separate category of non-American Black lawyers created. --'''[[User:Legis|Legis]]''' <small>([[User talk:Legis|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Legis|contributions]])</small> 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This name change alters the intended meaning of the category, as well. Not all American people of African heritage ("African American") are black. If it was intended to be a racial category, and WP doesn't support that, nor other physical distinctions like [[:Category:red-haired lawyers]]), then ''delete'' it altogether. Would we support [[:Category:European American lawyers]]? Using African-American as a euphemism for black just propogates racial hyper-sensitivity. OTOH, there are many categories that follow the heritage-nationality-profession scheme (e.g. [[:Category:Irish-American musicians]]), but many black Americans cannot trace ancestry to a specific political unit (e.g. Mozambique vs Nigeria). In that case, ''keep'' the category as is, since "black" describes the heritage about as well as can be done. ⇔ [[User:ChristTrekker|ChristTrekker]] 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
{{User Canada eh}}
==== American people by ethnic or national origin ====
{{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Cold}}
:'''Propose renaming''' all categories of format '''Category:Fooian-Americans''' to '''Category:Fooian Americans'''
:'''Nominator's Rationale:''' This has been [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_7#American_people_by_national_or_ethnic_origin |discussed before]] with no consensus, but I thought that since [[:Category:American people by ethnic or national origin]] is still very inconsistent on hyphenation it warranted revisiting. Personally I prefer the unhyphenated for nouns and hyphenated for adjectives as it makes sense grammatically. The only instances where it makes less sense is cases of dual citizenship, which is probably a relatively small subset of these articles. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|☎]] 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Alternative'''. To avoid the spelling controversy and perhaps an implied supposition that (all) people listed under a particularly ethnicity on these pages (always) share common values as a member of the particular group of "hyphenated Americans", that for instance a third generation Italian(-)American is somehow equally Italian and American, I suggest using the alternative naming "Americans of Fooian descent". [[User:Mayumashu|Mayumashu]] 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
**It's unfortunately awkward, but I would be okay with that. One of my main problems with hypenation is that most, say, Italian Americans are not also Italian citizens. In other words, Italian American means to me "American citizen of Italian descent" (with no judgement of how American or Italian they feel), while Italian-American seems to imply dual citizenship. I understand, though, that not everyone reads it the same. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] [[User talk:Laurascudder|☎]] 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
====[[:Category:Heterosexual people]]====
:'''''Delete''', overly broad, non-defining.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*Kill it with fire, quickly, quickly, quickly. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*In fact, I'm speedily deleting this. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:POINT]]. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 16:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I assume that you will both be voting to delete [[:Category:LGBT people]]? [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
**I have no comment; the major objection to this was because it was created by a blatant vandal, and waay too broad. That might be too, but I'm not tendering an opinion on it. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 17:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:*I've already spoken about the LGBT people categories. My !vote here was based on my belief that the category was created to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point about the LGBT catageory. Which is why I noted "per [[WP:POINT]]." [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Since 90%+ of people are heterosexual, the only possible reason for this category would be to categorize people whose article significantly and notably mentions their heterosexuality. My guess is no such articles exist, though. On top of that, since the great majority of people are heterosexual it is reasonably safe to assume that unless someone's article specifies otherwise, they are probably heterosexual, or if they aren't their LGBT preference isn't verified or significant. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
{{User:Llama man/Userboxes/User DS}}
==== Category:Articles with family tree ====
:{{lc|Articles with family tree}}<br/>
{{{3|The articles which this category groups are essentially unconnected. As it is added by a template it appears first on the list of categories, ahead of the useful categories. We don't have [[:category:Articles with infoboxes]] or [[:Category:Articles with external links]] and this is just as bad as those would be. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Delete'''. These articles have little in common. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I believe that people who like to read family trees would consider such a list useful. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The category system is a mess already without the addition of potentially hundreds of categories based on formatting features. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 22:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Karlspreis laureates ====
{{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}}
:{{lc|Karlspreis laureates}}<br/>
{{User contrib|200}}
{{{3|*'''Delete''' - This is another award that generally goes to people who are so well-known that they win many awards anyway (such as [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Winston Churchill]]). Consequently, this award contributes to category clutter on the pages of many notable people. As has been done with other award categories recently, this category should be deleted. Note that this award's recipients are already listed at [[Karlspreis]], so the category does not need to be listified. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 15:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 15:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 15:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Better to use list articles for award winners. See [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award Winners]] for discussion. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Murdered religious people ====
:{{lc|Murdered religious people}}<br/>
{{{3|*'''Delete''' - Articles on a few people such as [[Thomas Beckett]] have several categories related to being murder victims, which is excessive. This category seems to be one of the weak murder victim categories. The term "religious people" is vague, as it could refer to people who are formally designated as clergy or people who simply have strong religious beliefs. It also does not explicitly state that the individuals were killed because of religious reasons or other reasons, so priests (ministers, pastors, etc.) murdered for other reasons would fall into this category. If redefined to indicate clergy, it is unclear as to whether it should be kept. In the long term, I see little reason to subdivide murder victims according to their careers. Hence, I advocate deletion. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 14:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
**'''Comment''' - Also note [[:Category:Martyrs]], for people who ''are'' murdered for religious reasons. [[:Category:Martyrs]] should definitely be kept, but [[:Category:Murdered religious people]] should not. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The number of death related categories on some articles - by disease, by type of accident, by type of execution, place of execution, reason for execution, place of burial etc etc - is excessive. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 15:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. [[:Category:Martyrs]] is more appropriate. Just because two people were murdered and were religious doesn't mean they have anything else in common. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. Being "religious" and "murdered" is insufficient commonality to support a category. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - [[:Category:Martyrs]] already exists; this one just spreads too vaguely and has no function.
==== Category:Art Exhibitions ====
:[[:Category:Art Exhibitions]] into [[:Category:Art exhibitions]]
*'''Merge''', Duplicate to properly named category. [[User:Sparkit|>>sparkit|]][[User_talk:sparkit|TALK<<]] 12:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy merge''' [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 15:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Flextech ====
:'''Propose renaming [[:Category:Flextech]]''' to [[:Category:Virgin Media Television]]
:'''Nominator's Rationale:''' {{{3|Also included in this discussion:
* [[:Category:Flextech television channels]] to [[:Category:Virgin Media Television channels]]
'''Rename''', Procedural nomination due to the rename of [[Flextech]] television to [[Virgin Media Television]], alongside the rebrand to [[Virgin Media]]. [[User:Tghe-retford|<b>tghe</b>retford]] <small>([[User talk:Tghe-retford|talk]])</small> 12:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
* '''Rename''', as above. [[User:Pit-yacker|Pit-yacker]] 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Honorary Citizens of the United States ====
:{{lc|Honorary Citizens of the United States}}<br/>
{{{3|*'''Delete''' - This is another honor that is bestowed upon famous people who receive many awards and honors (e.g. [[Winston Churchill]]. This categorization is not needed, as the honor does not necessarily highlight the individuals' accomplishments. However, it does contribute to category clutter, so it should be deleted. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
* '''Delete'''... [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic|Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic]] --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 12:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''; there have been only six Honorary Citizens in history, so a category seems overkill. -[[User:Choster|choster]] 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and note in each article. I would suggest that since there are only six, a listing in each of their articles would be sufficient rather than a separate list article. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Better to use list articles for award winners (which this essentially is). I imagine people who are honorary citizens of the US are also probably honorary citizens of other countries as well (a bit like the national version of getting a key to the city). See [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award Winners]] for discussion. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' This is an extremely interesting list. The fact that there have only been 6 honorary citizens says two things. 1. It says that it will not be a common problem. 2. It is not likely that people are Honorary Citizens of many countries because it is also likely that most countries do not commonly grant citizenship (unless it is concomitant with things like being [[Knighted]]). This second fact means that clutter is not a problem. Clutter would be a problem if this category was indicative of numerous other categories that would show up in an article. Adding one extemely interesting category is not clutter. Adding 25 fairly interesting ones is. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Please listify if deleted. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I think this honor really does highlight the individuals' accomplishments, and it is one of the very few award categories I think should be kept. Yes, it is given to people who receive many other awards, but it is by far one of the most prestigious awards any of them has received, especially seeing as there have as yet only been 6 awardees. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 21:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Inspiration and genius--one and the same.
==== Category:LGBT people ====
Victor Hugo'''
===== Category:Bisexual people =====
===== Category:Ex-ex-gay people =====
===== Category:Christian LGBT people =====
===== Category:LGBT Jews =====
===== Category:LGBT Muslims =====
:{{lc|LGBT people}}
:*{{lc|Bisexual people}}
:*{{lc|Ex-ex-gay people}}
:*{{lc|Christian LGBT people}}
:*{{lc|LGBT Jews}}
:*{{lc|LGBT Muslims}}
{{{3|[[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic|Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic]]<br>[[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference|Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by ethnicity, ''religion'', or '''sexual preference''']]
Being a bisexual is no more strange than being a male or female or heterosexual (or bald for that matter). If someone publicly come out as bisexual that can be mentioned on the article, no need to categorize though. [[:Category:Male people]]/[[:Category:Heterosexual people]] is a red link and should stay that way
I would recommend lists to group such people, not categories. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 10:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Strong keep''' all LGBT categories. '''Weak keep''' Ex-ex-gay people. No compelling reasons given for deletion. '''Merge''' bisexual people into LGBT people. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 13:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:We do not categorize people based on their sexual preferences. Lists and articles about them are fine. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*::Since when?--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:::Since forever. See the absence of [[:Category:Heterosexual people]]? --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*::::The difference is heterosexuality is normal. (This statement should tick people off, but I'm not saying whether normal is good or bad) We're not going to categorize by anything that represents 65-90% of people. We're not going to have a [[:Category:People with two hands]] either, but that doesn't negate the 2 year old plus [[:Category:People without hands]]--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*::::: The phrase you're looking for is "the norm," not "normal," since being gay, bisexual, trans and straight are all equally "normal." [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*::::: LGBT people are '''NOT''' some sort of left overs of a freak show. They are quite "normal" as far as I care. This logic of yours is precisely why this category is a bad idea. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::*I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Someone used the word "normal" and I suggested that "the norm" is the appropriate phrase and explained why. Not sure why this is leading you to engage in histrionics about logic or why you think that is some sort of support for deleting categories. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 17:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' This form of categorization suggests that Wikipedia has a biased agenda. [[User:LukeHoC|LukeHoC]] 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*: Suggests what bias, and to whom? I can't even fathom what bias or what agenda you might be talking about. Bias for or against LGBT people? Bias for or against categorizing? ?? --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 14:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*::There is a possible bias with a few of them. Having categories for Christians or Muslims being LGBT, when so many other forms of categorization by religion are deemed unacceptable, seems a bit odd. Would we have [[:Category:Christian albinos]] or [[:Category:Christian polygamists]]?--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:::I do not think that is the rationale behind my nomination. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I think Cat, like other identity-category deleters before, is raising this in the wrong forum. Categorizing people ought to be addressed in a broader group than CFDs usually get. It's been clear that there have been folks interested in deleting identity categories, and equally clear that while there's a lot of support for keeping them, there's not a lot of consistent rationales; so some are getting deleted & some aren't; some are getting well discussed, and some aren't. This is not something to be done on a single-week CFD. Clearly there are compelling reasons for some identity categories all the time, and all identity categories some of the time; doing it in this ad hoc fashion wastes everyone's time and is going to leave us with an inconsistent and not helpful category structure. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 14:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:I am not a deleter. Being bald is an identity too, nothing worth categorizing though. This is the right forum for "Categories for discussion" --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 14:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:*Being queer is generally more of a factor in one's identity than being bald. The two are not comparable. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 15:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' It seems like several things are up for delete here, some of which are more sensible nominees than others. I think the way this is done is going to get some "delete this and that one, but not the other" type comments, which will be confusing and invite no concensus. Even if it succeeds it's not going to eliminate all LGBT categories so we'll simply have a bunch of LGBT categories existing in a kind of unexplained vacuum.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 15:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:*Essentially then I say '''Keep''' for now even though I think some of these deserve deletion. Later we/y'all whatever can vote on many of the subcats of [[:Category:LGBT people]] as I think there are a disproportionate amount. This is particularly true with [[:Category:LGBT people by occupation]], which has several subcats which would not be acceptable for other people with genetic or other variations.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' As has been pointed out on here before, the bias underlying these categories is systemic in nature. They show that western liberals - who account for maybe 5% of the global population at the very most - have disproportionate influence in Wikipedia. People outside that relatively tiny group would never think to categorise in this way. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:*That is a rather bold assertion. Do you perhaps have a shred of evidence to support it? [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::Not at all, but your question is little more than a rhetorical trick. How does one prove a negative? But you must know as well as I do that this emphasis on highlighting sexual orientation is a recent thing and a liberal Western thing at that. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that there would have been no such category on the English language wikipedia not so long ago. And if you want to do that go ahead, but I say you will just being making an intellectual point for the sake of it. Please deal in reality, not in abstractions. In the real world prioritising sexual identities is to push the worldview of just one group of people. LGBT categories are usually an irrelevant intrusion into articles where there is no need to address gender politics. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::*Apparently I don't know it just as well as you, or I wouldn't have asked the question. And whether there would or wouldn't have been such particular categories on the English Wikipedia at any time in the past strikes me as irrelevant. LGBT history is a legitimate and recent field of study and part of LGBT history is the history of people who are or were LGBT. Categories of LGBT people are extremely useful in resarching LGBT history and for that reason alone warrant keeping. If you want to look at individual subcategories under the LGBT people category, then fine, we can certainly do that. But seeking to dismantle a vast category tree in this fashion strikes me as disingenuous at best. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as impossible to determine conclusively. How do you determine if someone belongs on this list? When he proclaims it? When he is generally assumed to fit one or more categories? None of these categories are discrete groups; some people straddle the borders of sexuality, just as some straddle the borders of race or politics. To attempt to pigeonhole everyone will be fruitless and contentious. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' all categories by sexuality. It looks like a serious attempt is underway to deal with category clutter on biographical articles and it is to be commended. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:*I hate category clutter as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Dr Submillimeter, but I digress), but alleviating category clutter is not the end-all and be-all. If categories are reasonable and legitimate and utilized then they should be retained even if it means people have to slog through a few extra blue links. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 17:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' These categories are only appropriate for people whose articles specifically mention their LGBT status as a significant factor in their related history. The categories LGBT Jews and LGBT Muslims are only useful if, for example, the person's sexuality played a significant role in their religious life, such as a hypothetical gay rabbi who actively promoted more LGBT tolerance in the Jewish community. Articles should not be placed in these categories for people who just "happen" to be LGBT, such as an actor rumored to be gay who never "came out". So whether or not these are kept will depend on whether or not after pruning out inappropriate articles anything is left to categorize. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:Right, someone who are notble to LGBT history can be tagged accordingly [[:Category:LGBT activists]] is fine (I just made that up, not sure what the preferred categorization scheme is) --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:*Not everyone who is important in gay history is a "gay activist" so trying to shoehorn people into that category is inaccurate. As far as putting the category on someone who is tumored to be gay but who never came out, ''of course'' we would not do that as it violates [[WP:V]]. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 19:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' - All gay categories above. Being gay, lesbian or bisexual is perhaps an even more fundamental aspect of a person than being an American or British. Are we going to be deleting Gay Writers and keeping American Writers? The nom makes no sense. Why not delete People from Utah as it's a trivial aspect of a person? [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:The nom makes sense. Since being a non-LGBT is not worth being on a category, neither should being LGBT --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:*If there were a systemic bias that led to the assumption that everyone were homosexual then this might be a valid point. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep most'''. '''Delete''' [[:Category:Ex-ex-gay people]]. This classification is a defining characteristic and should be sourced for every person contained within these cats. I disagree with the statement that being gay/bisexual is the same as being bald. Being bald is something that generally does not generate a published work. --- [[User:RockMFR|RockMFR]] 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:People by religion ====
:{{lc|People by religion}}<br/>
{{{3|[[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic|Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic]]<br>[[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference|Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by ethnicity, '''religion''', or sexual preference]]
I think categorizing people by religion is a bit redundant. Because religion/gender is so broad, we have to have categories like [[:Category:People by nationality and religion]], [[:Category:People by religion and occupation]] when we already have [[:Category:People by nationality]], [[:Category:People by occupation]]. If someone is a Muslim, that can very well be mentioned in the article, if someone is a Christian that can just as easily be mentioned.
Categorizing people arbitrarily based on their religion, gender, favorite color isn't very helpful. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
:'''Comment''' Are you being sincere or making a point?--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 12:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::I seriously think "religion" based categories are unhelpful. Grated there exists people renound for religion which can be categorized based on that accordingly. In other words what I am saying is "Cat:Bishops by country" is fine and helpful, while "Cat:Christians by country" is not. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Okay than I think you're off base. At the very least they're useful as parent categories. [[:Category:Christian religious leaders]] and [[:Category:Christian hymnwriters]] seem related enough to justify a parent that includes both. Same with [[:Category:Buddhist nuns]] and [[:Category:Buddhist sangha]] or [[:Category:Islamic religious leaders]] and [[:Category:Islamic scholars]].--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Not quite. You can categorize them to Christianity if they are relevant to the religion with their works. Categorizing ordinary people by religion is a very bad idea. Mixing religion and nationality/ethnicity does not make things any better (as done in subcategories which are often underpopulated). --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Religion is a fundamental aspect of human society. [[User:LukeHoC|LukeHoC]] 14:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:So fundamental it is pointless to categorize based on it. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' While religion is usually irrelevent to why someone is notable, it is often a defining characteristic in their lives. -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:Yes and can be mentioned in the article. Do not see the point why we need a navigation aid... --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I think Cat, like other identity-category deleters before, is raising this in the wrong forum. Categorizing people ought to be addressed in a broader group than CFDs usually get. It's been clear that there have been folks interested in deleting identity categories, and equally clear that while there's a lot of support for keeping them, there's not a lot of consistent rationales; so some are getting deleted & some aren't; some are getting well discussed, and some aren't. This is not something to be done on a single-week CFD. Clearly there are compelling reasons for some identity categories all the time, and all identity categories some of the time; doing it in this ad hoc fashion wastes everyone's time and is going to leave us with an inconsistent and not helpful category structure. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 14:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as overbroad. While capable of categorization in most cases, listing people by religion will produce no result except some really long lists. Unless the religion is very small and the co-religionsists are noteworthy because of their faith (''e.g.'' the [[Branch Davidian]]s, I'd say no category by religion should exist. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' per LukeHoC and ProveIt. --<tt>[[User talk:Trogga|(]]</tt>[[User:Trogga|trogga]]<tt>[[Special:Contributions/Trogga|)]]</tt> 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' religion is an important (or even defining) characteristic in many people's lives, so it is not a "trivial characteristic". And the category being discussed isn't an "Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference", as it's not an intersection at all, so I'm not sure how that's even applicable. At minimum, these are useful as parent categories as T. Anthony mentioned. And if there's enough people of a given religion, for whom religion is a defining or important characteristic, that the category becomes unwieldy, it can probably be subcategorized meaningfully (as many of the categories are now). [[User:Mairi|Mairi]] 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
* comment - the existing categories [[:Category:Men]] and [[:Category:Women]] included both people categories and things relating to those genders. And, if I recall correctly, they were not parallel, and were not both in the same sets of subcats. I created the People by gender cat to remedy that; there are probably other ways to do it & that's fine. Again, however, Cat's proposed category deletion is part of a broad set of category deletions based on identity categories, and it would be better discussed in a consistent manner elsewhere with more time (and a dedicated page) for deliberation. Here we have people weighing in on each individual set of nominations for the identities they think are key; and even within the individual nominations there are multiple categories. This is not going to get us to a consistent, coherent, principled categorization scheme. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:People by gender ====
:{{lc|People by gender}}<br/>
{{{3|[[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic|Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic]]<br><s>[[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference|Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection by ethnicity, religion, or '''sexual preference''']]</s>
Sub categories involve: [[:Category:Men's magazines]]/[[:Category:Women's magazines]] which are not people. [[:Category:Men's magazines]]/[[:Category:Women's magazines]] is alright on its own but the magazines themselves are not people. Most of the subcats do not involve people but the gender related stuff such as organizations, magazines and etc.
About half of the planet is male and other half female so the categorization is too broad.
To whom it may concern:
In any case categorizing people arbitrarily based on their religion, gender, favorite color isn't very helpful. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Keep''' Gender is a fundamental aspect of human society. [[User:LukeHoC|LukeHoC]] 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:How are magazines people? --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I think Cat, like other identity-category deleters before, is raising this in the wrong forum. Categorizing people ought to be addressed in a broader group than CFDs usually get. It's been clear that there have been folks interested in deleting identity categories, and equally clear that while there's a lot of support for keeping them, there's not a lot of consistent rationales; so some are getting deleted & some aren't; some are getting well discussed, and some aren't. This is not something to be done on a single-week CFD. Clearly there are compelling reasons for some identity categories all the time, and all identity categories some of the time; doing it in this ad hoc fashion wastes everyone's time and is going to leave us with an inconsistent and not helpful category structure. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' A substantial number of by-gender categories have survived deletion nominations (while others have rightly been deleted). As there are multiple relevant subcategories it follows as a matter of course that there should be a holding category. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:This category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:People_by_gender&action=history recently created]. It is not the parent category. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AMen&diff=99631037&oldid=93479933 this] --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 17:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as no legitimate basis has been offered for the nomination. The nominator proffers, in bold, '''sexual preference''', but the last time I checked one's actual sex/gender was not the same thing as one's sexual preference or orientation. The two subcategories, Men's magazines and Women's magazines, are not direct subcats of People by gender but are instead subcats of the categories "Men" and "Women" respectively. These two subcats are for topics relating to men or women, which Men's magazines and Women's magazines clearly do. I am baffled as to why the subcats are offered up as a reason to support this nomination. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:The current "People by gender" would be intended to sort people (bad idea), not magazines. It is failing to even do that. The subcats (Cat:Men/Cat:Women) are fine as they are. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep, but correct sub-subcategories which aren't actually about people''' This is a useful parent category for subcategorizing those categories which ''legitimately'' include the gender of the person as a significant factor. (Usually, gender isn't notable, but in some cases the person's gender significantly affects their career, for example, and thus can be used for categorization). However, the nominator does bring up a valid point that this is supposed to be a parent category for subcategories about ''people''. So the magazine related categories mentioned in the nomination should be removed as subcategories, as well as any other subcategory which isn't specifically about people. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*:[[:Category:Men]] and [[:Category:Women]] (the only sub categories) are about the terms about Men and Women such as Men/Women magazines/organizations/etc. They were never intended to sort people. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me introduce myself. I am Canadian, and live in southern Ontario. I write for a column in an GTA distributed paper with a reach of 100,000. I am a relative "newbie" to the wonderful world of wiki, and am not yet applying for a post.
==== Category:People by race or ethnicity ====
:{{lc|People by race or ethnicity}}<br/>
{{{3|I think this category is redundant when we have [[:Category:People by ethnic or national origin]] (strangely a subcat of this category) <small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
:Might be better to delete the other way around. We only need one of the two. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I think Cat, like other identity-category deleters before, is raising this in the wrong forum. Categorizing people ought to be addressed in a broader group than CFDs usually get. It's been clear that there have been folks interested in deleting identity categories, and equally clear that while there's a lot of support for keeping them, there's not a lot of consistent rationales; so some are getting deleted & some aren't; some are getting well discussed, and some aren't. This is not something to be done on a single-week CFD. Clearly there are compelling reasons for some identity categories all the time, and all identity categories some of the time; doing it in this ad hoc fashion wastes everyone's time and is going to leave us with an inconsistent and not helpful category structure. --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', this way round. I tried to get this done like a year ago and there was a no consensus if I remember correctly. "race" is not as appropriate a word to use as "ethnicity" as I understand their denotations/connotations. so what?, are there 3 races - Asians, Blacks, and Whites?? perhaps there is a shed of truth in such a portrayal, but the term "ethnic or national origin" allows for a far better (yet needless to say not wholly accurate) one [[User:Mayumashu|Mayumashu]] 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I maintain that I have a view that is different than that of an adult. My contributions will be much different than that of the average wiki editor, and I wiill hopefully provide a view that inspires, and is more lively than that of an adult.
====[[:Category:Brennaman family]]====
My request is not to join as a sysop, but that members of wiki watch out for my work.
:'''Delete.''' Category has only two member articles. [[User:Realkyhick|Realkyhick]] 07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - The family association can be shown through links in the text. A category is unnecessary. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 10:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' When I created [[:Category:Sports broadcasting families]] The intent was that families would be grouped as subcategories and included. Including individual members will make it hard to use this category in the way it was designed. Although individuals could be default sorted by last name it is not always the case that every individual from a family carry the same surname as its most famous members. At [[User:TonyTheTiger#Categories_Created|the proper section]] in my user page you can see better what I am trying to do. Off the top of my head I don't know a good example in this category. However, off the top of your head how many people remember [[Karl Malone]]'s daughter's name? If I created a category [[:Category:Malone family]] and placed it in [[:Category:Basketball families]] that I have created, you might better be able to find his daughter if you did not want to read through his lengthy article to find that his daughter's name is [[Cheryl Ford]]. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You'll be seeing my work soon,
====[[:Category:Canadian Canadian football players]]====
:'''''Rename''' to [[:Category:Canadian players of Canadian football]], see also a [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:American_football_players_by_nationality|related discussion]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 06:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Support''' [[User:Mayumashu|Mayumashu]] 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-kevinwong913 There then. That's all.
====[[:Category:American Canadian football players]]====
:'''''Rename''' to [[:Category:American players of Canadian football]], see also a [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:American_football_players_by_nationality|related discussion]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 06:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
'''Support''' [[User:Mayumashu|Mayumashu]] 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
====[[:Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae]]====
:'''''Rename''' to [[:Category:Mount Holyoke College alumni]], convention of [[:Category:Alumni by university in the United States]] and [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_3#Category:Wellesley_College_alumnae|October 3rd]] discussion.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. It's a women's college. "Alumni" means that at least one member of the group in question is male. "Alumnae" means all are female, and is correct in this instance. In spite of the [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 3#Category:Wellesley College alumnae|October 3rd]] discussion, I think grammatical correctness is superior to uniformity of categories. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
====[[:Category:Barnard College alumnae]]====
:'''''Rename''' to [[:Category:Barnard College alumni]], convention of [[:Category:Alumni by university in the United States]] and [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_3#Category:Wellesley_College_alumnae|October 3rd]] discussion.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. It's a women's college. "Alumni" means that at least one member of the group in question is male. "Alumnae" means all are female, and is correct in this instance. In spite of the [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 3#Category:Wellesley College alumnae|October 3rd]] discussion, I think grammatical correctness is superior to uniformity of categories. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - For the same reasons as last time. Consistency in categories is a good thing and not trumped by local usage among Barnard alumnae. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Babel|en|fr-1|zh-0}}
====[[:Category:Bands whose names are acronyms]]====
:'''''Delete''', as categorization by [[Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic|name]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - Articles categorized by name often have little else in common with each other. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 10:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Surreal films ====
:[[:Category:Surreal films]] → [[:Category:Surrealist films]]
Merely saying that a film is "surreal" has the appearance of an unqualified opinion. A film using techniques of surrealism and/or being produced as part of the surrealism movement would be better described as a "surrealist film". See also [[Surrealism#Surrealism in film]] and other subcategories of [[:Category:Surrealism]], such as [[:Category:Surrealist paintings]]. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per usual genre descriptions of surrealist works (hey where's [[:Category:Surrealist fiction]]?). --[[User:Lquilter|lquilter]] 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Isn't this category a recreation? [[User:Doczilla|Doczilla]] 06:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
====[[:Category:Historical people of the Caribbean]]====
* [[:Category:Historical people of the Caribbean]] into [[:Category:Caribbean people]]
* [[:Category:Historical people of Barbados]] into [[:Category:Barbadian people]]
* [[:Category:Historical people of the British Virgin Islands]] into [[:Category:People of the British Virgin Islands]]
* [[:Category:Historical people of Haiti]] into [[:Category:Haitian people]]
* [[:Category:Historical people of Jamaica]] into [[:Category:Jamaican people]]
:'''''Merge all''' since '''historical''' is subjective, see also discussion of [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4#Category:Historical_people_of_U.S._natural_history|February 4th]].'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all''' - "Historical" is an unnecessary subjective term. Presumably anyone with an article in Wikipedia is already a "historical" person. [[User:Dr. Submillimeter|Dr. Submillimeter]] 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to avoid subjectivity. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' As above, words like "historical" and "notable" aren't necessary since all Wiki bios are supposedly about notable individuals. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 18:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge all''' Category is POV and OR. I could call anyone historical that I wanted too and add them to this category. —[[User talk:Mikedk9109|<font color="crimson" face="Eras Demi ITC">'''mikedk9109'''</font>]]<sup>[[User:Mikedk9109/Autographs|<font color="black">'''''SIGN'''''</font></sup>]] 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
| [[Image:wikistress3D 2 v3.jpg|center|200px]]
==== Category:Theological colleges and seminaries in England ====
:'''[[:Category:Theological colleges and seminaries in England]]''' to [[:Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in England]]
*{{{3|'''Rename''', change word order to match the parent [[:Category:Seminaries and theological colleges]]. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 02:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*Personally I would remove the work '''Seminaries''' altogether as it is almost never used in the UK. I it North American usage. I can understand it being in the parent category but they are '''not''' seminaries as such. We need to get it right. So my vote is to '''Rename''' to '''[[:Category:Theological colleges in England]]'''. :: [[User:Kevinalewis|<span style="color: #33C;">Kevinalewis</span>]] : [[User talk:Kevinalewis|<span style="color:#CC9900"><sup>(Talk Page)</sup></span>]]/[[User:Kevinalewis/Desk|<span style="color:#CC9900"><sub>(Desk)</sub></span>]] 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Asian seminaries ====
==== Category:European seminaries ====
:[[:Category:Asian seminaries]] into [[:Category:Seminaries and theological colleges]]
:[[:Category:European seminaries]] into [[:Category:Seminaries and theological colleges]]
*'''Merge''', The names don't comply with the parent or with the usual format for categories of buildings, but it would in any case by better to subcategorise by country (as well as by denomination of course) and there are few articles here, so merge and then reallocate by country. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' in favor of categorization by nationality. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Canadian seminaries ====
:'''[[:Category:Canadian seminaries]]''' to [[:Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Canada]]
:'''Nominator's Rationale:''' {{{3|'''Rename''', for same reasons as U.S. category below. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Rename''' per nom. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
====[[:Category:Huell Howser]]====
:'''''Delete''', only two articles, expansion unlikely, notable, but probably not enough.'' -- <i>[[User:ProveIt|Prove It]] <sup>[[User talk:ProveIt|(talk)]]</sup></i> 01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Unlikely ever to be sufficiently expanded to justify a category. [[User:Coemgenus|Coemgenus]] 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Individual people should only very rarely have eponymous categories. Normally all the links you need related to a person are easily accessible from their main article, so creating a unique category isn't needed. [[User:Dugwiki|Dugwiki]] 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:United States seminaries ====
:'''[[:Category:United States seminaries]]''' to [[:Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States]]
:{{{3|'''Rename''', adding "theological college" as in the parent [[:Category:Seminaries and theological colleges]] and to make the word order comply with the standard order of buildings and educational institutions. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Rename''' per nom. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
==== Category:Australian seminaries and theological colleges ====
:'''[[:Category:Australian seminaries and theological colleges]]''' to [[:Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Australia]]
:{{{3|'''Rename''', per the convention for man-made objects and buildings. [[User:Greg Grahame|Greg Grahame]] 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)}}}
*'''Rename''' per nom. [[User:Lesnail|Lesnail]] 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:Wikipedians in Toronto|Kevinwong913]]
<!-- Please add the newest nominations to the top -->
| 