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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Minor League Football Association teams, just expanding. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename per nom. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Minor League Football Association venues, just expanding. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• merge per nom. Piccadilly 01:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Merge per nom. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Republic of Singapore Air Force airbases ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All articles moved to Category:Camps and bases of the Singapore Armed Forces. There is no point having so many small categories. -- Rifleman 82 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)}} reply

• Comment - Category:Republic of Singapore Navy bases was apparently depopulated, but not tagged. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Art museums and galleries in Sheffield, convention of Category:Art museums and galleries in England. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 08:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Merge per nom. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Warofdreams talk 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:NBC Irish-Americans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Non- NPOV and singles out a race of people who work at a corporation. Tinlinkin 19:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Why Delete? How can I have a point of view about somebody's ethnicity? They either are or are not. If they are not Irish feel free to delete them from the list. But don't delete the whole category. There are lists of Jewish people in the media. Why not Irish? It is not my point of view. They are not a "race" rather a heritage. It might be interesting to people of Irish heritage how many Irish Americans worked at NBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackiedoyle ( talk • contribs)
  • The people may be Irish-American and they may work for NBC, but it is POV-pushing to have a category solely about them and not other ethnicities. Even a category about Jewish people who work in the media industry is POV-pushing. Since it is a company we are talking about, companies in the U.S. are not allowed to discriminate by race or ethnicity, and this category name implies that. Tinlinkin 19:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand your premise. Is there such a thing as POV-pushing? This category is not based on opinion, nor is it predicated upon a "point of view." It is simply a list of historical fact. Moreover, I'd be happy to mke individual lists for each ethnicity at every single news agency in the world if, for nothing else, than to void your less-than-credible charge that I am pushing a point of view rather than promoting an interesting fact of which many Irish-Americans would be quite proud to learn about. Wikipedia has lists of African American musicians and Italian entertainers and English whatevers all over the place (Those were just examples and not actual categories but similiar ones are all over Wikipedia). Many people have found these lists interesting and enlightening. I was just contributing a new one and certainly didn't intead tp push an agenda or leave anybody out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackiedoyle ( talk • contribs)
    • Please see Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which are Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories says that "dedicated group-subject subcategories should only be created when that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." My first reaction in seeing your category, like others say below, was it is an unusual combination (person's ethnicity or heritage with a TV network) and to me, doesn't fit what I just stated. Perhaps there is a broader category about Irish-American people in which your attempted association would be appropriate. Tinlinkin 06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, this is just a weird combination. -- musicpvm 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's the "NBC" part that is rather silly. Now are we to have lists for every network combined with ethnicity? "FOX Jewish Americans", "CBS Welsh Americans", "HBO African-Americans". I think not. MrBlondNYC 01:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree the category is somewhat silly. I just thought I'd throw it up there and see what you wiki-nerds came up with. Good Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackiedoyle ( talk • contribs)
    • Then you wasted a lot of time out of your life just to see what we wiki-nerds came up with which I find unfortunate. MrBlondNYC 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Look, just delete it. It was a half joke! People always made jokes to me about how mant irish-americans worked at NBC. It only took an hour or so to put it together. It was nothing more than an interesting anomaly and it was kind of funny to put together. I thought it would be taken down eventually. I just didn't expect the kind of angry reaction I've gotten. blackiedoyle
• Delete - I was too busy to bring this up for deletion earlier. It's just not a very good idea.-- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete If it isn't just a random intersection then it is pushing an agenda. In any case, having separate categories by media company is arguably over the top. Piccadilly 01:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete This has to be the single most bizarre ethnic pride category yet Mad Jack 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's POV to think it this is a defining characteristic. Honbicot 23:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This is pointless rubbish with no constructive, informative or encyclopaedic value whatsoever! HOT L Baltimore 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

-this singer's stage name is spelled "P!nk", not "Pink". See P!nk. Extraordinary Machine 13:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Object to Speedy Renaming, needs further discussion as to the naming convention, cat not tagged either. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. I can see no grounds on which discussion is needed and the general link given by Xaosflux does not enlighten me as to way he thinks it is. Piccadilly 23:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'm sorry, but I agree with Xaosflux. Using an exclamation mark like that is not standard spelling; and it is truly quite common to see her referred to as "Pink". Discussion is necessary. LordAmeth 08:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment, the category names should be consistent with the name of the article. Currently the article is at P!nk, but maybe that should be renamed. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names states "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn (band))." According to that, the article should probably be moved to "Pink (singer)" (with no excalamation mark). But if the article is not moved, this category should be renamed. -- musicpvm 00:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names. The change would violate Wikipedia policy. The original article has now been nominated for redirection. Wryspy 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Defer until the name of the associated article is settled. Bluap 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per musicpvm. It's unusual orthography for branding purposes, and violates WP:NC's most-common-name rule (and the singer's own site is inconsistent about spelling). Obviously the article should also conform to policy. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

ProveIt ^(talk) 01:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose and delete as vague and often irrelevant POV-pushing category. Piccadilly 23:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete ... or at least rename to Category:Gay conservatives. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as POV. Who decides if somebody is "conservative" or not? -- musicpvm 00:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename but not to the proposed rename. Instead rename to Category:LGBT members of Conservative Parties-- T. Anthony 02:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, undefined, combination of words. Pavel Vozenilek 02:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete wrt T Anthony's proposal, not all (or even most?) prominent conservatives are a member of a political party, and futhermore it is often a matter of opinion whether a party is "conservative" or not. Hanbrook 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I meant Conservative Party as in parties with that name. That avoids subjectivity, if radically changing the purpose, as "Conservative Party" is an actual name.-- T. Anthony 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete altogether. "Conservative" is a subjective term. Doczilla 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek Wimstead 09:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Anyone want to nominate Category:Conservatives and it's sub-cats? : ) - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Portuguese Liga footballers, to match Portuguese Liga, see also Superliga. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Rename per nom, and disambiguation. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 17:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Stampede Wrestling roster, due to current/former conventions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Merge, per nom. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose Merge- What is the point of merging current roster with alumni? Do you even know what alumni means? If you did you would have put a merge tag on the alumni category page. Seriously, alumni category page and roster category page are to be seperate. Mr. C.C. 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I understand what alumni means. Wikipedia policy says: Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per ProveIt. Vegaswikian 04:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Kbdank71 16:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Trotskyist organisations of Sri Lanka, broaden what is currently a very limited category to produce one in line with those for Trotskyist organisations in other countries. Note that these parties have no more in common with each other than they do with other Trotskyist parties in the country. Warofdreams talk 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Merge - While I don't think I would oppose this being a sub-cat of that, I don't think a merge is in order. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not proposing a merge, just a rename - like I say, there are only two connections between these groups: their names, which is not a suitable system for categorisation; and that they are all Trotskyist organisations, hence the rename. Warofdreams talk 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

But doesn't the first signify the second? - jc37 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

That's why I suggested the rename. The name signifies that they are Trotskyist organisations, but other Trotskyist organisations in the country don't use that particular term. The current category is a bit like having a category for groups named the "Socialist Party" - they will all be socialist in some sense, but other socialist parties have different names. Warofdreams talk 18:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I guess I'm not seeing how this is different than the recent exception for Category:Monster movies. And btw, I was actually thinking of " Category:Socialism" as an example : ) - jc37 18:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Strangely, I can't see what similarity there is with the exception for the Monster movies category. There the argument was that "monster movies" is correct for any film featuring a monster and is more common than "monster films". Here, "Sama Samaja" is only correct for some parties which have nothing else in common other than being Trotskyist, while excluding some Trotskyist parties. Basically, there is a natural set, and this category arbitrarily divides some off from it, solely on the basis of their name. Your example is exactly right - Category:Socialism, or Category:Socialist parties is useful; Category:Parties named "Socialist Party" is not. Warofdreams talk 20:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Monster movies = more common term, especially in the vernacular. Perhaps I am misunderstanding that about Sama Samaja? Part of my concern is about the use of "Trotskyist" in the name. I realise that you have renamed most of the others to that by now, but I'm reluctant to consider that the "correct" term. (It sounds like the category will be named: Rooseveltian, Reaganist, or Clintonesque.) - jc37 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah, I think I understand your concern now. In general, Trotskyist groups have no objection to being called "Trotskyist". It's quite similar to Marxism or De Leonism in that respect. Some early Trotskyists, including Trotsky, preferred "Bolshevik-Leninist", but that soon fell out of use. While there is little material in English to show actual usage by the various Sri Lankan groups, the one source I can find which includes a self-description of political orientation ( [1]) uses "Trotskyist". In English, at least, Trotskyist seems almost exclusively used to describe their political orientation ("Samasamajist" can be found, but is rare). Compare Google searches for "Sri Lanka" and one other term: "Trotskyist" is used as a descriptor, "Sama Samaja" only in the names of the groups themselves. Warofdreams talk 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Two thoughts. 1.) While rare in english, it may be more prevalent in their language? and 2.) That said (though I am still leaning towards rename, below), if you can summarise this (and the links were rather helpful, thank you) in the category for clarity, then I think I'll change to neutral/support. This should also prevent someone someday from nominating it for rename/deletion on the same grounds, not knowing this discussion. - jc37 00:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

1.) It could be more prevalent in Tamil or Sinhala, but unfortunately I have no knowledge of the language and unable to check. However, it is a longstanding principle that Wikipedia gives preference to usage in English. 2.) Of course, I'd be happy to summarise this in the category text. Warofdreams talk 00:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

(Well, wow, 11 colons : )

Sounds like #2 is the plan then : ) - jc37 09:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename Category:'Sama Samaja' Parties to Category:Samasamajist Parties, if kept. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [updated - jc37 00:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Maritime incidents, duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 08:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Though I presume that some articles will actually move to the more specific subcats? - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, as not a defining characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete and Listify Bad idea to create categories for "actors who played XXX". Use list instead. Dugwiki
• Delete per nom, and there is no need to have lists on such topics separate from the relevant articles. Piccadilly 01:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:University of Abertay to Category:University of Abertay Dundee
• Category:University of Abertay alumni to Category:University of Abertay Dundee alumni

• Rename for consistency with the main article at University of Abertay Dundee. Timrollpickering 15:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - per nom -- Henriok 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, as premature, should be kept as a list for now. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:University of Reading alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Reading

• Rename, the other University of Reading categories are in this form, e.g. Category:People associated with the University of Reading. Timrollpickering 15:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - per nom -- Henriok 15:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose there are currently 269 "University by alumni" categories. of these, 261 use the form "X alumni" - only eight use the form "Alumni of..." It is those eight which should be changed - not the remaining 261. Grutness... wha? 03:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment A lot of the universities in question use the form "Something of University Name" for nearly all the categories - having different forms for the alumni categories is out of sync. And rather more than just eight use "Alumni of..." Timrollpickering 03:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There are only eight in all the subcategories of Category:Alumni by university. Perhaps, rather than doing things in this very piecemeal way, it would be better to make a proposal for a naming guideline for such categories, and then everything can be done at once according to whatever is decided - rather than just getting some universities so that all of "X University"'s categories look the same, but work in the other way to a lot of other universities! Grutness... wha? 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#University categories. The renames were proposed largely because I discovered the Durham categories hadn't been moved. Timrollpickering 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. Just looking at Category:Alumni_by_university_in_the_United_Kingdom, 30 use Alumni of <institution>; 11 use <institution> alumni; 1 uses Former Students of <institution>. Bluap 15:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (oops, beaten to it but I'm putting these on all the discussions) One of the reasons why the Category:Alumni by university had only eight accross its sub-categories is because Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom has not been terribly well populated. A lot of the relevant articles have now been added. There are now 45 subcategories there, of which 12 use "University Name alumni", 32 use "Alumni of University Name" and 1 uses "Former students of University Name". Timrollpickering 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks for the explanation and category populating. I still feel that it would be useful if all universities used the same form, and "X alumni" does make sense (and is used in the UK as much as "Alumni of X"). Some form of consistency could then be achieved not only among items relating to one university, but also over all universities in general. That, though, requires something bigger than changing categories on an individual basis like here. Note also that your proposal relating to the University of Abertay, above, uses the opposite format - another indication that something needs to be sorted out overall. (This comment applies to the other related categories below, too - I'm too lazy to cut and paste it to all of them!) Grutness... wha? 22:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • There's a discussion started on the categories convention talkpage. A point that I hope is non-controversial is using the same form for the university name as the page itself uses - something that the Abertay Dundee, Cambridge and Durham categories don't yet. Timrollpickering 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Fine with me - Durham fooled me because I'd only ever seen it written as University of Durham - presumably there was a change in the official name at some point? Grutness... wha? 05:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
          • It changed very recently - I recall it took effect at the start of the year. [2] Timrollpickering 09:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Keele University academics to Category:Academics of Keele University

• Rename, the other Keele University categories use the latter format, e.g. Category:People associated with Keele University. Timrollpickering 15:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Renameper nom. Although these cat renames do seem a lot of work for Timrollpickering for little gain! - mholland 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Catholic comedians. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename - The explenation given at Category:Catholic Comedians is sound. -- Henriok 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Catholic artists category has been deleted just in June and in 2005, painters here, actors here here and I remember more of such decisions. Now, a devout painter working the whole life on religiuos topics may deserve category but I am less sure whether the same goes for comedians. Pavel Vozenilek 17:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Those were unfortunate errors. (I think May was in the period when I was sick of this place) Category:Roman Catholic entertainers is pretty large so it kind of needs subcats. That said I tried to put a note to make it clear that the names have notability related to the intersection. If you feel names are there inappropriately remove them. That said I support the Rename to Category:Catholic comedians or alternately Category:Roman Catholic comedians-- T. Anthony 02:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The problem here, IMHO, is that criteria for this kind of categories are ill-defined, hard to impossible to verify and non-defining or irrelevant for most of those included. Picking semi-randomly the famous Sophia Loren: she had problems with the Church due her divorce (threats of excommunication, needed to emigrate) [3]. This is the only mention of Catholic church on her official website.

I made the criteria rather specific on the categories main page. If you can cite how this category is being misused tell me. True there might be names of people who aren't practicing, but in this case that still works as a Catholic background might be a big part of their humor. Just as Jewish humor doesn't require the person be practicing and includes atheists.-- T. Anthony 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

The current state is that uninformed but very stubborn people insert simply anyone who just may have relation to this or that category turning these into garbage dumps. (Once I was not able to convince someone that Václav Havel is not Roman Catholic politician in whatever sense. He now got cornered among "Deist thinkers" - neither word fits.)

The categories should have ability to store and show a context that would allow to verify inclusion of articles. Pavel Vozenilek 03:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Roman Catholic comedians, per suggestion above. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Alumni of Cambridge University to Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge

• Rename, the main article is at University of Cambridge and other categories use this form, e.g. Category:People associated with the University of Cambridge. Timrollpickering 14:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Fys. &#147; Ta fys aym&#148;. 14:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Ian Cairns 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. I created Category:People associated with the University of Cambridge, and was probably going to get round to suggesting a rename of this category at some point. Bluap 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:University of Cambridge alumni. This is one of a very small minority of Univesity alumni categories to use "Alumni of" (8 of 269 categories), and should be renamed for consistency with the others. Grutness... wha? 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What about consistency with the other "...of the University of Cambridge" categories? Timrollpickering 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Well, that very much depends. Is the University of Cambridge in the minority there as well? If there should be consistency, it should be over both the individual university and the parallel categories for other universities. See also my comments under the University of Reading proposal above. Grutness... wha? 04:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment in Category:Alumni_by_university_in_the_United_Kingdom, the consensus far less clear than you state. (30 use Alumni of <institution>; 11 use <institution> alumni; 1 uses Former Students of <institution>). Let's concentrate on correcting the university name here, and worry about consitency amongst the universities later. Bluap 15:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (oops, beaten to it but I'm putting these on all the discussions) One of the reasons why the Category:Alumni by university had only eight accross its sub-categories is because Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom has not been terribly well populated. A lot of the relevant articles have now been added. There are now 45 subcategories there, of which 12 use "University Name alumni", 32 use "Alumni of University Name" and 1 uses "Former students of University Name". Timrollpickering 15:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per consistency. "Alumni of" is longer, stuffier, and less amenable to easy visual scanning. Most American universities get by just fine with the other form (which in some cases fits under an X University people middle category). -- Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Erm just which consistency do you mean? With the sub-categories for Cambridge alumni (all in the form "Alumni of College Name, Cambridge"), with the other "of the University of Cambridge" categories, with the other UK universities (the majority of which are "Alumni of") or what? A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#University categories to try and sort this out but in the meantime the name of the institution itself should be consistent with the location of the article and the current form used. Timrollpickering 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:University of York alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of York

• Rename, other University of York categories are in this format e.g. Category:People associated with the University of York and Category:Academics of the University of York. Timrollpickering 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose there are currently 269 "University by alumni" categories. Of these, 261 use the form "X alumni" - only eight use the form "Alumni of..." It is those eight which should be changed - not the remaining 261. Grutness... wha? 03:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Your figures don't add up. Just looking at Category:Alumni_by_university_in_the_United_Kingdom, 30 use Alumni of <institution>; 11 use <institution> alumni; 1 uses Former Students of <institution>. Bluap 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (oops, beaten to it but I'm putting these on all the discussions) One of the reasons why the Category:Alumni by university had only eight accross its sub-categories is because Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom has not been terribly well populated. A lot of the relevant articles have now been added. There are now 45 subcategories there, of which 12 use "University Name alumni", 32 use "Alumni of University Name" and 1 uses "Former students of University Name". Timrollpickering 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete or Rename to Category:Fake news anchors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename - Important to make distinction between fake and real news sources. -- Henriok 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. To imply that the individuals listed are not using real news sources is not correct. In most cases they are using humor to present the news. They look at the events and find the humor in how people present and make the news. They are not fake. They just take a non-traditional approach to presenting the news. Vegaswikian 19:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename The Onion is an example of a "fake news" publication that almost always makes up stories from scratch. For example, Doyle Redland (aka P. S. Mueller) is the anchor for The Onion Radio News, which does make up entirely fictional news stories (eg "Satanist conjures a demon to take his dog for a walk"). I wonder if a better name for the category would be Category:Satirical news anchor, since what all these people have in common is presenting things as satire? Just a thought. Dugwiki 16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Anchors of news program satires, or something similar. "Fake" and "satirical" can be ambiguous as used. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename with reservations: The news is usually genuine to a point until they satirize the hell out of it. Even the "fake" stuff is usually based on hyperbolizing societal trends. However, I should mention that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do call their news "fake news". I support a rename, but I want to just throw that out there. Valley2city 04:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Manchester University people to Category:People associated with the University of Manchester

• Rename, the main article is at University of Manchester and the top level category is Category:University of Manchester; "People associated with..." is the common format in Category:People by university in England. Timrollpickering 14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to either People associated with Manchester University or People associated with the University of Manchester. David Kernow ( talk) 08:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:UCL academics to Category:University College London academics

• Rename, the main article is at University College London and nearly all the other UCL categories use the full name not the acronym. Timrollpickering 14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:US Trotskyist and splinter organisations to Category:Trotskyist organizations of the United States

• Rename, Standard format and U.S. spelling; also to remove "splinter organisations" from the category, which is a vague definition and not a helpful method of categorisation. Warofdreams talk 14:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Warofdreams. David Kernow ( talk) 08:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 09:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Chancellors of Trinity College, Dublin to Category:Chancellors of the University of Dublin

• Rename, The title of the office is Chancellor of the University and not Chancellor of the College. Djegan 14:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename (lowercasing). David Kernow ( talk) 13:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Carteret Family to Category:Carteret family

• Rename, No reason for Camel Case - to conform with the naming of all other family categories. Ian Cairns 14:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - per nom -- Henriok 15:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - per nom Twittenham 11:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Sade songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist, which also covers singles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per convention. -- musicpvm 00:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, redundant to Category:Generals of the Bangladesh Liberation war, and Category:Generals of the 1971 Indo-Pak war. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. It looks like someone didn't understand how categories work. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty -- Kbdank71 15:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete unpopulated category that is externally redundant to Category:Mythological characters and Category:Mythology in popular culture. Mythological characters are already fictional, therefore the category name is internally redundant. -- Wryspy 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• On the last point, not really, since "in myth" is rather different from "in fiction" in the modern sense. OTOH, if this has been empty for four days, delete as such. Alai 06:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom -- Henriok 15:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as empty category As above, the category is empty so probably ok to delete. However, I think that possibly what the original author might have meant is "Ancient mythological characters in modern fiction". For example, Hercules is an ancient mythogical figure who also has appeared in many modern television shows and movies and cartoons. So maybe that's the distinction the category creator was going for? Not sure. Even there, it would probably make a better list than a category. Dugwiki 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment mythological characters can be real people, and therefore not a fictional character. vf Alexander the Great, god kings, dyanstic or national founders, religious figures, Charlemagne, etc. 132.205.44.134 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reply. A historical figure who appears in fiction would be categorized in other ways. Dr.Who 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete If the intention was to group mythologicals characters that have been used in modern fiction that embraces almost all mythological characters of note. Twittenham 11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: It gets to be too much and too large. Valley2city 15:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Note: a "real person" can by mythologised, just as a real person can be fictionalised. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:United States Navy people to Category:United States Navy personnel

• As with the per-country categories renamed some time ago, and the US Army type nominated recently. Alai 05:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Alai. David Kernow ( talk) 08:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Jewish prophets to Category:Biblical prophets, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). I presume that there are more Jewish prophets than the ones listed in the Tanakh/Bible. (See also: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 26#Category:Tanakh prophets) - jc37 02:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as nominator - jc37 02:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename: Plus some of the prophets in the Bible aren't Jewish (ie: Balaam) Valley2city 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Note that there is also a Category:Christian prophets, which it might also be correct to rename (or merge). -- Eliyak T· C 03:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Well, that I don't know about. I think we should segregate Old Testament and New Testament because there are many, myself included, that do not accept the validity of anything supplanting the Hebrew Bible and might take offense to grouping them together. Valley2city 04:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment about Category:Christian prophets - I wouldn't think that there would be a problem with renaming it to Category:New Testament prophets, and UpMerging the non-New Testament prophets to Category:Biblical prophets. That way the two are kept separate, but it's a clear distinction. (Note: I tagged Category:Christian prophets for renaming.) - jc37 00:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was see below -- Kbdank71 15:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Piccadilly 23:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Object I agree with the pluralisation, but it should be Category:Chancellors of Durham University in line with the article on the institution ( Durham University not University of Durham). Timrollpickering 00:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The article states clearly that "University of Durham" is the official and legal name and the parent category is Category:University of Durham. It seems to me that it is the article that should be moved (after all "Oxford University" is used far more than "University of Oxford", but the article is at the latter because that is the official name). As this is an specific official position we should use the official terms. Piccadilly 01:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Virtually all articles on UK universities and higher education institutions are located at the current name the institution uses rather than the "official and legal" name in the statutes. In the case you cite, Oxford uses " University of Oxford" so that isn't comparable. The comparable cases are, for instance, Imperial College London (not "Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine"), Lancaster University (not "University of Lancaster") and Queen Mary, University of London, (not "Queen Mary and Westfield College" with or without "University of London"). And a renaming of Category:University of Durham to Category:Durham University and all the related categories is currently being proposed. Timrollpickering 01:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated, except for alum, to Category:Durham University alumni -- Kbdank71 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:University of Durham to Category:Durham University

Category:Colleges of the University of Durham to Category:Colleges of Durham University

Category:Chancellor of the University of Durham to Category:Chancellors of Durham University

Category:Alumni of the University of Durham to Category:Alumni of Durham University

• Rename The institution has recently changed its public name from the University of Durham to Durham University and correspondingly the main article is now at Durham University. These categories should use the same name structure as the main article for consistency. Timrollpickering 00:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Additionally the Chancellor category should be pluralised. Timrollpickering 00:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom with one exception, the last should be Category:Durham University alumni for consistency. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Both "University Name Alumni" and "Alumni of University Name" are in widespread use across Wikipedia - taking Category:People by university in England (as the nearest parent category) both forms appear a lot (along with one or two other variants) and there are many more (usually the "Alumni of" style) in the "People associated with University Name" categories. I don't think there is a current consistency on this one. Timrollpickering 13:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The nearest parent category is actually Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom, which doesn't have much consistency, either. However, similar categories, like Category:Alumni by university in the United States are named as Dan mentioned. - EurekaLott 18:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • When I last looked Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom didn't contain very much at all. In any case there is quite a mixture on this and potentially more than one standard form conflicting. I've put up some comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#University categories as a starting point on this. Timrollpickering 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Dhartung -- Robdurbar 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Dhartung — plus add a few redirects for the final one. — cBuckley ( Talk • Contribs) 11:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• 'Rename the first two as proposed, but rename the third to Category:University of Durham alumni. There are currently 269 "University by alumni" categories. of these, 261 use the form "X alumni" - only eight use the form "Alumni of...". This is one of those eight and should be changed accordingly. Grutness... wha? 03:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Where do you get eight from? Category:Alumni of the University of London alone has 18 "Alumni of..." categories for the individual institutuons in it. And a lot of the other categories go for "Something of University Name". Also "University of Durham alumni" would be out of sync with the form for the institution's name. Timrollpickering 03:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There are only eight out of 261 in all the subcategories of Category:Alumni by university. See also my comments under the Reading University proposal above. BTW, since the institution is the University of Durham, I don't see how "University of Durham alumni" is out of synch with that. Grutness... wha? 04:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The institution now uses the name " Durham University" and the article is at that location. It is seriously out of sync to use a different form for the categories from the article. As for the Alumni category, this is largely because the UK sub category has never been terribly well known. Timrollpickering 10:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Further comment One of the reasons why the Category:Alumni by university had only eight accross its sub-categories is because Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom has not been terribly well populated. A lot of the relevant articles have now been added. There are now 45 subcategories there, of which 12 use "University Name alumni", 32 use "Alumni of University Name" and 1 uses "Former students of University Name". Timrollpickering 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Ageless fictional characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, ridiculously broad category, into which a vast majority of comic book, comic strip, cartoon, literary, and television characters can be fit. Second, it's a convention of many such media that characters do NOT age. Third, juxtaposed against Wiki's 'always write in the present' policy, all characters come off as ageless. Finally, where are the limits, in light of the 'characters in fiction are always in the present'? a character who appears only in a single chapter of a novel certainly doesn't age, so is that person 'ageless'? ThuranX 00:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- musicpvm 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete arguable category. It included characters who have barely aged over the decades. If properly categorized, it would include nearly every comic strip and comic book character, and a category that includes almost everyone renders itself useless. Wryspy 06:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, but obviously don't delete subcats. - jc37 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply

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