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.
I understand your position, but other Louisville categories currently use just 'Louisville'. It is considered the most prominent Louisville of all cities with that name, so it makes sense. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work06:37, 7 March 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.
Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Durham diocese[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, Redundant category, Category:Anglican suffragan bishops in Diocese of Durham is used instead. — PMJ22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)(edited to fix typo)[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.
It was useful but now it has only two articles that's in the category, the rest was merged to a new page. So I think it should be removed. TheBlazikenMaster21:36, 6 March 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.
Unfortunately it severely violates WP:NPOV, by making the accusation that the subject of the article is a canard (canard = "a false and baseless claim"). Though I may personally agree with the sentiment that the various claims are canards, this is still only a personal opinion, not a concretely proven fact beyond dispute. Imagine adding a "Category:Fundamentalist Christian Canards" to the Teach the Controversy article. --User talk:FDuffy20:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is reserved for anti-Jewish ATTACK stories which have been widely recognized as factually incorrect by competent scholars or authorities in the relevant field, but which are still continually dragged out to ATTACK Jews year after year for decades. Note the first distinction between this category and Intelligent Design -- intelligent design was not contrived for the purpose of attacking or denigrating any one national/religious/ethnic or racial group of people. The second difference is that the main dispute over Intelligent Design is actually not whether it's true or false, but rather whether or not it's science -- a dispute which quickly leads to abstract realms of philosophy and falsifiability. By contrast, the disputes involved in the "canards" category are largely about simple facts, dates, and events. So keep. AnonMoos21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the logical parents of this would be Category:Antisemitism, which does exist, and Category:Canards, which does not, there might be a better term than "canards" to use, unless some sources can be provided that indicate "canard" is the usual and definitive referent. Antisemitic canard does exist, but it is a recent creation and a mere unreferenced stub. There are not any other specific "canard" pages, other than Canard (computing), which has its own problems. Why not just merge Category:Antisemitic canards into Category:Antisemitism? Also note that Template:Antisemitism uses "Allegations" as a header, so renaming to "Antisemitic allegations" would also make sense. Postdlf21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be merged with Category:Antisemitism, because it's convenient to have a distinct category to gather together the specifically anti-Jewish myths or stories which never die, but continue on and on decade after decade, no matter how often or how conclusively they've been debunked and refuted. A proposal which emerged in the last CFD, and gained some support, was to rename it to "Category:Persistent antisemitic narratives", but this wasn't done... AnonMoos01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename - As AnonMoos pointed out, this category is for stories which are widely recognized as false by scholars and other reliable sources, therefore not violating NPOV. It is a useful category, but the term "canard" is unusual. If "Antisemitic canards" is the name most commonly used for this subject in reference works, then it should stay. If it is not a common name, than the category should be renamed to something like Category:Persistent Anti-Semitic beliefs, as proposed in the previous CfD. - Jwillbur01:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnonMoos and per previous failed CFD. This is not merely about "beliefs" or "various claims", but rather about deliberate frauds and fabrications persistently (for generations) used to attack Jews. ←Humus sapiensну?11:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Canard" has to go, since it is not merely POV but disparaging. The category itself may some value, however, and renaming might help refine that. semper fictilis
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.
Category:Fox Broadcasting Company personalities[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 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.
Category:UEFA European Football Championship goalscorers[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - This is another "football player who scored in a championship" category. As stated before, sportspeople in general have many categories, and sorting people by whether they scored in a championship simply adds to category clutter. Also, as stated before, categories like this are not created for other sports championships. Therefore, this category should be deleted. (I can provide links to the previous discussions on similar categories that were deleted.) Dr. Submillimeter17:09, 6 March 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 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.
Delete - cat contains subcats for albums and songs, both of which are correctly housed under Albums by artist and Songs by artist parents, and three articles which are all linked together. No need for this eponymous category. Otto471115:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would sure be nice if we had a guideline about musician categories before they're all nominated independently. Mine would be, "If the artist has at least two subcategories, it stays." But I'm sure that's not everyone's opinion.--Mike Selinker19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying through the CFD process to help develop some guidelines, I think that's an OK thing to do. My quibble with the "two cats and you're in" criterion is that pretty much every musician since the inception of recorded music is going to have an albums and a songs category. Since their discographies should be in their articles that in my mind is insufficient reason to have the category. I think the categories need to be looked at for depth and not just volume. This category as I mentioned has three articles in it, all of which are linked to each other. The main article Alanis Morissette serves as the navigational hub because all of the articles and the categories are accessible through it as easily as through the category. Someone with a more extensive field of articles that aren't as logically linkable through each other is more likely to need an eponymous category. But just counting the number of subcats pr articles doesn't seem like enough of a rationale. YMMV as always. Otto471121:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wonder what it hurts to have categories like this. Works derive from people, so it follows logically that work categories are subcategories of people categories.--Mike Selinker00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM. It "doesn't hurt" to have a lot of the categories we delete, but "what's the harm" is rightly rejected as an argument for keeping. The potential "harm" is in adding to the category clutter on articles (Alanis has some 30 on hers, some admittedly relating to sourcing but still more than two dozen) and in the precedent that keeping them sets in trying to delete other categories that may be more "harmful." If there is sufficient material on a subject to warrant an eponymous category, then I have no objection to it. But in the case where the category is doing nothing but serving as an unnecessary layer of categorization it should be deleted. Her discography is easily accessible through her article, which is where anyone interested in her is going to start anyway. Otto471101:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both of the articles already belong to other appropriate categories, so this category isn't needed for those. The subcategories are likewise already included in other good parents. Finally her main article contains a complete discography, so the main article serves as a fully functional hub for those links. Delete this eponymous category as unnecessary. Dugwiki17:17, 7 March 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.
Speedy delete - the category is holding subcats for cast, writers and directors, which will be emptied and deleted by the end of the day. The category will then be empty and can be speedily deleted. Otto471115:31, 6 March 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 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.
Delete - this is something of a "test the waters" nomination. Recording artists are extensively categorized by what label or labels they recorded for. This strikes me as being very akin to categorizing television performers by the networks for which they've worked. I understand that it is less likely for a recording artist to hop from label to label the way an actor or a commentator may jump from network to network but the similarity between the categorization scheme leads me to conclude that musician by record label is a form of overcategorization. Certainly the label should be mentioned in the artists' articles and I have no quarrel with listifying before deletion. Otto471114:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as first impression) My first impression here would be to agree with Otto. This sounds akin to actors-by-studio, which is generally deleted since actors often work for many studios in their career. I could see that musicians-by-record-label might suffer some of the same problems, although I could be wrong. So I'm leaning toward delete, but I'm certainly open to counter-arguments. Dugwiki17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike actors, musicians sign long-term contracts with recording studios and may only work with one or two recording studios during their careers. Therefore, the identification of a musician with a studio is more meaningful than the identification of an actor with a studio. In some cases, the studio also indicates the style or origin of the music (especially a famous studio such as Motown Records), which is an additional reason to keep. Furthermore, since articles on performers are unlikely to have more than a couple of these categories, the studios categories should not contribute to category clutter. (Like Dugwiki, however, I am open to counter-arguments.) Dr. Submillimeter17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under the American studio system, actors signed long-term contracts with individual studios and became strongly identified with the studios. MGM, Paramount, RKO, etc. had stables of stars and distinctive production values. I understand what you're saying as well but the identification of movie star with studio is for many stars of that era possibly stronger than the identification of most recording artists with their labels. Otto471118:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The practice of actors signing long-term contracts with studios was a common practice in the first half of the 20th century, but it is not a common practice anymore. Since actors may now work on projects at many different studios, classifying them by studio is inappropriate. However, musicians still sign long-term contracts with recording studios, so classifying them by recording label does make sense. The two situations are different. Dr. Submillimeter22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are different but still analogous, especially since we don't distinguish between current and former in categorization. And actually, television actors do frequently sign seven year contracts at the start of a new series. Someone like, say, Sarah Michelle Gellar, who was under long-term contract to (I assume) Mutant Enemy, could arguably more reasonably be categorized under Category:Mutant Enemy actors than someone who recorded a single album for FictionRecords Inc. be categorized under Category:FictionRecords artists. Otto471122:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and listify. I agree that some musicians are strongly associated with a particular label, and, especially in the case of some indie labels, the association can be strong enough to be considered defining. Nevertheless, successful musicians with long careers will have often worked with many labels, and these articles are most likely to already be suffering from category bloat. Frank Zappa (for example) would need five new categories if he were categorized by label(s). That's on top of the thirty-two (!) categories he already has. I think lists would work just as well for the indies, and would be a far better choice for many others, like Zappa. Xtifrtälk11:06, 7 March 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.
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.
Delete - article is serving as a container for articles about each of the band members, the band, and a former band that two of the members were in, along with subcats for their songs and albums. All of the articles are extensively interlinked with the main article and each other and the subcats are appropriately categorized as children of the Songs by artist and Album by artist categories. There is no need for this eponymous category. Otto471114:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's best, though, when a category has two parents. See the "Antisemitic canards" debate above. Antisemitism is a category, but Canards is not, so it comes into question. Here, "members" is a category (Musicians by band), and ZZ Top should be as well.--Mike Selinker00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any requirement that a category have two parents or even that it's automatically preferable that a category have two parents. The comparison to the "canards" discussion doesn't really follow, as in that instance the dispute is about the POV name of the category. I am not suggesting that there is any such flaw in the name of this category, but that the category itself is redundant to the perfectly adequate linkages that already exist in the article. Otto471101:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category isn't necessary here. The subcategories are already appropriately included in other parents and the only two articles in this category are the main article and an article which should probably simply appear in the main article under "See also". ZZ Top's complete song list and discography likewise appear in the main article as well. So this category serves pretty much no navigational purpose that the main article isn't serving. Delete as unneeded eponymous category. Dugwiki17:21, 7 March 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.
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.
Comment Yup... at least until there is a solid result. At that point it would be good manners to wait a few months be fore re-noming or recreating. — J Greb23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The last discussion reached no consensus, so further discussion is warranted. As with other people by network categories, the people at CJOH have worked elsewhere; see, for example, Peter Jennings and Alanis Morissette. As stated before, categorization by network is inappropriate, since people work for many networks during their careers and since the categories lead to category clutter. Moreover, in light of the deletion of similar categories for other TV networks (such as Category:NBC personalities and Category:CBS personalities) and the status of pending nominations to delete other "people by network" categories (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 5, for example), this category should also be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per similar cfds for other actor-by-network categories. It also looked like this cfd was leaning toward a possible deletion at the time it was closed for no consensus, so I don't have a problem with the discussion continuing. Dugwiki17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus against this type of categorization has been pretty clear, and I don't see any compelling reason to treat this one as a special exception to that. Delete. Bearcat21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the suggestion that I have acted in bad faith in nominating this category. I did not notice that it had been nominated previously and even the hint that I deliberately did something improper is unacceptable. Otto471101:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, particularly for leaving the impression that Otto4711 had renominated this when in fact another editor made the previous nomination. No bad faith accusation was intended, but official policies such as WP:DEL should still be factored into the discussion. Dl200003:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would say that the renomination is justified for two reasons. First, the previous discussion reached no consensus. Second, several similar categories were deleted while this one was not. For these reasons, re-examining this category is warranted. Dr. Submillimeter10:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Bearcat. A prior "no consensus" result is certainly not a precedent against deletion, let alone relisting, especially considering the clear deletion precedents in similar categories. The procedural complaints are therefore misplaced, and insufficient as the only objections to deletion. Postdlf17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the previous discussion identified the Sui generis nature of the legacy of Ernie Bushnell and CJOH. because of its unique place in time and space, it was the training ground for many important figures in North American TV/Radio/media. cmacd19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the only person in the previous debate who claimed that CJOH had some special legacy of significance as a training ground for important media figures was you; everybody else who voted to keep it did so on the grounds that it was parallel to the very "personalities by network" categories that are now being deleted as unwarranted overcategorization. CJOH most certainly hasn't ever been some kind of uniquely significant birthplace for media personalities; it has no more claim to significance in this regard than any other major market television station in North America. Every TV station that existed in the 1950s and early 1960s had to develop a lot more locally oriented programming than TV stations do now, and a lot of those personalities went on to greater fame. CJOH isn't unique that way. Bearcat06:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If precedent is against performer by network there certainly shouldn't be any question about performer by individual station. There is obviously room for textual mentions of the link and probably even room for a list of people linked to CJOH, but not notable enough for a category, IMO. - Cafemusique04:35, 10 March 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.
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.
Delete, Looks like new user created a category rather than an article by mistake. There will only every be one article associated with this category. Stephenpace14:08, 6 March 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.
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.
Comment This nomination pre-empts an ongoing debate, CfD 03/03/07 - Category:Association of Southeast Asian Nations (nomination to rename Association of Southeast Asian NationstoASEAN). I would suggest that it is withdrawn in favour of the debate of the 3rd.
Follow the categories for EU, NATO, etc. Meanwhile, it is important to note Wikipedia should not be western-centric. E.g., NAFTA and OAS are not well known outside the western hemisphere. Passer-by 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep either way redirect. Passer-by 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous votes are permitted, although they (as indeed can 'logged-in' votes) may be discounted by the closing admin if circumstances dictate. cf WP:CFD#Users without accounts and users with new accounts. Strikethrough removed.
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.
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.
rename per nom for all reasons listed. Actually, each object seem to be named 'f00 Wilderness'. It looks like 'area' is tacked on on the end when talking about groups of them to avoid having to deal with the plural of 'wilderness', as in 'wildernesses' or something! Hmains01:01, 8 March 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 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 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.
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.
Move text to Baseball in Edmonton and rename category as Category:Baseball in Edmonton - This is the case of an article written in category space. The text should be moved to an appropriate article. Although no equivalent baseball categories can be found for other Canadian cities (although several "sports in city" categories do exist), this subdivision makes sense, and the category should be kept. Dr. Submillimeter10:21, 6 March 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 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.
Comment: I have made the redirect. Nothing more needs to be done. I think this is best to leave redirected instead of redlinked, since it's probably a common mistake (if it can even be called a "mistake") — coelacan — 03:05, 10 March 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.
Delete - Categorizing sculptors by every exhibition that they appear in will be infeasible; the large lists of categories will be difficult to read and use. Dr. Submillimeter10:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. This would work as a list in an article but not as a category tag on every artist article who appeared. Dugwiki17:45, 6 March 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 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.
Deletion of this category was an act of vandalism. Nothing was posted regarding this so-called merge; __ MGerety
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 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.
Keep as is. This category has factual and historical merit and very specific criteria for inclusion. MGerety
DO NOT MERGE, RETAIN MGerety is right. In fact, the category Hilltowns in Italy was improperly substituted for Italian Hilltowns after a finding of no consesus. Medieval and Renaissance hill towns in Italy are important in Italy's. SilviaManno12:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Silvia Manno[reply]
DO NOT MERGE, RETAIN Just to repeat my above comment now that I myself have been undeleted. Also why wasn't this original merege proposal posted at the category itself? Many a PhD thesis has been written on the subject of these townsm the communities that inhabited them down to the construction tecniques used, MGerety13:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)MGerety[reply]
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 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.
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.
Merge or Redirect is fine, but I think complete Deletion of the category is better.Speaking as a lifelong resident of Louisiana, since my state doesn't have counties - Parishes instead - calling them counties is misleading and inaccurrate. I have felt the Wiki should always strive for accurracy and characterizing Louisiana's parishes as counties doesn't accomplish that.--Avazina05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Many people are unaware of Louisiana's unconventional naming scheme and the couty construction is a likely possible search term. Otto471118:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Otto. Even if you know that LA has parishes, and that parishes are an administrative region of some sort, you may not know that they are equivalent to counties, or that LA doesn't have counties. I didn't. Xtifrtälk11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The culprit is Template:Infobox U.S. County, which automatically applies [[Category:{{{state}}} counties]]; the same problem is present with the Alaskan borough articles. This of course means that the categories can't be removed from the articles without changing the template to exclude Alaska and Louisiana from the category tagging (which I don't yet know how to do), or removing the template entirely. I left a message about this problem on the template talk page. Seriously, when has categorization-by-template not been more trouble than it's worth? Postdlf22:46, 8 March 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:Fictional Americans by place subcategories[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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename, It should be fictional characters, not people, as not all characters are people. Also I have looked up the names of what people are called by state and incorporated that as well where possible. If I got a name wrong, tell me and I will support the change. Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RenametoFictional characters from Foo. I agree that characters are not always human, but the Fooian notation often doesn't work very well. -- Prove It(talk)01:33, 6 March 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.