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

The result of the debate was closed as ongoing. the wub "?!" 18:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep - There are many other tv series who have similar categories with a shorter shelf life. As Charmed has been on for 8 years with a number of known actors I believe the category should stay. Artemisboy 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Charmed cast members per previous similar actors to cast discussions. Otto4711 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - At this time, a discussion on this category is already proceeding at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12. Please do not continue to vote here; it will cause confusion. Dr. Submillimeter 23:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Otto. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - long running show. Or rename to "cast members", as long as cast members would include recurring actors like Jennifer Rhodes, Wes Ramsey etc.~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Close this discussion and direct comments to Jan 12 discussion This is already part of an ongoing cfd discussion from Jan 12. See [1]. I recommend closing this particular discussion and directing comments there. Dugwiki 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Procedural close per Dugwiki. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 03:46, 29 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Australian immigration to Category:Immigration to Australia

• Rename - All of the other categories in Category:Immigration are named "Immigration to X", which is unambiguous. This category should be renamed not only to conform with the naming convention used in oter categories but also to clarify that the subject is about immigration into Australia, not immigration out of Australia. Dr. Submillimeter 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support for consistency. -- Xdamr ^talk 00:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom for clarity and consistency. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 12:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - immigration implies coming in anyway; to move out of Australia is "emigration"; it is a tautology to say this twice. JROBBO 12:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The term "Australian immigration" could also be used to refer to Australians immigrating to other places, such as "Australian immigration to the United Kingdom". A Google search on "Australian immigration" did not necessarily provide results that showed that it was frequently used this way, but a Google search on similar terms for other nationalities (e.g. "Mexican immigration", "Romanian immigration") shows that the nationality mentioned is the place of origin, not the destination. This is why "Australian immigration" should be changed to "Immigration to Australia". Dr. Submillimeter 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Australians do not "immigrate" to other places; they "emigrate" - if you want to use the word in the context you have used, you have to say something like "The immigration of Australians to Romania", etc; there is no other way you can use the word. Additionally, "Australian immigration" is more concise and easier to type; I can never understand why all the category changes always end up with the text two or three times as long. People do not always go for the correct usage; they go for the quickest, and with my point above this category should stay as is. JROBBO 10:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Honbicot 17:23, 25 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. the wub "?!" 14:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Darkwing Duck villains into Category:Darkwing Duck characters

• Upmerge - "Villains" categories are being deleted as improperly POV following emerging consensus. Villains by show suffer from the same sort of POV issues. Merge to the character category. Otto4711 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per Otto. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I thought the earliest discussions had said that villains, like Batman villains, were adequately specific. See, e.g., Jan 12 CFD on Batman Beyond villains.

• It doesn't appear from that CfD that the idea of merging up any further than that was considered. There is not a parent Category:Batman characters and perhaps there should be and the villains category should be merged there. I can't say as if I'm familiar enough with Darkwing Duck to know whether the "villains" ever "switch sides" in the way that led to various villain categories being seen as POV (e.g. Magneto, Catwoman, Emma Frost, all of whom were categorized as "villains" despite having spent good chunks of their "careers" as "heroes"). It was the first of these series-specific categories I noticed. My feeling though is that there's no reason to keep separate villain categories when there's a "characters" parent cat to upmerge. Otto4711 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge, then! -- lquilter 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete As with many other villain cfds, I'm generally opposed to villain categories based on POV problems with the term. Dugwiki 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge, the category should be deleted as with all "villain", "hero", "antagonist" and "protagonist" categories.~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep (and aghast at responses so far) - It's a cartoon villain! I'm sorry, but it's not POV to call The Joker a villain, or do you seriously propose that we remove the word "supervillain" from the article on him because it's POV? Fiction is purposefully written to be over good and over bad. 146.186.44.199 19:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep, categorization of characters as villains is not POV or trivial. -- Noneofyourbusiness 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge - As discussed previously, the label "villian" may suffer from POV problems, and characters frequently switch from being "evil" to "good" or vice versa. Categorizing characters as villians is therefore inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete/merge per nom. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 03:47, 29 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Animation villains ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per many recent POV deletions of hero, villain etc. categories and articles. Otto4711 19:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete As above, there is currently pretty good consensus that "villain" categories are too subjective. Dugwiki 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as with all "villain", "hero", "antagonist" and "protagonist" categories.~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above for prior consensus, subjectivity. Doczilla 08:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep per my comments above (again, aghast at responses so far). 146.186.44.199 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep, categorization of characters as villains is not POV or trivial. -- Noneofyourbusiness 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As discussed previously, the label "villian" may suffer from POV problems, and characters frequently switch from being "evil" to "good" or vice versa. Categorizing characters as villians is therefore inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Animated characters. Some of these characters will become uncategorized by source if we delete. I hope people voting delete will reconsider this option.-- Mike Selinker 16:52, 29 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 20:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Villain groups ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per all recent CfDs to delete villain categories as POV. Otto4711 18:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Otto. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above and per previous "villain" afds Dugwiki 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as with all "villain", "hero", "antagonist" and "protagonist" categories.~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per precedent. Doczilla 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep per my answers above. 146.186.44.199 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep, categorization of characters as villains is not POV or trivial. -- Noneofyourbusiness 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As discussed previously, the label "villian" may suffer from POV problems, and characters frequently switch from being "evil" to "good" or vice versa. Categorizing characters as villians is therefore inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep As before, the role of a villain is most easily defined. But specifically the grey area is a weak case here because groups either operate under a consensus or are a collectively driven race. There's either a continued operation despite a defector or two, or the group is dismantled; rarely is their a collective "switch" involved. I'd also like to add that lots of recognised legitimate categories can easily be confliced by perspective issues. -- Bacteria 14:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• I don't think villain is half as subjective as people might think. I hardly think anyone would get upset if someone classified Klingons in the villain category, though they've switched back and forth in Star Trek. Part Deux 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Actually I bet a vast number of Trekkies would be upset at the notion of besmirching Klingon honor. Otto4711 19:24, 29 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Child villains ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per recently emerging consensus to delete villain categories as POV. Has the additional definitional/POV problems that go with child-named categories. This was nominated previously and closed with no consensus following a very small smaple size. Otto4711 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Otto. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above and per previous "villain" discussions. Dugwiki 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as with all "villain", "hero", "antagonist" and "protagonist" categories.~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Doczilla 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep per my answers above. 146.186.44.199 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep, categorization of characters as villains is not POV or trivial. -- Noneofyourbusiness 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As discussed previously, the label "villian" may suffer from POV problems, and characters frequently switch from being "evil" to "good" or vice versa. Categorizing characters as villians is therefore inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 27 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Literature villains ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per all the previous deletions of hero, villain, protagonist, antagonist categories and articles. POV, subjective, etc. Otto4711 18:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Otto. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per previous villain discussions. Dugwiki 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as with all "villain", "hero", "antagonist" and "protagonist" categories.~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. This is more vague and subject to POV than "antagonist." Doczilla 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep per my answers above. 146.186.44.199 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep, categorization of characters as villains is not POV or trivial in literature or any other medium. -- Noneofyourbusiness 01:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As discussed previously, the label "villian" may suffer from POV problems, and characters frequently switch from being "evil" to "good" or vice versa. Categorizing characters as villians is therefore inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 07:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I've made my argument before. The villain is a clearly defined role in fiction, even more than that of the hero... outside of comic books (and I'm assuming we're excluding the Supervillain categories). -- Bacteria 14:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Characters in written fiction. Some of these characters will become uncategorized by source if we delete. I hope people voting delete will reconsider this option.-- Mike Selinker 16:50, 29 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:United States National Medal of Arts recipients. the wub "?!" 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
The category is defined as a category of American National Medal of Art recipients. The word American must be mentioned. Other countries have their own National Medal of Art! The category needs to be renamed obviously. Sangak 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename Something like Category:United States National Medal of Arts recipients. TonyTheTiger 16:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per TonyTheTiger. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename, though I would propose a slight tweak to the wording, to Category:Recipients of the United States National Medal of Arts. This would bring it into line with what has become the de facto WP:ODM standard for similar 'recipients' categories, eg. Category:Recipients of the Military Cross, Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross, Category:Recipients of the Territorial Decoration, Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross, etc.

Xdamr ^talk 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per TonyTheTiger for clarity. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 12:21, 23 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Namesakes of streets in New York City ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete; namesakes are better served by a list if at all since the reason for naming can be put into context—that Mother Cabrini and Robert Fulton share this category informs us very little of either of them otherwise. Moreover, certain figures have numerous streets named after them ( Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind) and a proliferation of categories for namesake streets in various cities would clutter the article. - choster 15:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Created List of eponymous streets in New York City.- choster 15:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per choster. Adds clutter and no utility to the biographies. × Meegs 15:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Xiner ( talk, email) 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The people with streets named after them probably share little in common. Grouping them together therefore is unhelpful. Dr. Submillimeter 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete for fear of similar lists for other cities cluttering articles. TonyTheTiger 17:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and listify. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 12:22, 23 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Not sure what this one's title should be, but this sure ain't it. A combination of dodgy grammar and use of the singular makes this a very unappealing title. Category:Cities that are the most populous in a nation, perhaps...? Any better ideas are welcome! Grutness... wha? 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Hmmm... How's deletion for an idea? A category is not really a helpful way to view that information. List of capitals and largest cities by country does the job and there's little point in having an alphabetical list of cities which happen to be the largest in their country if you don't know what country they're in. Pop quiz, what countries have Yerevan, Koror, Honiara, Palikir, Majuro, Vientiane as their largest respective cities? Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, the cat Pascal gives is more than sufficient. yandman 08:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete in favour of merging/rationalizing/adding population figures to List of national capitals, List of capitals and largest cities by country, List of countries whose capital is not their largest city...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Kernow. Xiner ( talk, email) 15:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and listifyI am in favor of separate list articles for each of the aforementioned topics in addition to categories. I also think a Template is in order. TonyTheTiger 16:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete This opens up the issue of how to define a city, and takes a black and white view on that. Pinoakcourt 17:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per yandman. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 17:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Unnecessary; the list covers this more than adequately, and a category is the wrong way to organize it. Delete. Bearcat 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Pinoakcourt (too many definitional problems for a category), but expand details in list per David Kernow. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Rename. The only changes that this category needs is in it's name, and if it was split into categories by Continent then that would also help alot. Otherwise, it looks to be a great reference. Blackjays 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete This category does nothing that a list couldn't do better. Honbicot 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, should be a list. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 03:48, 29 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Robdurbar 09:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Banned films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pretty sure that this was already deleted but can't find the relevant debate again. I'm not even sure I agree that it should be deleted but that was the community's decision as far as I remember. Pascal.Tesson 01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as recreation and per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 7#Banned writers and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 24#Banned books. There is clearly consensus that this sort of wide, imprecise categorisation is inappropriate—this sort of content is better off listified.

Xdamr ^talk 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete and salt recreation of excessively broad, vague category. Maybe your mom banned a movie from your home when you were a kid. We don't care about that here. Wryspy 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete this cat could include any film anyone wanted to add to it --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as recreated content. -- Prove It ^(talk) 07:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Salt per nom. Should be a list at best, just noted in articles about where it's banned otherwise. -- Wizardman 13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete and salt recreation of excessively broad, vague category. Pinoakcourt 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete and endorse salting. Tagged with {{ db-g4}} now. Prolog 05:16, 23 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete as nominee category, also do we really want Awards by ethnicity? -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Wryspy 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wryspy --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete the point has been made time and again that such ethnic over-categorization is not a welcome addition. Pascal.Tesson 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 17:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Over-categorization and other races would not likely be categorized similarly. If properly used as category this would omit members from the proper parent category of Oscar nominees (which this cat does not use). TonyTheTiger 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - It would be "award winners (or nominees) by ethnicity"; nothing wrong with categories, if necessary, for awards targeted to particular identity groups -- e.g., there are lots of awards for "young scientists", "young activists", and the like, and it would be useful to group them if the definition of "young" were at all uniform. If there are also lots of awards for particular ethnicities or whatever then a cat for the awards is helpful. -- lquilter 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and TonyTheTiger. Wilchett 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse ( t | c) 03:49, 29 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 14:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Roman helmets into Category:Roman armour

• Merge, There is only one type of Roman helmet in this category, should just lump it in with the rest of the equipment in the "Roman armour" category. - RJASE1 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge unneeded over-categorization. Pascal.Tesson 05:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I created this category thinking it would be fuller than this, but it has not turned out that way. I have made some attempt today to populate it, so Keep, but if it's still felt it's underpopulated I'ld have little problem with Merge (if all the helmet entries were then put, say, as 'Category:Roman armour|Helmet'). Neddyseagoon - talk 11:16, 22 January 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 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 or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 18:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:University of Memphis alumni, they changed their name in 1994. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete: As of the moment, there's only one article in the cat. Unless we can find another half-dozen, I'd zap this. yandman 08:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The school has been there since 1912, over 90 years. On the other hand, the category was created yesterday. Give it time. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename and give it time. × Meegs 15:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per yandman. --  Mikedk9109   (hit me up)  ^SIGN 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment – the category now contains 42 articles. × Meegs 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Rename for now per nom; this is part of a series Category:Alumni by university in the United States, and this categ now has 7 articles, so give it time to grow. -- BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • ( contribs)} 12:28, 23 January 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.