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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename to reflect the precedent set by Category:People of the Maratha Empire. While Roman Empire was the subject of a recent nomination, I felt that due weight was not given to the fact that was an empire and a former country. This was recognised by the closing admin in the above precedent see here. He wrote, "...is not a compelling precedent for former countries; this is a member of Category:People of former countries, where the form "People of the X Empire" is more common". Also, the current name is ungrammatical and involves the use of compound nouns. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I support the universal standard of "FOOian people" (or "FOO people" where there is no good "FOOian" alternative), whether or not the "country" is past or present. I have no idea why we would want to invent two different styles—one for present countries and one for past countries. Such a move seems to be the opposite of progressing towards simplicity and predictability. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- Good grammar implies that we should not be using nouns as if they were adjectives. If you really want to do this it should be "Roman-Empire people"; otherwise id means "Empire people of Rome". The alleged prcedent ought to be reversed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really this is just too much. A closing judge intervening here again? What other way could he vote? And by the way, I already noted the previous discussion in my nomination. But I do agree that not all such categories need be shoe-horned into "Fooian people" and that useful exceptions exist (e.g. Empires, former countries, Nazi and other odious labels).Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2013 (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.
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.
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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to merge this smaller cat into the larger cat (sorry, I just had to make that reference). It looks like more discussion needs to happen before it can be decided what should happen with this category. Seems like there's a good argument that this is not a SMALLCAT with the examples of room to grow given. delldot∇.00:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's comment: Beats me what should be done, but I don't see any rationale here. I don't see how WP:SMALLCAT applies. The question of how many Dr. Seuss parodies are possible doesn't come with any obvious limit, unlike the examples in WP:SMALLCAT. By "too specific" to be "meaningful" I presume you mean that there's no hope for adding anything to get this category off the ground. Why not? Does One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads qualify? I have no idea, never having seen the book. There are certainly dozens of one-off Dr. Seuss parodies (try Google), the question is how many achieve WP notability. Let's see, restricting to books, here's two possibilities: The Kid in the Crib and The Cat and the Mitt? Plus the one I know, the basis for the article A Political Fable I created. When adding categories, well, something analogous to Category:Muppet parodies seemed reasonable. One source of examples of Dr. Seuss parodies might be Nel, Philip (2004). Dr. Seuss: American Icon. Continuum International Publishing. pp. 168–192, chapter six., cited in my article. (Apparently I've used up my limit, I can't get to these pages anymore.) This is what I've found without even trying. Choor monster (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my memory was of the Green Eggs and Hamparody from the time of his civil trial, inspired by his bizarrely phrased testimony. The book is something else.
Creator's third comment: Merging makes absolutely no sense: A Political Fable is not a Dr. Seuss work, and categorizing it as such would be rank gibberish, the sort of thing that if actually carried out and left in Wikipedia would get mocked like Bicholim conflict. ("Hey, did you know that according to Wikipedia, cough cough, Dr. Seuss had people roast the Cat in the Hat and eat him! What's even funnier, this wasn't a secret hoax, hah hah, they said this on purpose after open discussion.") The same for any of the other four works I linked to above, assuming they are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. They are not Dr. Seuss works, they are Dr. Seuss parodies. And to repeat: WP:SMALLCAT is completely irrelevant here. In fact, not one concern listed in WP:OC is relevant. (I will point out that I did not create the category as a subcategory of Dr. Seuss works—I created it as an orphan category—some later editor did that.) Choor monster (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested merging this to Category:Works by Dr. Seuss. Only if we did that would we be suggesting that Dr. Suess wrote this work. If you think that the other parodies are notable, there is nothing preventing you from creating articles on them and adding them to the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my dumb. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I still find putting roast Cat in Category:Dr. Seuss mighty strange. As for the other works, I have absolutely no interest in them. I mean, I could just plop a Category:Dr. Seuss parodies into One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads and A Scause for Applause for that matter, and I believe this would be correct, but even if erroneous, they would sit there not drawing attention (unlike "real" edits). I agree that justifying an article requires somebody doing the actual physical legwork, but for justifying a category?
Ah, Google is allowing me to look inside Dr. Seuss: American Icon, chapter six, linked to above. He goes on quite a bit. He mentions the bin Laden as Grinch parody The Binch, which Snopes explains was covered in major newspapers, Moxy Früvous has a version of Green Eggs and Ham, the raps in Bulworth have been described as Seussian, there was a sequel Two Moms, the Zark, and Me to One Dad ..., Truax a pro-logging rebuttal to The Lorax, Bill Maher did one on How the Grinch Stole the Election and Salman Rushdie on How the Grinch Stole America, both referring to Bush-Gore, 2000 and more.
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, we don't go the LGBT space, just like we don't go to Jewish football games or African-American baseball games or any other of these bigoted categories' targets. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However the clear rules say that having the tree does not justify having the subcats, we only have those subcats where the intersection itself is notable and not trivial. That some occupational intersections are non-trivial does not mean all are, so having the tree is not justification for having a component part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2013 (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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Pnly entry is already in the relevant parents, so we can just delete, rather than merge. Courcelles21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to answer the question: none; in the same way that race/religion/ethnicity/sexuality has nothing to do with sports, etc. But we keep other bigoted categories to satisfy a vocal bunch of folks' need to categorize everyone on every little trivial thing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2013 (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.
Strong Keep After reviewing the articles for all ten individuals included in this category, each and every article provided a strong link between being LGBT and being a psychologist, in terms of their professional work, writing and public activities. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I see is people where their sexuality may have influenced the subject of their work. I skimmed through of them, and this is the gist of it that I picked up.
Jesse Bering, studied human sexuality
Roger Brown (psychologist), nothing work-related to his sexuality
James Cantor, specialized in atypical sexualities, e.g. pedophilia
Alan Downs, wrote a self-help book for gay men.
Ilan Meyer, studied minority issues (race, sexuality, health, etc)
Charles Silverstein, wrote several books on sexuality
Clarence Arthur Tripp, worked at an institute that researched sex, gender and reproduction
Mitch Walker, wrote several books on gay-centered psychology
Delete Nymf makes the key point: it makes sense to have a specific category for psychologists who study homosexuality or more generally LGBT issues but we shouldn't categorize psychologists who happen to be LGBT, regardless of their specific area of study. Pichpich (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2013 (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.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to merge or move. However, I see no problem with changing the wording of the category to make it more specific and less inclusive, assuming of course that a consensus for how to do this can be reached on the talk page. I also think it would be fine to clean up the category, moving members into better cats as necessary, again, of course, according to consensus. delldot∇.23:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is supposedly for anyone engaged in "Christian ministry." That article defines Christian ministry as "an activity carried out by Christians to express or spread their faith." This would presumably include all Christians, but certainly everyone who is in Category:Christians, as in order for us to categorize them they would have to express their faith. This category is also confusing because Minister (Christianity) has a much narrower definition. I would just change the description to match Minister (Christianity), but that would make it identical to Category:Christian clergy. JFHutson (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-clergy that I immediately recognize are Kay Arthur and Kirk Cameron. I suspect many of the non-diffused members are going to be non-clergy while many subcats (esp. by denom) are only going to contain clergy. --JFHutson (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not all Christians are ministers insofar as having evangelization as their primary mission, nor are all ministers formally ordained. Laypeople who are engaged in evangelization should be included when their missions are considered to be notable (either through reporting on their work, or the size of their lay ministry). This category bridges the gap with both and should be kept. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell, never saw that one. Category:Christians by occupation is a terribly misleading name, inviting inclusion of thousands upon thousands of articles. What it really seems to mean is "Christian ministers by specific occupation", which is a completely different kettle of fish. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So artists and scholars are ministers? We shouldn't be catting people by the intersection of Christian and an occupation if the occupation isn't specifically Christian or done in a Christian way (WP:OC#EGRS), so I don't see the problem with it being overbroad. See, for example Category:LGBT people by occupation and some of the LGBT noms on this page. --JFHutson (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The artist inclusion really means "people who did Christian art", not necessarily "people who are Christians who did art." There are people who are in the first class but not the second. I'm also not utterly convinced that there has to be a supercategory to roll up all people whose job category is also categorized by religion. If you can come up with one, be my guest; but I don't think the names being suggested here are satisfactory. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OC#EGRS "people who are Christians who did art" should not be categorized anywhere by religion, while Christians who did Christian art are the only people who belong in Category:Christian artists. Regardless, it is not common to refer to either of them as "ministers." --JFH (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category clearly contains many non-lay ministers. My point with merging to Category:Christians by occupation is that all these people "who clearly show an overlap of Christianity and their occupation" should be categorized into that Christian [occupation] category.
I find the idea that Christian scholars, singers, and writers should be catted as "ministers" puzzling. I'm OK with keeping the article Christian ministry as many modern Christians use the word "ministry" this way, but common usage for "minister" is per Minister (Christianity): "someone who is authorized by a church or religious organization to perform functions such as teaching of beliefs; leading services such as weddings, baptisms or funerals; or otherwise providing spiritual guidance to the community." Evangelicals who think all Christian work is "ministry" tend to say they're "doing ministry" rather than are "ministers." --JFHutson (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian lay ministers is a problematic category for denominations with a large non-professional clergy. If we accept that Mormons are Christians, as far as I know nearly every adult male is a "priest" and many (most?) have done missionary work, but have returned to being doctors, dentists, truck drivers, etc. - "lay" professions by most interpretations. Hence nearly all Mormon adult males would fall into this category virtually diluting it to uselessness. Of course, if WP decides that the LDS church isn't Christian, we don't have this problem... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to ask the Mormons about that, rather than speculating. Being a Mormon missionary of the commonplace young-fellows-in-white-shirts sort isn't ever going to be defining, so nobody would ever be categorized as a Mormon lay minister. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment -- The category is a mess and needs to be cleaned up, but the nom will actually make things worse. "Minister" is a common term for clergy of non-conformist denominations. This needs to become a container only category, with all (or most) articles being purged into subcategories, which may include a new Category:Christian lay ministers. When the category has been cleaned up we may be able to see more clearly what to do with it. This is an unusual case, where "out of process" emptying might be throughly appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Or, at least, don't change the description to match that article's lead paragraph. The list of activities in the section Roles in the article is much broader than that covered in the lead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That list of roles is not intended to define "minister," but states that "Ministers may perform some or all of the following duties." I think most people know what is commonly meant by "minister," and I think the lead of that article defines it rather well. --JFHutson (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2013 (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.
Oppose, but ... You're quite right that this area needs cleaning up. Let's take the diplomats from (strictly of) the United Kingdom first. I don't like Category:Ambassadors and High Commissioners of the United Kingdom, because it's quite a long title – but that's a matter of taste – and more importantly, because it's not generic enough. There are many people, especially historically but even now, who were or are heads of mission but neither ambassadors nor high commissioners. For example, consuls-general, chargés d'affaires, political agents, ministers-resident, envoys-extraordinary-and-ministers-plenipotentiary, and as you mention, permament representatives to intergovernmental organisations, who don't always have ambassador rank. What I'd prefer is simply to merge Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom into Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom. And it would be tidy then to abolish Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom entirely, not just make it a redirect like Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom (and abolish that one too). In the longer term, for simplicity and consistency, maybe abolish all "Ambassadors" and "High COmmissioners" categories in favour of "Heads of Mission" categories. Oh, and while we're at it, it should be "Heads of Mission" not "Heads of Missions"! Stanning (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning top diplomats who did not have an ambassador title, the current practice is to simply leave them out of the ambassador categories. Of course, saying it like this sound silly but what I mean is that our ambassador categories typically only contain individuals who had the top diplomatic rank. I'm somewhat ambivalent about this practice but that's the way these categories were set up. Despite its name Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom consists almost entirely of categories of the form Ambassadors of the UK to Foo and in that sense, the current name is misleading. Pichpich (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, well, sorry, but that ain't quite so. In fact, I think it's really the category title "Ambassadors ..." that's misleading! It's not quite correct to say that our ambassador categories typically only contain individuals who had the title of ambassador. In the past the heads of many British missions to quite important countries didn't have the title of ambassador (I don't know about other countries' envoys, but I guess it may have been the same). Look at List of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the United States for example. Up to the end of the nineteenth century, the head of mission was "envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary". And you'll find that most of those heads of mission have been put in Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the United States. Maybe that's not right, and we need a wholesale revision? But sometimes the title flipped to and fro, as in The Netherlands for example. What to do? Today, everyone is either an ambassador or a high commissioner ... but wait, no they aren't! Sometimes in the gap between ambassadors - which can be quite long, even years in the case of a diplomatic spat - the head of mission, chargé d'affaires, doesn't have ambassador rank, but is for practical purposes acting as ambassador, and if notable enough to have an article, is put in the Ambassadors category - rightly, I think. That's why I suggest using "Heads of Mission" as a catch-all. And anyway, I still think (with due respect to you) that "Ambassadors and High Commissioners" is a bit clumsy! Stanning (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nominator is quite right that Ambassadors of the United Kingdom and High Commissioners of the United Kingdom play essentially the same role. One problem with the proposal, however, is that Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom is tied in with Category:United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Nations (which is a parent category), and other countries' High Commissioners categories are subcategories of the appropriate "FOO and the Commonwealth of Nations" categories. In other words, if we look beyond merely the ambassador categories, there is the involvement of other category schemes that would be disrupted by amalgamating the categories. Right now, for each country, the High Commissioners categories are simply a subcategory of the Ambassadors categories in order to allow the link-in with the Commonwealth of Nations categories. Perhaps the answer is to just place the "High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to FOO" categories in both Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom and Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge rest to Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom. This will also enable Permanent representatives to international organisations to be included. It also deals with the issue that in times past, the head of mission to some countries was "envoy extraordinary" or "minister" or even a mere "resident". Possibly however we should make that a parent only category with High Commissioner and Ambassador subcats (also permanent representatives). In any event, the category needs to be purged of articles on individuals (save possible exceptionally) by moving artiles to child categories. I note that the contents includes lists of ambassadors of UK and of GB: this is a nonsense. The diplomats were emissaries of the king (or queen), not of the GB government. Neither Ireland nor its viceroy had any pre-1801 diplomatic service and for that matter nor did Scotland 1603-1707 (save possible exceptionally). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is turning into one of those CfDs where everyone is making interesting points and everyone agrees that the current situation is not ideal but no consensus for anything seems to be forming. I'm not sure I can change that at this point but let me add a few things. First if this is closed as "no consensus" I think Good Ol’factory's suggestion (the double categorization of High Commissioners) should still be implemented as a partial fix. Also on Stanning's example of non-ambassadors Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the United States is indeed inconsistent with what I claimed but I've spent the last month or two doing a lot of work in this area and this is really the exception and not the rule. But having given it more thought, I'm beginning to think that including all highest-ranking diplomats makes sense. The German wiki does this although they still call the category "Ambassadors of X to Y". It's definitely an abuse of terminology but this might still be optimal in terms of helping readers find what they're looking for (which we should remember is the objective). And finally, one of my motivations for this CfD was uniformity since "Heads of mission" is only used for two subcategories of the whole Category:Diplomats subtree (Category:Heads of Missions of Grenada and Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom). So if we decide this is preferable, then we should also start thinking of possibly renaming Category:Ambassadors and all its national subcategories to use the broader "heads of mission" scope. Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ambassadors / high commissioners distinction applies to Commonwealth countries, and for other such countries that I've looked at, all but one have a category "Ambassadors of x" with a sub-category "High Commissioners of x" (Canada is the only exception that I've found so far). Pichpich is right that this is, strictly, abuse of terminology, but at least it's consistent. Moreover, the old Commonwealth 'dominions', Canada, Australia and New Zealand, seem to have followed the UK's practice of appointing ministers, not ambassadors, to most countries up to the mid-20th century; and where there are articles for those ministers, they're mostly in the relevant "Ambassadors" category. Again, this is abuse of terminology, but it works! This area isn't wholly consistent, but considering the discussion above, I think we'd approach uniformity more nearly if we avert our eyes from the abuse of terminology and merge Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom (back) to Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, including the sub-category Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom, in line with the corresponding categories for almost all other countries. Stanning (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MakeCategory:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom a hold category for all the others. We seem to have accepted that Ambassador is the term for the top representative of one government to another government, without paying attention to what said person was actually called at the time. Which sub-categories are needed is hard to say, but I think it works to treat this category as a parent to all the other categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe there is convergence after all. Would the following make everyone happy (or at least reasonably happy)?
Start categorizing heads of mission as "ambassadors" regardless of their title (with one exception, see point 3). This should be accompanied by a little bit of effort to populate categories accordingly but in 99% of cases, Chargé d'Affaires from the 17th century don't have articles on Wikipedia anyways. If we do this, we could perhaps ask a bot to add some standard sentence to every relevant category, something like: "this category includes ambassadors or diplomats who were the highest-ranking representative of their country.
I'd be ok with this setup and as far as I can tell it could be acceptable to everyone who opined above (I hope I'm not twisting anyone's words). Pichpich (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Pichpich's proposal above.
I presume that the intention is that "High Commissioners" is to be a sub-category of "Ambassadors". So the hierarchy would be
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.
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:Films featured in Cinemassacre's Monster Madness episodes
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.
Sure, just like the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 episodes list, along with it's category and I never seen anyone complained about deleting either. So what makes this any different? -User:FriscoKnight — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriscoKnight (talk • contribs)
Actually, that category has been nominated for deletion before, but has survived: see here. Ones that have not survived are Elvira's Movie Macabre films, RiffTrax films, and Cinema Insomnia films. Anyway, Monster Madness is just a short 2–3 minute review on the web; it's a long way from MST3K. Many of the films done by MST3K actually became notable because they were on that show. Not so with Monster Madness—no films is notable for having been reviewed by it. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Well I'm one of many fans of AVGN who watch the Madness once a year when he does it and because of him, I notice it. Just like MST3K. - User:FriscoKnight — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriscoKnight (talk • contribs)
Delete I have to say I also think we should get rid of the MST3K category as well. Having been reviewed by some other organization is not a characteristic of the films in either case, it is not worth categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale This category is meant to be about things related to Armenian culture, not a category for biographical articles. The current name incorrectly implies the former. Plus, virutually every similar category was just renamed, but this category was missed in the massive rename.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Jews and Judaism in X-location" format is used for every single state, country, and other sort of jurisdiction in the world. Please do not nominate the Jews and Judaism in Massachusetts category by itself, if you were of a mind to do that. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the Fooian-American culture format. Every last one of the other categories was renamed that way included the category for Armenians in NYC, there's no reason to have this one be the only exception. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2013 (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.
