Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 26

2382:. You're not understanding the request. I'm no longer asking if the category and the usernames could be deleted; I'm asking if my real name could be removed from the users in that category, including the category title, and be replaced by a random pseudonym. Naturally, since the category and usernames will still be there, surveillance of me won't be any more of a problem than if I never had a name change. This is all that I'm asking, and I'm honored to have Mr. SmokeyJoe's consent on this, who suggested it. Whether you can trust me or not matters very little, as this is the internet, and appearing here as an IP address rather than as a user is the best gesture of honesty that I can give without helping Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) doesn't deserve my help, and neither should it from any of you unless communism is what you favor. It's nice to help people, to inform them, but Knowledge (XXG) is destroying industries and mocking professional life and capitalism by simply still being alive. Remember, I could simply not edit any samurai articles and attack something else and it would be absolutely impossible for any of you to identify me, but I'm above that, as it wouldn't make the internet any better of a place or Knowledge (XXG) any less influential. Thanks for your time. 2701:(maintianing vote above). So Darin Fidika wants to have his name removed from the category name. I assume that this means that he admits his WP crime. He appears to show no sign of repentance. We could rename to one of his aliases, but his real name would still need to appear on the article page, and all sanctions against that name. What does that achieve? If his name is not listed, he will no doubt start another round of mis-editing. Sockpuppeteers are generally vandals, or at best make unhelpful edits; the waste no end of other peoples time and are entitled to no polite consideration whatever, unless repentant. A sockpuppeteer who registers in a new name and undertakes constructive edits and then retains his good character for a reasonable time might be able to ask for his (real) name to be removed from the list; indeed the whole category might then be regarded as redundant. I can think of one user who was formerly blocked and has re-emerged making constructive edits; no dount there are others. 2305:. Haha, I guess I did make those two statements. Wow, sorry, I'm embarassed how pretentious and insolent I was just a year or so ago. Not to try swaying this debate in any certain direction, but I'm not that person anymore and respect each of you for the good that you're bringing to Knowledge (XXG), especially since you're doing all of it free of charge. I know you could easily dismiss my request, and then I wouldn't be able to do a thing, as this is the internet, so I'm very appreciative for this debate. I'm against Knowledge (XXG), but that's not because I'm the egotistic, insolent, kid I was as Exiled Ambition; I just can't respect how it's anti-capitalistic just like the rest of the internet. Each of you should be paid for what you've done to Knowledge (XXG). 178:. Without a proper scope, the categorization is not useful as the religious adherence of a country's population and its form of government are not generaly a compelling intersection: many states are secular or atheist but have religious populations (e.g. Turkey, Mexico, the Philippines), while others have established or state religions but largely secularized or atheist populations (e.g. Monaco, Norway, England). Since Denmark has twice as many practicing Muslims as Lutherans, would it be fair to call Denmark an Islamic democracy? - 2092:. Changing my stance here based on the OTRS ticket mentioned below. As I can read that ticket, the content of that message shows that Fidika has not changed and is presenting himself very differently in that OTRS message compared to here. Therefore, I adamantly oppose renaming this category. I can't give my full reasons for doing so without breaking the confidentiality of OTRS, however. For anyone who can read it, I've made a note there (on OTRS). ··· 4317:- Religion user categories don't support collaboration. Believing in a particular religion does not make someone more more likely or necessarily more qualified to write about said religion. User categories are for collaboration, and maintaining a grouping of users by which religions they follow doesn't accomplish this goal. I would support a category titled 2346:-- A request by the subject is likely to be followed by his reappearance with another ID. Sockpuppets are usually vandals who cause the rest of us no end of work in removing their ill-thought out (if not destructive) contributions. If the vandal is truly repentant and is willing to work constructively, it might be different. 3586:

This seems to be three or four families. The parent article needs to show how they all make up one family (or perhaps clan). Is there a common ancestor for members (including perhaps members' spouses)? At present the article seems to be a random collection of prominent Americans, some descended

2211:

I see this banned-user request as a variation on WP:DENY. I also think we should allow any user, in good standing or not, to remove personal information. These sort of debates sometimes come up at Mfd; this is the first I've seen at CfD. Discussing and deciding an OTRS is probably a good idea.

3605:

Thanks for the insights from Britain. In this case, it appears that Roger Sherman is a common ancestral link. The other "family" members appear to be either his sons-in-law or his descendants. However, I don't see much evidence that this is a well-defined political family. The U.S. does have some

2824:, this designation appears to be one that is very loose and one that has varied considerably over time. Thus it is subjective and/or POV. According to the article's lead, it's generally defined as "a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not definitively an arthouse or pornographic film". 2280:¶ So far as it is comprehensible, that sounds final. However, it's not final for Fidika, it's instead (more or less) final for "Exiled ambition". Over a year later, Fidika was merrily editing as "IMMORTAL SAMURAI". The latest word (I think) from the already blocked all-caps "samurai" was this: ¶ 2270:

at Wikibooks. Normally I wouldn't want to hinder this. But he has wasted a great amount of people's time here (notably Nihonjoe's time), and I'd want to be fairly certain that he wouldn't waste any more before doing anything that would make it harder for people to see all the "sockpuppetry" and

2185:

I misunderstood. This is a properly blocked person and a sockpuppeteer. However, the wish to remove his real name from the project is reasonable, and it does the project no credit to refuse such a request, no matter who from. Renaming the category should satisfy his wish without reducing our

3449:

form of taking something perfectly valid that's already been created and destroying it whereupon someone has to re-create it later when there's renewed use for it. That's inefficient use of contributor value. This is a trivial instance of the principle, no doubt. Wouldn't take much to undo the

326:

Your following me around and making abrupt reversions, deletions, and page moves seems to be causing multiple unnecessary problems. Here you emptied then deleted a previously non-empty category, using a speedy-deletion reason claim that "category was empty" when it was not, and/or reason that

1302:

Fine, then make a list—preferably a sourced one. Can such a thing be sourced, or is it all original research? My point is that I think this might be so trivial that neither a list nor a category would be appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). If a list is inappropriate because it would be original

2476:

the content of that message shows that Fidika has not changed and is presenting himself very differently in that OTRS message compared to here. Therefore, I adamantly oppose renaming this category. I can't give my full reasons for doing so without breaking the confidentiality of OTRS,

805:

which includes a map and lists many of the settlements. So I'm not sure that we need another series of articles. Anything that is missing could be added to that article. With the map in there, these categories can be deleted since the information already exists in the main article.

4283:(if you go to that page and scroll to the bottom under the section "Orthodox Churches and communities not in communion with others" you will see the many exceptions). Categorize EO cat to be within the overarching Orthodox Cat and that will solve the problem of duplication. 729:. The articles are not defined by their location along the route of the Pony Express by rather by simply being a part of the system. Clearly this level of detail is more completely and accurately displayed by using a template and this information should simply be added to 2828:

is included in the category, even though it had a budget of $ 130 million USD. Obviously, "low-budget" is a floating standard and is not clearly defined. It may be a situation of users "knowing it when they see it", but that doesn't work great with categories. Note that

4363:, which all members seem to be. Adding the Catholic parent, which I have removed, was recently done by User:Outback the koala (above) who must be either a very ignorant or a very mischievous little bear! How likely is it that an Eastern Catholic user would define 2329:.As a former user myself now having left Knowledge (XXG) for years and given the fact the user has used multiple socks for over 5 years and last act of socking is less than a year old in Nov 2009.Hence the user name and category should be retained for now . 2550:

If there's info we can't see that OTRS has, then perhaps it should be handled at OTRS? I'm aware that "it's being dealt with here however, not OTRS", but I feel whoever makes the decision should have all information available, and that won't be us.

1303:

research, then surely too a category would be inappropriate. The article hasn't included a list, just a brief mention of the concept. (It's unsourced pop-culture specificity in stuff like this that WP routinely gets pummeled in the media over.)

2277:

There is indeed no place for me in a society defined by peasantry, and that is why I am taking my leave for matters that will rightfully bare me benefit in showing the talent, perseverance, and ambition which I have fully iterated .

4055:- This category has no room for growth like the examples given Liz Taylor husbands and Beattles wives. The Senators stopped playing at the end of 1971 and moved to Texas. This category will always have one entry and one entry only.- 1687:. I still think it's ungrammatical, but it may be best to have consistent ungrammatical names than inconsistent grammatical names. I'm not sure the category is appropriate, however. (Individual items) mostly seem to be closer to 2497:

The content of the message shows that Fidika is saying one thing in his message to OTRS and another thing in the messages he's posting publicly. This is the same kind of thing he's done in the past to try and garner sympathy.

2528:

What he's posting here is odd enough itself: the stuff about how Knowledge (XXG) aids communism and mocks capitalism (despite its gigabytes of assiduous write-ups of the most ephemeral branded products of capitalism). --

2666:

As per Peterkingiron and Mangojuice Why do we need to rename why not just keep it particurly as the user has not changed even as per OTRS.Why was this relisted when consenus was for keep.Please let it stay as it is for

3568:

until problems with the associated article are resolved. It's not clear from the article that there is a sound basis for defining this collection of people as a family. It is likely that the category should be deleted.

2154:

Just a comment: the sock puppetry wasn't just five years ago; it's been spread across several years (December 2006 (2), January 2007, April 2007, July 2008 (2), March 2009, November 2009). It only began five years ago.

4039:"This category has no potential for growth. The baseball team existed for eleven years, and used just one spring training venue for each of those eleven years. It is rationalization I would use for its deletion." 2406:: Given the facts above, I see no problem with some sort of right to vanish here. NB: This is related to OTRS ticket 2010101210010857, which is from the subject - it's being dealt with here however, not OTRS. 1214:, so it is not a trivial term. There is no article about Death songs but death is still a notable theme for songs, so there does not need to be an article about songs with that theme for a theme to be notable. 1270:

Yes; what I was referring to was the specific songs being mentioned in the article, not the general concept. Having a category takes this to a level of specificity not even yet contemplated by the article.

2415: 287:

and then deleted the category with explanation merely that it was empty. Again after i re-created the category. May be gone again now, in which case this is a Rename request. The architectural style is

139:

Islamic decomracies is an empty concept. There is democracy in countries with a muslim majority (Turkey, ..) There is also Islamic states (Iran, ..). The concept of Islamic democracies doesn t exist. --

3587:

from an early president. We do not like descendant categories and have deleted categories for descendants of certain British and other monarchs. However, I am prepared to wait as suggested.

3332:

I have no trouble deleting a category whose contents are entirely defined by another category at the present. If in 15 years there are more, then in 15 years we can have the discussion again.--

386: 4239:

and open to a trasnational character. Anyway, the name of this category is confusing to say the least and it appears to be used by persons who are also Eastern Orthodox, so it may be wise to

293: 4460: 3514: 2834: 897: 42: 37: 2830: 1252:

While this is unlikely to change your opinion, it does say in the article "Love triangles are a popular theme in entertainment, especially romantic fiction, including ... popular music."

2022: 1414: 1149: 4318: 404: 2282:

I'm enjoying my latest account(s) by the way if you really want to know, so enjoy the clownshow you've made up in your heads about how I'm powerless while I continue to edit.

368: 2212:

The decision to rename the category should be tied to the decision to rename the user. This is not about the traditional right to vanish, just a change of username. --

377: 3429:

members of the category. The reason I created the category at all is because I was editing an article about a real-life General Electric executive, who naturally is in

2233:

I have notified of this discussion all those who have been involved in this issue. You may check my recent edits for "Notice of Discussion" to see who was notified. ···

2013: 431: 413: 395: 4342:. There a re a few dozen members already tagging themselves in this category and justification to see this category as a means of coordinating efforts and interests. 195:. I disagree with Choster in that I think the definition could be democracies with Islam as the state religion, but I agree that it's not a notable intersection. -- 825:- These categories group modern-day populated places by the fact that they were on the Pony Express route around 150 years ago. To me, this seems to be a case of 422: 4010: 1235:. If this is even non-trivial enough to document in an encyclopedia (and I have my doubts that it is), it seems more logical that these would be mentioned in 1418: 341:

When the main article clearly uses "R" repeated deletions seem unhelpful. Either of you could have brought the question here first, & should have done.

2411: 4002: 312:

I don't have a problem with the rename, but I do have a problem with repeatedly creating a duplicate category before finding out what the consensus is. --

2851:

POV, no obvious merge target (Films isn't supposed to have articles directly) and the articles should already be categorized appropriately elsewhere. --

1284:

It is because there is no list that it is helpful to have a category. Some categories have been deleted on the basis that there is a corresponding list.

21: 3445:

plea. Don't delete categories for data simply because the current population of the category is homogeneously equal to another category's. It's a very

3619: 1651: 783:

The categories are for the most part categorising towns on the Pony Express route, not articles on Pony Express stations. Alternatively merge all to

3993: 4397: 382: 2407: 3450:"damage" in this instance. But why do it at all, across thousands of potential instances. Maybe 15 years from now there will be other, new non- 2363:. My feeling is that this is too soon to believe that Fidika is done abusing Knowledge (XXG). I'd be amenable but after years, not months. 17: 4393: 4360: 4244: 4151: 2668: 2598: 2480: 1157: 284: 278: 4375:, & the usebox might be better using this. Deleters should do a mass-nom for all religious memberships user cats. Good luck with that! 4569: 2330: 1580: 4587: 4207:

Or possible renaming if I can figure out what this category is supposed to be. First off, "Orthodox" is confusing when one considers that

2267: 2030: 400: 3535: 3217: 1472: 1457: 1382: 364: 4067:

as currently constituted the category does not serve as an aid to navigation and appears to be unlikely to achieve that in the future.

373: 4485: 4321:, however. Failing a deletion, I would support a rename to something to make it more clear which religion such users are orthodox in. 3442: 2389: 2312: 1013: 427: 409: 391: 3869: 1410: 3358: 418: 3366: 3060:. It was just a TV show, right? Could it be "Spain's Ten Best" or "Spanish Top Five" this year? These "best of" lists come and go. 2479:

Without breaking that confidentiality, would it be possible for you to say something of how or why renaming the category to (say) "

1398: 784: 3430: 2367: 1501: 4481: 3539: 3349: 1009: 988: 739:

rather then creating hard to navigate categories. It is also better in the long run to continue grouping in subcategories like

170:

defines an "Islamist democracy" but provides no examples, nor is a suitable definition to be found in related articles such as

4085: 3039: 3035: 1745: 826: 440:

Examining a few of their component articles finds them describing places having Moorish Revival (capitalized) architecture. --

3832: 3757: 3272: 2617: 2506: 2241: 2163: 2100: 2067: 1839: 1655: 1635: 1483: 744: 1497: 1468: 1461: 1394: 1386: 274: 4339: 4220: 3915: 3626:

but it's not clear to me that this collection of people has been documented as a political family by a reliable source. --

2864: 2564: 1643: 991:. However, sicne the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, I find it hard to belive that this is a much of a category. 690: 3841: 3003: 1576: 925: 714: 702: 4179: 2271:

identify and label any more outbreaks. Is Fidika serious in saying that he wants nothing to do with WP? This is what he

740: 678: 666: 289: 4616: 4600: 4581: 4554: 4532: 4518: 4473: 4446: 4422: 4406: 4384: 4351: 4330: 4309: 4292: 4264: 4164: 4137: 4113: 4097: 4076: 4059: 4045: 3987: 3963: 3939: 3923: 3892: 3826: 3802: 3778: 3762: 3739: 3701: 3677: 3653: 3635: 3596: 3578: 3558: 3527: 3500: 3476: 3458: 3405: 3341: 3317: 3293: 3277: 3256: 3239: 3225: 3206: 3182: 3163: 3140: 3128: 3104: 3080: 3064: 3050: 2988: 2964: 2940: 2924: 2907: 2889: 2872: 2841: 2774: 2750: 2726: 2710: 2693: 2676: 2656: 2634: 2589: 2572: 2538: 2523: 2492: 2466: 2442: 2397: 2374: 2355: 2338: 2320: 2297: 2258: 2221: 2195: 2180: 2149: 2117: 2084: 2007: 1983: 1959: 1943: 1923: 1896: 1875: 1818: 1794: 1770: 1754: 1733: 1702: 1675: 1622: 1605: 1568: 1550: 1526: 1510: 1488: 1449: 1430: 1374: 1355: 1331: 1307: 1293: 1275: 1261: 1243: 1223: 1201: 1180: 1161: 1117: 1102: 1078: 1054: 1038: 1000: 979: 960: 910: 883: 859: 843: 815: 796: 775: 756: 658: 639: 615: 599: 582: 561: 543: 522: 504: 487: 470: 449: 350: 336: 321: 305: 263: 244: 220: 204: 187: 156: 111: 93: 74: 4510: 4288: 4256: 3551: 3398: 3390: 1867: 1667: 1597: 1153: 4247:

and delete it to keep it from being reused or recreated. As best as I can tell, it is not transcluded by a userbox. —

3849: 3011: 2994: 1934:

script is wider than alphabet or abjab, & more appropriate here, where there is a sub-cat of calligraphers etc.

1883:"Script" is more appropriate to the pages and sub-categories in the category. I would also rename the main article 933: 916: 4187: 4170: 3434: 3418: 3061: 2647:" were protected, fully and indefinitely, would the result be less helpful to WP than is the current situation? -- 3046:

covers this topic adequately and the situation does not require that an exception be made to the OCAT guidelines.

1858:

named "X alphabet" and the main article is named "Arabic alphabet", there is no reason for this to be different. —

1647: 1639: 1125: 1108: 119: 102: 4272: 3873: 4615:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4421:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4112:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3938:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3777:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3652:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3475:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3292:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3079:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2939:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2725:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1958:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1769:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1525:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1330:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1053:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

858:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

614:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

219:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4445:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4136:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3962:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3885: 3801:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3676:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3499:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3316:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3152: 3103:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2963:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2749:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2672: 1982:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1830: 1793:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1549:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1354:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1077:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

882:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

638:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

243:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

171: 73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2334: 3441:

fits right into both of those perfectly. It seems a shame, somehow, to leave him out. My other argument is a

4514: 4372: 4260: 4093: 3902:

where did this come from? Why does it have articles in it (usually WikiProjects only have Talk: pages)? --

3592: 3337: 3221: 3178: 2920: 2789: 2706: 2585: 2351: 1871: 1671: 1601: 996: 975: 792: 595: 466: 317: 2385: 2308: 1171:. Love songs was too wide a category but this is more precisely defined. It is now up to 13 subcategories. 4284: 3607: 3455: 2393: 2316: 1826: 1699: 1619: 1563:

rename. It doesn't appear to be ungrammatical to me, and no explanation has been provided as to why it is.

1239:. The fact that they are not may say something, but I definitely think we don't need a category for this. 4367:

as "Orthodox"?? Is this category created by the "This user is a member of the Orthodox Church" user box?

4469: 4224: 4160: 3983: 3822: 3697: 3523: 3136: 3124: 3043: 2984: 2904: 2770: 2462: 2438: 2003: 1919: 1814: 1729: 1098: 1025: 906: 811: 752: 733: 718: 706: 694: 682: 670: 500: 483: 2780: 2483:" would be a hindrance? (I'm not asking for the whole story, or perhaps even for the major reason.) -- 4275:, which are often referred to today incorrectly as "orthodox"(at least in North America), I would say 4550: 4528: 2825: 1016:). If the two pages that are currently in the category do not belong there (although ... the article 4305: 4088:, which will preserve any useful content. The stadiums category could also usefully be upmerged. 4042: 3879: 3713: 3709: 3555: 3402: 3203: 3160: 3047: 2838: 2797: 2217: 2191: 2145: 1565: 1371: 1304: 1272: 1240: 1192:. There's no corresponding article about love triangle songs; it's not a notable characteristic. -- 655: 167: 2580:

to socks of Exiled Ambition, unless OTRS has some information which would make this a bad idea. --

2425: 1906: 1716: 4577: 4523:

I'm not myself a fan of subsetting Mobile to Mobile phones. Mobile includes tablets, PDAs, etc.

4347: 4326: 4212: 4089: 4072: 3755: 3737: 3588: 3333: 3270: 3252: 3174: 2916: 2702: 2689: 2623: 2581: 2512: 2347: 2247: 2169: 2106: 2073: 1481: 1445: 992: 971: 788: 591: 462: 313: 152: 144: 4596: 4591: 4402: 4380: 4280: 4208: 4037:, who requested help in nominating it for deletion. His rationale, as posted on my talk page: 3910: 2859: 2644: 2606: 2559: 1939: 1892: 1750: 1696: 1616: 1506: 1426: 1034: 839: 578: 557: 518: 445: 346: 332: 301: 183: 953: 4538: 4465: 4232: 4216: 4156: 3979: 3818: 3693: 3631: 3574: 3519: 3120: 2980: 2899: 2885: 2766: 2458: 2434: 1999: 1915: 1810: 1725: 1197: 1094: 902: 807: 771: 748: 539: 496: 479: 200: 1029: 4546: 4524: 4506: 4368: 4319:

Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on Orthodox (insert religion here) topics

4252: 3422: 2652: 2534: 2488: 2364: 2293: 1863: 1663: 1593: 1289: 1257: 1219: 1176: 260: 90: 3397:

characters that are fictional NBC Universal people. All are appropriately categorized in

2627: 2516: 2251: 2173: 2110: 2077: 1189: 830: 4301: 4056: 4034: 3615: 2213: 2187: 2141: 1017: 4235:

and are non-heretical (by definition) and are universalist in as much as they are all

4573: 4343: 4322: 4068: 3750: 3730: 3265: 3248: 3234: 2685: 2610: 2499: 2234: 2156: 2093: 2060: 1884: 1476: 1441: 1236: 1211: 175: 148: 140: 1152:), is there any need for such a low-populated subcategory as "love triangle songs"? 4542: 4494: 4376: 3905: 3438: 3199: 3156: 2854: 2554: 1935: 1888: 1850:(if they were all "X script" that would just avoid the problem of categorization), 1422: 834: 802: 574: 553: 514: 441: 342: 328: 297: 179: 4271:

Very interesting nomination. Considering the fact that you made no mention of the

4300:, if keeping, to Orthodox Christian Wikipedians or something else disambiguating 292:, with capitalization consistent with other Revival styles. Children categories 4228: 3627: 3623: 3570: 3446: 2881: 1193: 1021: 767: 535: 196: 2453:- Editors voting to rename should specify what they think it should be renamed 4502: 4248: 3722: 3611: 2648: 2530: 2484: 2289: 1859: 1659: 1589: 1285: 1253: 1215: 1172: 957: 2837:

were all deleted because "B movie" is an inherently subjective or POV term.

2428:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

1909:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

1719:

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

3610:(apparently linked to the family that is the subject of this category), the 4439: