Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Delete me: +Category:Roundheads
→Delete me: +Category:Cavaliers
Line 95: Line 95:
*[[:Category:Currencies of the United States]] -> [[:Category:Currency of the United States]]
*[[:Category:Currencies of the United States]] -> [[:Category:Currency of the United States]]
*[[:Category:Roundheads]] -> [[:Category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War]]
*[[:Category:Roundheads]] -> [[:Category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War]]
*[[:Category:Cavaliers]] -> [[:Category:Royalists in the English Civil War]]


<!--
<!--

Revision as of 12:53, 21 May 2005

Shortcut

Jump to specific days
Old votes:
13th 12th 11th 10th 9th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th
Archive and Indices

Purge the cache to refresh this page

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, guidelines for Speedy Renaming, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

How to use this page

  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
    1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
    2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
    1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy rename section, which is above the regular discussions.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

See also meta-discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.

Speedy renaming and merging

Shortcut

Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.

  1. Determine which speedy criterion applies
  2. Tag category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} or {{subst:cfm-speedy|Merge target}}
  3. List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page

Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points, but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.

Request may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g., "patent nonsense", "recreation") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}} with no required delay. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E may also be processed instantly (at the discretion of an administrator) as it is a variation on G7.

To oppose a speedy request you must record your objection within 48 hours of the nomination. Do this by inserting immediately under the nomination:

  • Oppose, (the reasons for your objection). ~~~~

You will not be able to do this by editing the page WP:Categories for discussion. Instead, you should edit the section WP:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here or the page WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here (WP:CFDS). Be aware that in the course of any discussion, the nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience – you may need to search WP:CFDS to find the new location. Participate in any ongoing discussion, but unless you withdraw your opposition, a knowledgeable person may eventually bring forward the nomination and discussion to become a regular CFD discussion. At that stage you may add further comments, but your initial opposition will still be considered. However, if after seven days there has been no support for the request, and no response from the nominator, the request may be dropped from further consideration as a speedy.

Contested speedy requests become stale, and can be untagged and delisted after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to revive the process, this may be requested at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.

If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion.

Speedy criteria

Shortcut

The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes

Shortcut
  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
  • Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category.

C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices

Shortcut

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

Shortcut

Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names

  • This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).

C2D: Consistency with main article's name

Shortcut
  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is:
    • unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator); and
    • uncontroversial, either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). C2D does not apply if the result would be contrary to guidelines at WP:CATNAME, or there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way.
  • This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.
  • Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.

C2E: Author request

Shortcut
  • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
  • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.

C2F: One eponymous page

Shortcut
  • This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use {{subst:cfm-speedy}} (speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article). When listing the nomination at WP:CFDS, you must manually add all the appropriate parent categories as targets if the member page is not already in them.

Admin instructions

When handling the listings:

  1. Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
  2. With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
  3. Make sure that there is no opposition to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing their opposition.

If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed or merged – follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is to Rename, Merge, or Delete"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.

Applying speedy criteria in full discussions

  • A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
    • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here, and
    • No objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
  • If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 422 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

@PadFoot2008: Your ngram uses the singular version of the term. Wouldn't MOS:JOBTITLES apply in this case? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Hey man im josh, plural still shows consistency in use of capitalised [1]. PadFoot (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have only tagged these categories now.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

@Paul Vaurie: I would support at a full CFD. AusLondonder (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion

Ready for deletion

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.


Discussions

< May 20 May 22 >

May 21

Category:Creature Objects

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Azkar 01:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from speedy delete. Comment was "The category has never been used, nor has the template it contains, while there is a plentiful listing over at the Creatures Wiki addon page". --Henrygb 23:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary double. Harro5 23:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Dillard University

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Azkar 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category was created for a list of Dillard University buildings, which have since been merged into the main article. The only other one is a forerunner institution. --Christopherlin 21:13, 21 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Scientific neologisms

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Azkar 01:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is uninstructive and tells the reader nothing. Virtually the entire set of scientific terms newly used in the past 20 years would go in this category. There are tens of THOUSANDS of them! What's the point?--Deglr6328 19:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ~ agreed. Then there's the matter of when does a neologism become a standard term. Courtland 03:31, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • Keep Has as much point as about half of the categories. Beta m (talk)
  • Delete, WP doesn't deal with neologisms. Radiant_* 09:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. Agree with nominator. mikka (t) 19:11, 28 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Geography of Arabia

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Azkar 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabia is defined as the Arabian peninsula. Yet in this category there are also Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq (Mesopotamia) that aren't in the peninsula. Inaccurate category that should be deleted.Yuber(talk) 15:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't it be renamed Geography of the Middle East? Luis rib 19:03, 26 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Edmeston, New York Images

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Azkar 02:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All images have been moved to wikisource, currently contains 2 images. Unnecessary--nixie 13:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Shouldn't the images be in Wikimedia Commons instead? Both belong to public domain. -Hapsiainen 19:51, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Lists of longest bridges

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

The result of the debate was Merge --Azkar 02:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not needed. There is already Category:Lists of bridges which is not a big category. The 3 lists in this category can easily be found there. Samuel Wantman 06:12, 21 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Doujinshi

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

The result of the debate was Rename --Azkar 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by the properly-romanized Category:Dojinshi (matching the article Dojinshi). DopefishJustin (・∀・) 05:51, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:University of Montreal

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 19:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

→ Category:Université de Montréal
  • This should be renamed because the most common usage in English is not University of Montreal, but Université de Montréal. 132.205.45.148 16:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Outside of Quebec, I hear it all the time as University of Montreal. --Spinboy 16:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "University of Montreal" is the most commonly used English name in most areas outside of Quebec. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I live in Ontario, and I don't think I've ever heard it called the University of Montreal. -- Cafemusique 23:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still thinking What's the actual name of the university? Beta m (talk)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I live in Western Canada and never hear of the university either way. RedWolf 06:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. When searching for it, people don't have accents, etc on their keyboards, and this is English wikipedia. --Spinboy 19:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Spinboy is correct. I don't have an é on my keyboard, and if I search for "University of Montreal", I'm not going to find "Université de Montréal". With the article, that's fine, a redirect can be used. But that won't work for the category. --Kbdank71 19:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I can't speak for everyone, but I can't say I've ever started out a search for information by looking for the category first. If I wanted info on the University of Montreal / Université de Montréal, I'd start at the article. If I saw there was a corresponding category, and I was interested in more information, I'd go from there. Université de Montréal is the official name of the university, and the name they use, exclusively (even on the English website). If searchability is really a concern, though, how about a soft redirect? Template:Categoryredirect can be used to direct people to the correct location. --Azkar 02:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many umontreal.ca pages use "University of Montreal". English language, and English-keyboard layout are also quite relevant argument. Gene Nygaard 02:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If the proper name of the school is "Université de Montréal", then related articles should be categorized by that name. Bahn Mi 06:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Since the main article has been renamed Université de Montréal, the category should be also. Grstain 16:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I would support the argument if it were a true proper name, ie. "St. Jean's Université de Montréal", for a crude example. However, since it is just an university in a place, then the for the English Wiki, it would be the English equilavent, as it would be the French equivalent for the French Wiki. As far as the article's named being changed, as Gene Nygaard stated above, the English keyboard does not "easily" support the extended characters. <>Who?¿? 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT, then UCLA is not a real university name, just a place name with university attached? Or NYU? or Oxford? Cambridge? LSE? 132.205.44.134 19:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'm not biased because of nationality, and yes, I would argue the that UCLA is not a "name" as much as its a "thing" in a "place", that happens to use that as its name. I would not consider it to be a proper name, ONLY in the sense of how to use it in a foreign print. Ie, if I were to print "Fred's House" in French, I would use "Maison de Fred" (note I didn't use the extended chars (en keyb)), even though "Fred" is a proper name, its understood to those who ONLY speak French as "Fred House". So to refer to your example, if UCLA was in French, I would use the French equivalent of the name. Just my thoughts, I am not a literary genius or anything. However, for keeping the "proper name" of something in a foreign language, maybe we could use a category redirect from the English equivalent, and keep the French named cat.- <>Who?¿? 02:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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 page.



< May 19 May 21 >

May 20

Category:UK Radio Stations --> Category:Radio stations in the United Kingdom

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction as per naming conventions (ie. "UK", capitalization of both words in "Radio Stations"). Bearcat 22:35, 20 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Numerical programming systems

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this category. Its content have been moved to Category:Numerical software.--Fredrik Orderud 20:30, 20 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Formal logic

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Category talk:Logic:

The problems with the category are:

  1. Logic is an integral whole, where topics in formal and informal logic closely mirror each other, and it helps navigation to see similar topics side by side;
  2. Many topics in logic do not neatly divide into formal and informal, but instead treat the two side-by-side. If we have a subcategory formal logic, should these mixed topics go in or not? Since it is not a clean criterion for division we are best not using it for breaking up the logic category;
  3. As far as possible subcategories should be orthogonal to each other. Formal logic cuts across many subcategories (eg. Category:Modal logic, Category:Paradoxes, and Category:Philosophical logic) raising more issues of classification that will not be obvious to the user;
  4. Since the category does not help classification, it's main effect would be to add degrees of remoteness between related subjects.

Hence I think we would be better off without such a category.

See also the previous failed CfD Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 12#Category:Formal logic, which was opposed by User:Isaac Rabinovitch, who now supports this CfD on the grounds of the difficulties the category puts on classification. Since we now appear to have a consensus to delete, I am relisting this category. --- Charles Stewart 19:24, 20 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:0, Category:0 births, and Category:0 deaths

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no year 0. These categories can never possibly be populated. The explanation given on Category:0's page is that the birth year and death year templates create links to these categories. As far as I'm concerned, any one of the following alternatives is preferable to creating categories for non-existant years:

  • Creating a new template for the 1st decade of the 1st century that excludes year 0.
  • 'Subst'ing in the existing template, and manually editing the code on each page to remove year 0. Really .. how often is this template going to be updated?
  • Removing the template altogether. If you need to access the sister categories, the parent category is only one click away.

So ... Delete. --Azkar 18:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Azkar is perfectly correct. However, some ignorant person is bound to re-create these categories. Perhaps some kind of block is in order. -----Isaac R 19:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete right you are. The idea about a block is agood one, too. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 21 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:00s deaths and Category:0s deaths

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

The result of the debate was delete Category:00s deaths --Kbdank71 13:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are of the same period. Which one should be removed and which one should be retained? --Hello World! 15:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 0 cat contains subcats for each decade in the first century, such as 00. This is probably because of some style guide. Radiant_* 15:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • 00s is used in the first century deaths template that's on both of these category pages. Neither of these are really great category names, but there aren't really any better choices. I think 00s deaths is slightly clearer, though. --Azkar 16:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one, delete the other. Category:00s deaths is empty and should be the one that gets deleted, although in that case the template link will need to be corrected. -Sean Curtin 05:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:European royalty stubs

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and empty (the more inclusive Category:European nobility stubs is now used instead). Grutness...wha? 10:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree that we don't need two categories, but I have to point out that "royalty" and "nobility" are not the same thing. Perhaps a single "royalty and nobility" category?----Isaac R 22:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True enough, which was why the royalty categories aren't good ones. By definition, royals are nobles, since royalty is the highest part of the system of nobility. Nobles aren't necessarily royals, though. So, as I saisd, the more inclusive category should stay. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 22 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Wikipedia historical pages

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Azkar 18:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The subcats (i.e. old elections archive) seem useful. But what about the main cat? Many old pages in the Wiki get tagged with Template:historical which puts them in here, which means that this will eventually become a list of the entire Wikipedia namespace except pages recently edited. Is there any point in that? Radiant_* 10:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not quite - it will become a list of former policies, and pages in the Wikipedia namespace no longer used - a lot of pages still in use have not been edited recently. As such, it is basically a Wikipedian archive. I think there's use in that, so I'm voting keep, even if only to make sure that precedents are available and we don't simply rehash old policies that have been tried before and discarded. Grutness...wha? 10:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought it may simply be more useful to strip the cat from Template:historical. (btw note we already have Category:Wikipedia rejected policies) Radiant_* 10:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • No need to rename, and it certainly shouldn't be deleted. James F. (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Wikipedia policy archives. For all the reasons listed above. [[User:BlankVerse|BlankVerse ∅ 09:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that someone has already stripped the cat from the template, so all we really need is a few null edits to have an empty category. Of course, I'm fairly sure we don't have a consensus for this. I'll keep this open for while longer to see if anyone else wants to contribute. --Kbdank71 14:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, not entirely. Lots of pages have cat:historical on them; this is only partially congruent with template:historical. I admit this isn't really an intuitive way of putting it (so it may need revising) but I tend to put CAT:hist on pages that are historically interesting and need to be locatable; and TEMP:hist on anything that people shouldn't be editing on simple grounds that noone will see their edits (otherwise people can contribute to a year-old conversation, not realizing it's no longer pertinent). Hope that made sense :) Radiant_* 21:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of clearing off this discussion, I'm going to try and summarize things as I understand them, and offer a resolution.

  • Radiant! initially nominated this category due to a lack of utility - Template:Historical added this category to every page it was put on. Because Template:Historical is added to old / inactive discussions, as well as pages of general historic interest, this category would eventually fill up with all of Wikipedia's dusty corners.
  • Upon reflection, Radiant! decided instead to simply strip the category from the template. Pages that were of historic interest could be manually added to the category.
  • There have been a couple of suggestions to rename the category to something more intuitive. Being in the middle of this other conversation, though, there is no basis to determine a clear consensus on this point.

I propose the following:

  1. Since the only user to recommend the deletion of this category has since withdrawn that request (instead, looking at different ways of using the template / category pair), this discussion should be declared as a Keep.
    • One could argue that more discussion is required, regarding the use of this category and the template in question (personally, I'd suggest a different template be used for pages being flagged as simply inactive) - however, I believe this is outside the scope of this CfD nomination. I'll trust Radiant! to take the issue up with interested parties.
  2. A new nomination be created for the purpose of proposing a name change. There is interest in this, and a new nomination will allow for this to be discussed on a blank slate.

If no one objects to this, I'll execute sometime tomorrow. --Azkar 18:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good. Radiant_* 09:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


Separating the template and the category was absolutely essential, so glad that's done. Considering how much goop there is other than policy pages, I don't think there's much need for a rename. Indeed, most if not all of the policy-related things there are not (current) policy, so the proposed name would be a bit confusing. I think this category just needs a good cleaning, but don't let me stop a nomination for rename if someone thinks that's worthwhile. I would be happy with just a "keep and tag {{cleancat}}" -- Beland 13:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Zionist terrorist organizations, Category:Islamic terrorist organizations, Category:Leftist terrorist organizations, Category:Palestinian terrorist organizations, Category:Terrorist organizations based in the United States, Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland, Category:Northern Ireland terrorists, Category:Terrorists by region and Category:Palestinian terrorists

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Category:Terrorist organizations was recently deleted (after a lengthy debate), should these then be deleted or renamed per the same reasoning? Radiant_* 07:43, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not all organizations labelled terrorist are military. I would call them category:Violent organizations, or even more precise: category:Violent political organizations (to exclude, like, mafia), with a clear criterion: organizations that declare or de-facto use violence (not necessarily armed) as an instrument in pursuing its goals. What do you think? mikka (t) 19:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find 'violent organization' somewhat misleading... it reminds me of, for instance, hooligan-like sports fanclubs. Or anything related to the organization of martial arts tournaments. Or the NRA, possibly. Radiant_* 21:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • As far as the Northern Ireland ones go I suggest renaming to "Proscribed organisations of Northern Ireland" and "Reputed terrorists of Northern Ireland". Proscribed Organisations are beyond argument cos they simply are or are not Proscribed, although Reputed Terrorists might be a little more difficult, as in one side seeing someone as a Terrorist the other seeing the same person as a Freedom Fighter...just my two penn'orth..

Jcuk 21:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just make sure all the groups are moved over properly and the cats aren't simply deleted, it's a great reference to see all the current groups like those listed under "Islamic Terrorist Orgs", but without the POV naming convention.--Sherurcij 21:45, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • How about Militant Political Groups. The BBC likes to use this describe terrorists. For example "Militants associated with the Militant Political Group Hamas have killed 13 people in a suicide bus bombing." Klonimus 07:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC wouldn't use clumsy wording like that - more likely they would say "13 people were killed in a suicide bus bombing, carried out by members of the Palestinian militant group Hamas." GCarty 11:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • My suggestions:

GCarty 09:11, 31 May 2005 (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 page.


< May 18 May 20 >

May 19

Category:Sex Symbols

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

The result of the debate was no consensus rename --Kbdank71 15:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improper capitalization. Move to Category:Sex symbols. --Tabor 23:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this back out of Speedy, because I think we need to discuss whether this category should exist at all. This category is meant to hold celebrities that are considered sex symbols - current members include Johnny Depp and Marilyn Monroe. It's a somewhat POV categorization (personally speaking, neither of these two examples really do it for me), and doesn't seem all that useful, either. I would like to suggest deletion, rather than renaming. --Azkar 18:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree - delete. -Sean Curtin 01:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV although a list might work as a replacement. RedWolf 06:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to list. The notion of a "sex symbol" depends on the particular culture. I don't think it's POV to have a list or category that take a label that is generally non-controversial and indexes it here. Such non-controversial status doesn't apply to things like "terrorist organization"; when someone in a culture is labeled as a "sex symbol" there usually isn't the hue and cry that arises from the label being controversial. Courtland 14:35, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Keep - the analogy with category:gay icons (which has survived CFD listing) is striking. Perhaps I'm showing my age, but I find it absurd for Marilyn Monroe to be categorized as a gay icon but not as a sex symbol. I actually find most culturally based categorizations somewhat dubious and would favor deleting all of them, but that is not what this vote is about. -- Rick Block 01:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second your perception of absurdity :) Courtland 02:40, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Convert to list this will allow a short note to appear to describe why the entry is a sex symbol. Beta m (talk)
  • Listify. Radiant_* 09:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's been seven days, and I don't see a consensus. As such, we're supposed to keep, however, the original nomination wasn't for a delete, it was a rename to fix capitalization. It seems silly to keep in that case, so would anyone mind if I just renamed it for now, and someone can renominate it for deletion or listing later if they want to? --Kbdank71 13:09, 26 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:New Zealand politics

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed Category:Politics of New Zealand as per almost every other equivilant category, for consistency.--Cyberjunkie 16:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Yup. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 20 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Rochester, Category:St. Cloud, Category:La Crosse-Eau Claire

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first two were meant to be for semi-major metropolitan areas in Minnesota, although both of those city names are fairly common (I've created new state-specific categories) The third one baffles me, as both cities are in Wisconsin and some distance from each other. —Mulad (talk) 16:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Locations in New Zealand

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this utterly confusingly named category when I first arrived in Wikipedia. The way NZ geography items are split up lists them all by type of thing (town, waterfall, cave, whatever) and by place (whichever region of the country they are in). Unfortunately, instead of grouping the latter in a nice tidy Category:Regions of New Zealand, I blew it and named it as it appears above. Please allow me to do the decent thing and rename this the way it should have been named originally! Grutness...wha? 14:31, 19 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Universities and colleges by nationality and subcategories, Category:Women's universities and colleges

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent with the parent category, Category:Colleges and universities. These should be Category:Colleges and universities by nationality and Category:Women's colleges and universities, respectively. Most subcategories of Category:Universities and colleges by nationality need renaming to Category:Colleges and universities in (Fooland) to match convention. -Sean Curtin 03:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • "College" is a very US-centric term; using it first is probably mildly contentious. If almost all of the lower categories would need to be changed, wouldn't it be better to move the parent to "Universities and colleges"? James F. (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all of the lower categories will need to be changed regardless of which name is chosen; there's no consistency among the 'by nationality' subcategories. -Sean Curtin 01:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not so much that it's US-centric, it's just that it's very confusing. In the US, a college is pretty much the same thing as a university. In the UK, a college is a section of a university. In Australia and New Zealand, it's more likely to be either a high school, or a tertiary institution that is somehow inferior to a university (like a polytechnic). I'd recommend avoiding the word altogether if possible. Grutness...wha? 13:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll agree with James F. Change the parent. (although nothing is going to get changed if some categories aren't marked as cfd). --Kbdank71 13:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Grutness. Perhaps an alternative term should be used altogether. "Tertiary institutions" might suffice, but then that may be to broad. Perhaps the best option is to drop "college" from the categories (and created sub-categories if necessary).--Cyberjunkie 17:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tertiary institutions" might be confusing, what about "Tertiary schools" or "Tertiary education institutions"? NOTE: If we do this, I suggest for consistency, that Middle and High Schools be grouped into "Secondary schools", and grade/grammar/elementary schools be labelled as "Primar schools" 132.205.44.134 00:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the concerns over the name, perhaps we should just end this CfD and put Category:Colleges and universities itself on CfD? -Sean Curtin 01:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sean has a point. I would support 'university' for the name, as that is the only one (afaik) that has roughly the same meaning internationally. I've never heard the term 'tertiary education' other than on this Wiki, and while I could infer its meaning I do find it somewhat obscure for us non-Americans. Radiant_* 07:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'm speaking from an Australian perspective, and the term is particularly common in Australasia - I assumed its use extended far beyond this region. And it does somewhat; the World Bank and other organisations use the term, as does Wikipedia, which uses it as the formal term for the colloquial 'higher education' (see Tertiary education). I support the following structure: Parent:Tertiary institutions --> Sub:Tertiary institutions by country --> Sub-Sub:whatever institution-types exist in that country.--Cyberjunkie 13:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note the previous discussion (from Jan. 2005) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Universities and colleges by nationality. Besides "colleges" and "universities", there are Grandes écoles, Fachhochschulen and other types of institutions which really can only be squeezed into the "college and university" terminology with a fair bit of force. My suggestion is Category:Institutions of higher education as the top category, Category:Institutions of higher education by country for the by-country category, and then either Category:Institutions of higher education in Ruritania or whatever is most suitable for each country/educational system, for the country-specific level. Uppland 13:07, 21 May 2005 (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 page.
< May 17 May 19 >

May 18

Category:Worst forms of child labour

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

The result of the debate was merge and listify --Kbdank71 14:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly POV title, and I don't see a point in it anyways. --Conti|✉ 21:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Debt

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really small. Suggest merging with parent Category:Economics. Radiant_* 12:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Wikipedia validated

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction creep. Purpose is to stick a template on topics that are considered 'valid' but have not yet any content, then list them in this cat. We already have Requested articles. Radiant_* 12:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Anti-war, Category:Anti-war people

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really small. Suggest merging with Category:Pacifism and Category:Pacifists, respectively. Radiant_* 12:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Definately Keep. Being Anti-war doesn't make a person pacifist. For example many refuseniks in israel are anti-war, but are very militaristic and patriotic. Category:Pacifism can be a subcategory of Category:Anti-war but not the other way around. Beta m (talk)
    • While I do agree with your point on definitions, the fact that this category is too small to be useful and unlikely to be filled any time soon are, imho, reason for deletion. Radiant_* 09:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Crime and punishment people

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I expected this to be related to Tolstoy's Dostojewski's book, but instead it lists a number of subcats related to crime. Suggest rename. Radiant_* 11:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rename Category:Judicial and penal systems people or something like that. Beta m (talk)

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 page.

Category:Tattoos

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains one article (on a tattoo gun). Propose merging with parent Category:Art. Radiant_* 11:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Commons

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains one image, and nothing links here. Deprecate? Radiant_* 11:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Wikipede

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 15:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains two images (and one duplicate) of our semi-offical mascot. Propose merging with Category:Wikipedia. Radiant_* 11:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:English words

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems rather pointless... if an article is merely about a word, it should be in Wiktionary instead. Other than that, just about every article name is an English word. Radiant_* 10:18, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know much about CfD, but I would suggest that this category is useful right now as a one place for a bunch of articles that need to be transwikied. Before any deletion, can we make sure that happens? --Dmcdevit 21:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paged through the cat and added transwiki tags where appropriate. HTH! Radiant_* 10:57, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Last names

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 16:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near-empty, not very useful. Radiant_* 10:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Upmerge to category:Surnames. — Instantnood 16:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Wikipedia official policy

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 16:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request renaming to plural, per consistency with other cats. I haven't listed this as speedy because it's a rather crucial cat. Radiant_* 09:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 16:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request renaming to Category:Wikipedia policy proposals Category:Wikipedia proposals since that's what it is. Anything accepted, rejected or abandoned should be in another cat. (updated per Neto's suggestion) Radiant_* 07:03, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • I prefer a simpler and more expansive Category:Wikipedia proposals. Not all proposals are for policy, some are guidelines, some are feature requests, some are process. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Professional tennis players

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 16:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few entries. Any reason for this to be separate from the much more populated Category:Tennis players? --Tabor 02:16, 18 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:People from Detroit

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A little unsure about what to do with this one. It has 7 articles. Someone made the category redirect to the list in regular article namespace named People from Detroit. --Tabor 02:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? I don't particularly see the point of this, so I'd vote delete unless someone explains it. Radiant_* 07:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Replace with list if someone really thinks it's needed. RedWolf 06:04, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.


< May 16 May 18 >

May 17

Category:Vocalists by country

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 01:06, 25 May 2005 (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 page.

Compositions by

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal to rename sub-categories of Category:Compositions by composer so that they are consistently named. For example, Category:Bach compositions → Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. This proposal was discussed at Category talk:Compositions by composer and the consensus there was to rename. The full list of renamings appears at User:Pladask/Compositions by composer category cleanup. Gdr 20:12, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Irish entities based on the Westminster System

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 01:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A uneccessarily long and inappropriate title, the items should be moved to the main category Category:Westminster System rather than this rather artificial name. This category title is too long and the form of words in the title are rather unprofessional and artificial, for this reason I nominate. In addition their are only four articles in the proposed CFD whilst the main category contains c. 30 items including those of non UK origin. The category, I assume, has only been made to remove Irish articles from the main category which should remain. Djegan 21:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and spin the other national elements into their own categories. There is an important distinction between the elements of the Westminister System and the entities that use the system. - SimonP 21:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - for the reasons given - Pete C ✍ 21:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Djegan sums it up fantastically. - ℬastique▼talk 21:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a phoney category created to keep Irish entries out of Westminster System. Its name is also ridiculous. For example, the President of Ireland is not an entity. Neither is the Taoiseach. Yet Simon linked them to this category. As to the distinction between the supposed distinction between elements of the WS and the so-called 'entitles' that use the system, it is a highly questionable idea. There is no reason why countries and parliaments that use the Westminster System should not be linked to the Westminster System, rather than to a name specially made up by Simon. And all countries using the WS should be together, not pointlessly spread in separate sections where the international aspect and parallels of the system are not communicated, especially as each special country category would only have 3 or four entrants. FearÉIREANN(talk) 22:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless SimonP can improve his argument. At the moment, Djegan's case is persuasive.
  • Delete - This category seems to be an attempt to maintain some sort of artificial purity of the Westminster System category, by disallowing its application to examples of the Westminster System in practice. If such a position was desirable, it would make a lot more sense to create two subcategories of Westminster System, called something like Elements of the Westminster System and Examples of the Westminster System. Personally, however, I don't see any reason why a single category can't suffice --Ryano 11:21, 18 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Top-Secret

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 01:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New user test. (Does that make it a CSD?) --W(t) 19:45, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • LOL. Delete. Radiant_* 10:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Grand Admirals of Nazi Germany

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anon de-populated this category and moved the articles to Category:Grand Admirals of Germany, marking the Nazi Germany one with a cfd notice. --Kbdank71 15:09, 17 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains two articles, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Targeted Memory Erasure which is on VfD. --the wub (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2005 (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 page.

category:British organizations

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created today. This is vague and superfluous. We already have category:British institutions, category:British society and dozens of sub-cats in which articles about institutions may be placed. If this was fully used it would contain thousands of articles, but that would just be confusing duplication and we have managed perfectly well without it. Oliver Chettle 06:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now placed all the articles in other categories - two in most cases. This wasn't difficult, and I think the creation of this category was a well meaning misjudgement by a user who was unaware of the range of categories already available. There are more top-tier sub-cats in the UK menu than in the US menu, and I don't think any more will be required. 07:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Even if the vote was for keep, Britain doesn't have organizations - it has organisations. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary standard uses -ize, while the UK government standard is -ise. — Instantnood 18:09, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
The OED has become a farce, acting as a sop to Americans. 90%+ of British people use -ise exclusively. James F. (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And so is official usage in most British Commonwealth countries/territories. We dont need a dictionary to tell us that.--Huaiwei 15:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, superfluous. Neutralitytalk 21:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Definately, i've just added a subcat. Beta m (talk)
  • Delete, concur with the above. Radiant_* 09:27, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

category:Development charity

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not pluralised. Should be Development charities. Oliver Chettle 07:41, 17 May 2005 (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 page.

category:Japanese authors

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non standard. All contents should be moved to category:Japanese writers. The duplication was noted on the Japanese Wikipedians' notice board last November, and sentiment was mostly in favour of moving to the standard category, but no action was taken. Oliver Chettle 08:33, 17 May 2005 (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 page.

category:U.S. poets

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard. category:American poets should be used for consistency with the majority of American people categories, including sub-categories of American writers. Oliver Chettle 10:47, 17 May 2005 (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 page.
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16

Category:University Presidents and Category:College and University Presidents

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:College and university presidents --Kbdank71 20:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging both of these to properly capitalized Category:College and university presidents --Tabor 23:37, 16 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:80 mm discs

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 20:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The three articles in this category are all contained in Category:Video storage, and it does not seem an especially useful category. --Tabor 23:30, 16 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:British TV presenters

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:British television presenters --Kbdank71 20:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:British television presenters --Tabor 23:21, 16 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Children raised by animals

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

The result of the debate was merge with Category:Feral children --Kbdank71 20:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging with Category:Feral children, which is better populated and has an associated article. --Tabor 23:11, 16 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Chemical isotope

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 20:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to Category:Isotopes. Is there any other type of isotope than chemical ones? It should also be plural. - SimonP 22:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • The only one I can think of is Springfield's baseball team :)
  • Btw support the move. Radiant_* 10:31, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Wikipedia clubs

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 20:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Near-empty; suggest merging with parent Category:Wikipedians, or Category:Wikipedian organizations. Radiant_* 21:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Wikipedian modernists

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (but already deleted) --Kbdank71 15:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only one member. Doesn't seem particularly pointful. Radiant_* 21:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like its already been deleted, but I'm generally going to be for keeping Wikipedian categories, unless they duplicate some other category. My reasoning: They don't interfere with the articles in any way, and if people want to group themselves in particular ways, why not let them? It can be a handy way to find others who share an interest in editing particular groups of articles. -Seth Mahoney 21:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree that 'pedians should be allowed to group and organize, but a group with only one member is not a group. Note that Category:Wikipedians has quite a bunch of groups, and most of them are fine with me. Radiant_* 10:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Most groups are only going to have one or two members for a while. This one, I think, has been around for a while with only one member, so deletion is probably justified, but, I dunno, I'm just saying that if I were to vote, which is moot now, I would vote keep pretty much across the board - the group could (however unlikely) gain momentum at any time. -Seth Mahoney 17:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Wikipedians by skills

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 20:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a good idea, but the parent Category:Wikipedians also has a bunch of 'wikipedians by skill' cats or lists. I'd suggest merging the two either way, and the most comprehensive way seems to be onto the parent. Radiant_* 21:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

To me, that Category:Wikipedians has a bunch of "wikipedians by skill" entries doesn't suggest that Category:Wikipedians by skills should be deleted (although the name should probably be changed to Category:Wikipedians by skill), but that the entries in Category:Wikipedians that belong in Category:Wikipedians by skills should be moved there. -Seth Mahoney 21:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Also support the rename. Radiant_* 10:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:Legend of Zelda things

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, per existing cats for 'characters', 'items', 'weapons', etc. Radiant_* 17:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Wikipedians with article

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

The result of the debate was move to list --Kbdank71 14:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has a number of problems:

  1. It violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.
  2. It is primarily of interest to Wikipedians, not to readers.
  3. It encourages autobiography (with its accompanying problems) and systemic bias.
  4. It is often difficult to verify, and suffers from a difficulty in defining "Wikipedian" (i.e. is someone a Wikipedian is they have an account but rarely ever contribute?)
  5. The category name is awkward.

Rather than delete it, we could also change it to a subcategory under Wikipedians, and make it a user namespace category. That would be fine, but that's not a decision I feel I could make unilaterally, so I'm listing it here. Isomorphic 17:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually read the text on the category page this time around and found this little nugget: Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. From said article:

This page was created to list people notable enough for Wikipedia articles who are also Wikipedia editors, or have been in the past. It replaces Category:Wikipedians with article which had the disadvantage of being self-referential and not indicating the usernames of those listed.

So hows about we populate this already existing list, and delete the category? --Azkar 22:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Isomorphic 22:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, too. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Azkar. --the wub (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the talk page of Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles with a list of articles that were in the category, but not listed on this page. Since I don't know these individuals' user names, or if they're really even Wikipedia users, I'm leaving it up to whoever monitors that page to do the detective work on that. The category can be depopulated as soon as this listing is finished. --Azkar 18:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I disagree with the assertion that this category is primarily of interest to Wikipedians, not to readers; I think that someone reading the Wikipedia article on Notable Person X could very well have an interest in knowing that X is a Wikipedia contributor (not least because it means X could have written part of the article themselves). Assuming the person is already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it is a sufficiently notable fact that they're a Wikipedia editor to include it in the article. I agree with moving the category to the user namespace, but I still think that a way of tagging articles about users is desirable—perhaps with a template that can be placed on the talk page, linking to the subject's username? (Something like {{userwitharticle|X}} linking to User:X) Binabik80 13:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. It would make sense if a template, along the lines "Articlename is also an editor of Wikipedia, although - according to Wikipedia's rules - he did not instigate this article" - was put on the articles of Wikipedians. This template could then directly link to a category if it was decided to keep one, or not, if a list was chosen instead. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what exactly is going on with the category? --Kbdank71 20:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like consensus is still in favour of deleting the category, favouring the existing list and possibly tagging the articles with a template. --Azkar 21:08, 23 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Wikipedia style and how-to

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

The result of the debate was Beland rules! --Kbdank71 20:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is jumbled and confusing. I would recommend the following fixes:

-- Beland 06:40, 16 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:List stubs

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:43, 23 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Universities and colleges in Atlantic Canada

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 20:47, 23 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Universities and colleges in Western Canada

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 20:46, 23 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Canadian flutists

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE i created this cat but now that feel its too narrow in scope - there aren t that many articles that can populate this cat, and that its too difficult to sub-cat because flutists can belong to classical, jazz, or other music genres -Mayumashu 02:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word's "Flautists" anyway. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 16 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Universities in Saskatchewan --> Category:Universities and colleges in Saskatchewan

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universities in Saskatchewan is duplicated by the new and better named Category:Universities and colleges in Saskatchewan. Delete --Spinboy 02:13, 16 May 2005 (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 page.
< May 14 May 16 >

May 15

Category:Lists of variants of aircraft→Category:Lists of aircraft variants

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done the merge, so the former can now be deleted. →Iñgōlemo← talk 23:06, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Comic book price guide

Category:Comic preservation

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both redundant with Category:Comic book collecting, and strangely named to boot. The only article in the former was Comics Buyer's Guide, the only article in the latter was comic book collecting. -Sean Curtin 22:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Associated Actors and Artists of America

Category:hollywood unions

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a cleanup and reorganization that makes theses two categories redundant.

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 page.

Category:Protestant denominations

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is redundant as items picked up in Category:Christian denominations Paul foord 16:06, 14 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Rain deities and its subcategories (Category:Rain gods and Category:Rain goddesses); Category:Thunder gods

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

The result of the debate was delete Rain deities, gods, and goddesses, no consensus on Thunder gods

Redundant with Category:Sky and weather deities and its subcategories. Yes, there are a number of gods specifically associated with rain and thunder, but nearly all such deities are also general weather deities. -Sean Curtin 00:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Computer role-playing games, Category:Console role-playing games

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 15:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same topic, divided by platform, even though a number of CRPGs were released on both PC and home console platforms. Merge into one category; precedent suggests Category:Computer and video role-playing games, although Category:Computer and console role-playing games matches actual usage. -Sean Curtin 00:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.


< May 13 May 15 >

May 14

Fooish battles --> Battles in Fooland

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More logical name for the subcategories in Category:Battles by country. --Neutralitytalk 19:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds good (especially since a battle usually involves two parties, but only one location...) I'd support making this a speedy renaming criterion, if people want. Radiant_* 00:01, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely agree - the former makes it seem like these are battles involving Fooland rather than occurring in Fooland. -Sean Curtin 00:09, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea. --Kenyon 01:39, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. I added cfr notices to most of the subcategories. There were a few that I wasn't sure of a replacement name, like Goths, Huns, Tutonic Knights, basically categories that didn't fall nicely into "Battles in Fooland". For those I just added a cfd notice (until someone can figure out what the replacement should be. --Kbdank71 14:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagee. These are battles involving Fooland. For example, Category:British battles includes battles in which the UK was one of the participants and not just battles that took place in Britain (in fact, at present none of the entries in Category:British battles took place in Britain). So please don't make this change. If you must, use a form of words like "Battles involving Fooland" or "Battles fought by Fooland" that makes this clear. Gdr 17:55, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • Well, that is a point, but suppose that Britain fought against France a couple of centuries ago... would that be a British battle or a French one? Or both? What if Prussia was also involved? Or how about Waterloo, which iirc involved five different countries? Do we quintuply categorize it? It seems easier to me to categorize by location, then. Radiant_* 07:46, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • If a battle had two participants then it belongs in two categories; if three participants then three categories. The same principle is used in Category:Wars by country and works well. You might also want to categorize battles by their location (like Category:Wars by region), but that would be a separrate scheme. Gdr 08:02, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
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 page.

Category:United States military education

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:U.S. military training and education. The only article in this category is already listed in U.S. military training and education. --Kenyon 17:42, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War

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

The result of the debate was keep original, delete suggestion --Kbdank71 12:29, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Category:Roundheads which means the same thing and is more succinct -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:26, 14 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Royalists in the English Civil War

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

The result of the debate was keep category, delete suggestion --Kbdank71 12:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Category:Cavaliers which means near enough the same thing and is more succinct -- Philip Baird Shearer 12:45, 14 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Pattern recognition

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Machine learning (for general learning algorithms), or Category:Classification (specifically for classification algorithms). Also, ambiguous: artificial or natural pattern recognition? (Articles about the latter probably belong in Category:Cognition). Has been empty for months (except for one stray recent article). -- hike395 10:50, 14 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:World's ugliest languages

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV category. NSR 09:20, 14 May 2005 (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 page.

Category:Urban planning

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Urban studies and planning. It had only one article in it, which I have since moved. -- Decumanus 02:56, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

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 page.

Category:Borg ship classes

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 12:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All members combined into a single article. No possibility for growth. AlistairMcMillan 02:46, 14 May 2005 (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 page.



Cleanup overhead

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

To be emptied or moved

The following categories meet the requirements for deletion but are not empty. You can still review discussions, which have been moved to archive pages (in particularly controversial cases, discussion may be left intact on this page instead). This section is meant to be a summary with no discussion. Discussion should go in the previous section.


Delete me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.

The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=14020217"