Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10[edit]

Category:Latter Day Saint scientists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latter Day Saint scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, as recreation of Scientists by religion. -- Prove It (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of discussions already conducted. Feydakin 03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It was already decided not to categorize people by religion, as religion is generally not connected with scientific work. Dr. Submillimeter 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Postlebury 09:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and numerous precedents. We don't categorise scientists by religion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 Carlossuarez46 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or maybe Rename as creator. First of all, I didn't think of it as categorizing scientists by religion, rather it was created to categorize Latter Day Saints by profession (or some other meaningful way). Otherwise, we have this enormous pile of articles in Latter Day Saints. Note also, that it is only a sub-cat of Latter Day Saints, not scientists. So, while I agree that I don't care about it categorizing scientists, I don't know how else you would propose to categorize Latter Day Saints. Suggestions? --NThurston 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you need to categorize people as LDS (or any other religion) unless being LDS is somehow relevant to their career and/or fame? Xtifr tälk 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Need"? Categorizing biographies as LDS is being done (and is not the discussion going on here). For the most part, those biographies that have this cat, are in heavily linked to their religion. Obvious examples would include Mitt Romney and Joseph Smith. Other biographies clearly discuss religion and how it impacts the person - for example, Steve Young. The problem is that without reasonable sub-cats (which are generally encouraged), you would end up with a big pile of biographies in Category:Latter Day Saints that is not very helpful. So - what to do? Create sub-cats. I am not bound by the "occupation" version of sub-cats, but can anybody come up with a better idea? --NThurston 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: The Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists categories have "by nationality" and "by occupation" subcategories. --Kevinkor2 19:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "by occupation" subcategories in those cases are almost all religous-related occupations such as ministers, theologians, and missionaries. That seems perfectly reasonable. They also all contain "politicians", which is a little more questionable, but I think the case of Mitt Romney (among many others) makes it clear that religion is a fairly significant matter to politicians. But none of those other religionists-by-occupation categories includes "scientists" or "football players". (I'm even dubious about the categorization of Steve Young in any LDS category, though I grant it's a borderline case.) As a precedent, those other religionist categories argue against this category. On the other hand, categorization by nationality is fine, and has ample precedent, and is widely accepted throughout Wikipedia as a standard primary form of sub-categorization. Xtifr tälk 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedents. Greg Grahame 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment precedent does not apply here, because the cited examples *only* discuss sub-catting Category:Scientists by religion. We need a serious discussion of whether occupation is a reasonable sub-cat for Latter Day Saints. --NThurston 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is a consensus that scientist is not a reasonable sub-cat for any religion, so why should Latter Day Saints be an exception? Size is not a criterion if its is creating meaningless categories, and I can't see that this one is any more useful than Category:Latter Day Saint bus drivers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Follow up What consensus are your referring to? All of those mentioned above discuss religion as a sub-cat of scientist. What meaningful sub-cats of bios by religion do you propose? And, if there were any bios of notable LDS bus-drivers, then that cat would be as useful a sub-cat as LDS leaders, now wouldn't it? I don't think the intent here is to say that one occupation is more noble than another. The point of cats is to increase access to information. --NThurston 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply the issue in an intersection category is not whether the bios are notable o the occupation is notable, but whether the intersection category is itself notable. As per the previous CfDs listed at the top if this nomination, the consensus is not to create science-by-religion categorises. As to the LDS bus-drivers, no the category would not be appropriate unless they were driving the buses in a particularly LDS way. Otherwise, it's just a random intersection. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity.2C religion.2C or sexual preference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, the claim that "(X) scientists" is not a subcategory of scientists because the creator only intended to subcategorize X is disingenuous at best, rank sophistry at worst. The intent of the creator is irrelevant—this is a scientists-by-religion category, and nothing can change that. Xtifr tälk 21:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply to BrownHairedGirl: But all of those sample categories are using religion to subdivide occupation (if "murderers" can be an occupation). THIS is using occupation to divide religion. The point is not to single out some group as being different than the rest, but to categorize many parts in a whole. We have LDS millitary members, sports figures, and politicians, as well as writers, media personalities (as eclectic as that group must be), and martyrs (again, not technically an occupation). There are also three dozen and more occupational categories of Jewish people (Category:Jews by occupation) and several categories of Anglicans by occupation. I'm fairly sure that there is nothing especially "Jewish" about the buildings David Rockwell designed, yet that isn't a spurious category. There are 66 PAGES of people in the LDS category; there surely must be a way to organize them for easier viewing. —ScouterSig 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pittsburg Steelers players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pittsburg Steelers players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - Incorrect spelling, all names have been moved to correct category, Pittsburgh Steelers players. Neonblak 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Primates of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Primates of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Redundant with the existing Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow, which is a clearer name and more closely matches the common name for the position. (See other primate rename discussions.) Mairi 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or delete - the 6 articles in the former are all categorised under both. -- roundhouse 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:A Different World[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:A Different World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - three articles on an old canceled show, all easily interlinked. No likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Andy Barker, P.I.[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Andy Barker, P.I. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - yet another eponymous TV category for a canceled show with nothing in it but the show article and a bunch of improperly categorized actors. The episodes subcat is in the appropriate episodes category tree. Otto4711 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:European Royal families[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merge Category:European Royal families to Category:European royal families - jc37 09:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ChitraguptVanshi[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, as already decided. -- Prove It (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ChitraguptVanshi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, WT:INB does not allow categorizing people by caste

  • Speedy Close - Editors in a discussion on 3 May 2007 already decided to delete this category. The bots just have not deleted it yet. No further debate is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Programming typefaces[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Programming typefaces (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a relatively arbitrary categorization, and is not used in any typographic classification that I know of. The category is basically saying "these fonts are good to use for programmers". There are only 3 articles in this category. Programming generally requires a monospace face, and therefore the three articles in this category are already categorized together in the "Monospace typefaces" category. Being good for programming is not a distinctive feature, and would be akin to having categories such as "typefaces that look good on rock album covers" or "typefaces college students use on term papers". We can clearly note in the article on monospace typefaces, and the 3 articles in the cat that they are used in programming environments.-Andrew c 17:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as just someone's opinion. Mangoe 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I may be biased but I think there is room for expansion and it isn't entirely original research though it could be plagued with it. Feydakin 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a intersection that is not notable. Programming is based on languages. Programming is in no way based on typefaces. What typefaces are used in the development of programs in no way influences the final product. Vegaswikian 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no lead article for Programming typefaces, and the notion is, IMO, rather silly. As a programmer myself, I use none of those, and I disagree with the proposition that there are specific "programming typefaces". Monospaced fonts are convenient for simplicity in indenting, but the typeface used to display a program has absolutely no effect on its operation! (The compiler certainly doesn't care!) I even know a few programmers who explicitly do not use monospaced fonts, though the practice is rare. Any typeface can be a "programming typeface". If there is anything more than original research here, I'm not seeing it. Xtifr tälk 22:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People of Philippine descent[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 09:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Philippine descent to Category:Overseas Filipinos
  • Merge, This category has only one member. The merge could go either way. Kevinkor2 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The two categories mean different things, and AFAICR other countries have a similar pair of categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Haddiscoe 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge but support delete of this category. Bulldog123 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per BHG. The category is small, but clearly capable of expansion, so don't delete. Johnbod 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reverse merge so only the Category:People of Philippine descent remains. This will match all the sister categories in Category:People by ethnic or national descent and was my original intent. Hmains 03:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply But we already have Category:Expatriates by nationality, to which I have just added Category:Overseas Filipinos. If you think that the expatriate categories should be deleted, then that should be done by a group nomination, rather than singling out this one. The distinction between an expatriate and a person of foreign descent is significant enough that it shouldn't be blurred except after a clear discussion of the principles (for example, consider an Italian-Ukrainian American living in Asia. That person is of Italian and Ukrainian descent, but is an American expatriate; they are not an Italian or Ukrainian expat, nor a person American descent). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply these categories are for migrants (immigrants/emigrants) who have changed their country of allegiance. Expatriate categories are different. Expatriates are temporarily overseas, not permanently. This is the standard meaning of these terms, way beyond WP. Hmains 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply. The references that I can find do not support the claim that "expatriate" applies only to those temporarily overseas, and all tie the term to those born in a country rather than those descended from that country. They all agree that an expatriate is a native of a country living overseas, whether permanently or otherwise:
          1. The Shorter OED says "1. to drive a person away from his native land, to banish; 2. to withdraw from one's native country, to renounce allegiance"
          2. Merriam-Webster says that expatriate is a verb meaning "to withdraw (oneself) from residence in or allegiance to one's native country intransitive verb: to leave one's native country to live elsewhere; also: to renounce allegiance to one's native country ", or alternatively an adjective meaning "living in a foreign land"[1].
          3. The article expatriate says "An expatriate (in abbreviated form, expat) is a person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing or legal residence". However, the wikipedia article goes to make the unreferenced assertion that "The difference between an expatriate and an immigrant is that immigrants (for the most part) commit themselves to becoming a part of their country of residence, whereas expatriates are usually only temporarily placed in the host country".
            --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wonder Showzen[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wonder Showzen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - another small category with material all easily interlinked. Category is unnecessary for navigation. Otto4711 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Show is cancelled anyway, so it's not getting any bigger. Bulldog123 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Will & Grace[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Will & Grace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - all material in the category is easily interlinked through the main article and the navigational template. The category is not needed as a navigational hub. Otto4711 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's assuming that the articles are kept. Obviously if they were deleted or merged then the problem goes away. Dugwiki 17:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Otto, that addresses my concerns I think. :) Recommend Delete. Dugwiki 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Those articles can be linked through the show's main article, under "see also" if nothing else. As Otto mentions, there is an appropriate category for them. Doczilla 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mutiple sub-categories and articles is sufficient content for the category. Tim! 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, existing templates, article links and other categories already sufficient, making this category redundant. Xtifr tälk 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if all articles are linked to in the main article, the category is still a more organized and easier to use method of searching for Will & Grace-related content on Wikipedia. --musicpvm 02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wild 'N Out[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wild 'N Out (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Category:Wild 'N Out cast

Delete - category is empty except for the cast subcat, which should be deleted as improper categorization. Cast list exists in the main article. Otto4711 14:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:What's Happening!![edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:What's Happening!! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - two articles, one on the show and one on the sequel. Unlikely to experience much growth. Otto4711 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unnecessary eponymous category. Just link the two shows together through their main article (in see also or elsewhere). Dugwiki 17:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:What I Like About You[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:What I Like About You (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - small category wih all of its material easily interlinked. No need for the category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 14:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Waterloo Road[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus - Feel free to renominate for further discussion once the potential members become more stable (as articles or redirects or whatever). - jc37 09:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Waterloo Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - after cleaning up the category we're left with a characters subcat and two easily interlinked articles. The category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it appears that some of the articles that were redirected have be reverted, so there is now sufficient content for this category. Tim! 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles on individual episodes of a series are generally quite easily interlinked, so just having episode articles doesn't mean the category is needed. In this instance the reverted and newly-expanded articles are now located in Category:Waterloo Road episodes as a sub-cat of Category:Television episodes by series. So this category is again down to a single article and two subcats, which remains insufficient material to justify it since all the material is easily interlinked through te main article as a navigational hub. Otto4711 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Series is ongoing so has potential for growth. Tim! 06:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UK Liberal Party[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:UK Liberal Party to Category:Liberal Party (UK). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Liberal Party to Category:Liberal Party (UK)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Visitor attractions in Key West, Florida[edit]

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

The result of the debate was one of the categories already speedied. Conscious 09:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Visitor attractions in Key West, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Visitor attractions in Key West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Visitor attractions in Key West, Florida, or the reverse. -- Prove It (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Key West, Florida category. All these categories should have Florida in their name. Do no not assume all readers know where 'Key West' is. Hmains 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Anthony Appleyard deleted Category:Visitor attractions in Key West, Florida. Vegaswikian 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as is. If you look at the parent category Category:Key West, Florida, you will see that both forms are used. Since Key West is a unique name, it is not likely to be confused with another location. Whatever the outcome here, the other subcats should be renamed to use a common form. Vegaswikian 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to undecided. Being consistent in the parent is important. In realty I guess either way is acceptable and I don't want my vote to stand in the way of reaching consensus. Vegaswikian 04:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Visitor attractions in Key West, Florida to match the main article at Key West, Florida. (Or at this point, I guess it would be considered a rename.) In response to Vegaswikian, I would argue that the other categories should be similarly renamed. Alternative option: if the main article is renamed Key West (i.e. if the main article and the redirect swap places), then I would argue just as strongly for a reverse merge (or status quo at this point). But we should have consistency, not just in the categories, but between the categories and articles, and for now, that means specifying "Florida". Xtifr tälk 23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman jurists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Roman jurists to Category:Ancient Roman jurists - jc37 09:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman jurists to Category:Ancient Roman jurists
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as per most of its siblings in Category:Ancient Roman people by occupation. Honbicot 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman priests[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Roman priests to Category:Ancient Roman priests - jc37 09:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roman priests to Category:Ancient Roman priests
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, as per most of its siblings in Category:Ancient Roman people by occupation]. There is an especially high risk of confusion in this case, as modern Rome is the centre of the Roman Catholic Church. Honbicot 12:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong rename per nom, to avoid the high risk of confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Agree completely. Same should be done to most categories like this. Bulldog123 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename of course Johnbod 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, absolutely. Other, similar renames can be considered to have my implicit support, but the potential for confusion here is so high that I think it's worth making my support explicit. Xtifr tälk 23:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sigma Phi Epsilon brothers, Category:Pi Lambda Phi brothers, Category:Phi Sigma Kappa brothers, Category:Lambda Chi Alpha brothers, Category:Delta Kappa Epsilon brothers, Category:Alpha Tau Omega brothers, Category:Alpha Kappa Psi brothers and Category:Alpha Delta Phi brothers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete all.--Wizardman 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More fraternity membership cats. Not a defining characteristic. >Radiant< 11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sigma Alpha Epsilon[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Wizardman 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Small, no potential for growth. Contains the article on the frat itself, and one member. >Radiant< 11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No need to merge, because the category's main article Sigma Alpha Epsilon is already appropriately parented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but this is not to say that the category could not be re-created in the future IF it could be properly populated (heh, that's a fun phrase to say aloud). —ScouterSig 14:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AshbyJnr 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lists of fictional characters in comedy[edit]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus - For the future, perhaps consider whether Category:Fictional characters by genre should exist. (Though most of the members so far seem to be television situation comedies.) - jc37 09:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not all that useful to separate these from the main Category:Lists of fictional characters, so I suggest merging. >Radiant< 11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per nom. Category:Lists of fictional characters has been kept manageable by having lots of subcats, and this does seem to be useful intersection for which it seems easy to have reasonably clear inclusion criteria. Only a weak keep, because it's not brilliant-populated so far, and I dunno how much possibility it has for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films with a medical theme[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Rename - However, since there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what the target name should be, I'm relisting the discussion. - jc37 09:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike, say, Films about mental illness or AIDS in film and television, this is rather ill-defined and could arguably contain any film that has a hospital in it somewhere. Unclear inclusion criterion. >Radiant< 11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - vague overly broad inclusion criteria. Otto4711 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The definition is a little vague, and needs tightening, but a medical theme does seem to me to be a fairly notable genre. However, I'm not a film expert, and I'd like to hear from someone who knows more about film than I do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep agree with BHG. Though it might work more for television shows. Feydakin 03:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to something else... Medical genre films? 132.205.44.134 16:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete impossible category and POV; how much "theme" is needed? What do MASH (film) (about hijinx among a military medical camp) and All Creatures Great and Small (an idyll about a country veterinarian) have really to do with one another? Perhaps the same as Y tu mamá también (a coming of age romp with two teenage boys and an older woman who has cancer) does with Brian's Song (a sports melodrama with a protagonist with cancer) or either does with The Rocky Horror Picture Show (a major character in a wheelchair); all of which are (or could be) included in this runaway category. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I originally created the category so that there would a category for films the way there is a Category:Medical television series. Also, I am strongly contesting User:Radiant!'s good faith on this since I was not informed of this CfD on my talk page. Wl219 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps rename to Medical films. Tim! 16:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Thanksgiving films[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete - jc37 09:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this as a genre, and indeed we lack an article on Thanksgiving_film, so I fail to see the point of this cat. >Radiant< 11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the point of the category is to collect films which are set around the Thanksgiving holiday. I have no opinion at the moment as to whether such categorization is worthwhile. Otto4711 17:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a subcat of Category:Films by topic, but while the other subcats do appear to be about topics, whereas this is about the setting of the film. The distinction is important: Thelma and Louise, for example, is set in the desert, but its topic is two women who end up on the run. Category:Thanksgiving films appears to be categorisation by a relatively trivial characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, films set during Christmas are widely recognised as being a near-genre. No so for thanksgiving. Mallanox 22:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Mallanox. Feydakin 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ten-pin bowling movies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Ten-pin bowling movies to Category:Films about bowling. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with parent cat Category:Films about bowling; suggest merging. >Radiant< 11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Business films[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 09:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear title. Suggest rename to "films about business". >Radiant< 11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if only because "films about business" goes against naming conventions.--Wizardman 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Palindromic places[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Listify and Delete - jc37 10:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palindromic places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Convert to article, see also February 23rd discussion. -- Prove It (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous CfD , where the nomination helpfully summarised the situation: "it's not the places that are palindromic but their names".
    However, I think the problem here is that the busy backroom-people and bots which get to work after CfD closures don't usually get asked to write an article, and may have felt they lacked the expertise to do so. However, since the category is really just a list in category space rather than a true category, it's easy enough to do: so I have created List of palindromic places. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to article - This is an article in category space, so conversion to an article is appropriate. The places should not be categorized by name (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization). Whether or not the list should be kept would be the subject of an AfD discussion, although it looks borderline encyclopedic. Dr. Submillimeter 09:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The conversions and listifications don't get done with any sort of promptness because it is too much trouble and probably can't be done to a good standard by a bot, so categories that aren't appropriate should just be deleted. Haddiscoe 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, OK so far it can't be done by any bot, but it takes me less than 5 minutes to to crudely listify a category, using WP:AWB to build the list. Of course, it's better if a list is polished with annotations and an intro, and possibly tabulated, but if it is not listified, the info is lost. Rather than just nuking the info in all cases, I think that there are some situations where it is better to listify it, and leave WP:AFD to decide whether the list should be retained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & kudos to BHG for creating the corresponding list. Carlossuarez46 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous consensus and as overcategorization by name, and as trivia. I'm less concerned about the list, but I think that both are borderline original research. (The items are easily verifiable, but the topic itself seems to be a form of original research.) A list, at least, would provide an opportunity to cite evidence that this is a notable field of study. Xtifr tälk 23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Black Legions bootlegs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Les Légions Noires bootlegs, to match Les Légions Noires. -- Prove It (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Black Legions band[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Les Légions Noires members, to match Les Légions Noires. -- Prove It (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I guess "members" is better here than "bands" or "musical groups". Prolog 09:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The members would be actual people inside the bands. not enough members have pages yet. I think simply renaming it to Les Legions Noires Bands would be fine. members would come later.-HDS
I have no strong preference, any of members, bands, or musical groups is fine. However Bands would violate naming conventions, categories should be sentence-cased. -- Prove It (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Black Legions Releases[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Les Légions Noires releases, to match Les Légions Noires. -- Prove It (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Free hex editors[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 09:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free hex editors to Category:Free editing software
  • Merge, This is a ridiculously narrow subcategory with only three entries. RossPatterson 02:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, far too narrow a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge - the parent is a parent of only categories - this is part of a category scheme. And "hex editors" is a vaid grouping of software editor type. See also: Comparison of hex editors, which lists more than just the three in the category. - jc37 10:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom (in case it wasn't obvious from my comment above). If Category:Hex editors existed, I might suggest a dual-merge, but since that category doesn't exist, there is no way we need to subcategorize just the free ones. (And frankly, I'm not sure how many of the articles in this cat would survive AfD, but that's a separate issue.) Xtifr tälk 09:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mafia associates[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 04:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mafia associates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This was once before on CFD (> 2 years ago) and had little input and was closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 16. Given the new emphasis on WP:BLP (although some of those categorized are not living, some are) and consensus to remove weasily worded categories – like this, whose stated criteria for inclusion is "This is a list of suspected or convicted individuals associated, although not directly involved, with Mafia or "La Cosa Nostra" organizations. An example of those which have been documented include former Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa and celebrities such as Frank Sinatra." So these are people who are "suspected" (by whom) to be "associated" (whatever that means) but "not directly involved" (ok, we now know a little about what "associated" doesn't mean) with Mafia or La Costa Nostra organizations. My understanding is that these "organizations" don't publish membership lists much less a list of their suspected associates, so short of convictions (which we have categories up the wazoo for, see, e.g. Category:Gambino crime family, Category:Italian-American mobsters, Category:Drug traffickers and a slew of other criminal cats), it seems something that would be difficult to verify with WP:RS consistent with WP:BLP and WP:V "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". It's time to get rid of "mere suspect" categories when the suspicion is quite ambiguous and possibly serious. Carlossuarez46 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've already removed one completely unsourced inclusion here on a BLP. Reading the bios, a lot of these people had very tenuous connections at best, and in other cases unproven suspicions. A lot of them are only passing muster because the subject is dead and nobody can complain. Mangoe 02:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vaguely named "associates". Doczilla 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague and subjective weasel-word category. I can't see any clear and objective way of answering what degree of association would be needed for inclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BHG Bulldog123 10:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like subjective guilt by association. Dugwiki 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Dugwiki. Greg Grahame 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Xeric grant winners[edit]

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

The result of the debate was listify and delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xeric grant winners - per WP:OC#Award winners, this should be listified. - jc37 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - as nominator. - jc37 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per nom. Doczilla 07:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neutral on listification. Bulldog123 10:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete - as it stands this can't be properly policed. (Emperor 01:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scary Movie films[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete due to existing navigation template, (per WP:CLS). If there was more to the category than just the 5 eponymous articles, this would probably have been No consensus, per Otto4711, et al. - jc37 10:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scary Movie films - Relisting per this DRV discussion. See also the original CfD discussion. - jc37 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Just relisting per the close of the DRV. - jc37 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - should never have been overturned in the first place, but that's neither here nor there at this point. Eponymous categories, whether named for people, families, TV shows or films, should be reserved for those instances when there is a substantial amount of related material that can't easily be interlinked. This category is completely unnecessary for navigational purposes. The small number of aricles are easily interlinked through each other and through the navigational template. The same arguments that applied to the deletion of the similar categories for the Poltergeist films, the Stuart Little franchise, the Charlotte's Web franchise and any number of eponymous categories for people, bands, TV shows and so on apply to this category as well. Otto4711 01:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Series should be categorized by their series title. It is an easily understood categorization scheme, and a useful one. I don't agree with Otto's framing of the debate as "an eponymous category," like that of a popstar.--Mike Selinker 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this would be better served by one of them-there box thingies at the bottom of the page listing all five (or however many) movies. Mangoe 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary category per original CfD. These items are already linked through article content. The category serves no purpose. Doczilla 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original Cfd. Sequels and such are usually not supplemented by categories. Also, this seems like a crystal ball prediction for a lot more Scary Movie films. Bulldog123 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant with the Template:ScaryMovie. >Radiant< 08:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike Selinker. Tim! 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_10&oldid=1078526472"