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 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains 0 articles. --Revolución (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the guy doesn't need his own category! Tedernst | talk 05:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this belongs in Category:Microsoft, no need for a separate category for a MS flunky. Firebug 23:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Antidote 10:10, 26 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains zero Wikipedians, is unlikely to grow for obvious reasons. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Obvious how? No one between 66 and 75 years old will ever come here? How narrow thinking is that? User:Dieter Simon was born in 1930 and User:Apwoolrich was born in 1938. It's true that right now "Wikipedians by age" indicates that there are more Wikipedians under 18 then over 38. Still that could be misleading. Added to that there is nothing else in Category:Wikipedians by generation for the pre-baby boom period. You might think those born in the 1930s would be dying out, which they would be as we all are ultimately, but according to the World Almanac if you live to 75 you're expectancy is to live another 11 years. (Life expectancy is 77 because of those that don't make it to 75) Lastly the Category:Wikipedians born in the 2000s is sillier for the foreseeible future. Until maybe 2012 it's unlikely will get enough to fit that to be noticeable. Plus people born in the 1930s could have a useful perspective when it comes to projects concerning World War II. If you want to delete all categories of Wikipedians by decade that could be a different matter, but what you're saying smacks of ageism to me.--T. Anthony 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reasons as per T. Anthony (who doesn't appear to have actually voted...) Valiantis 14:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, the category is empty but it looks all of those age-based wikipedian categories are empty. Sounds like someone — User:T. Anthony maybe? ;) — needs to fill them, not delete them. wknight94 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that I should categorize someone without their say so. I'm in a well-represented generation and I already put myself as born in 1977 on the metawiki by age deal.--T. Anthony 01:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did contact Dieter and Woolrich though to see what their views would be.--T. Anthony 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly defined category. Carina22 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am horrified that this should be deleted. It strikes of age-ism:-). In fact I am very busy mostly on Wikisource, where I am an Administrator. The answer is, surely, to get newbies to sign up for inclusion in the birthday list. Maybe the Welcome page sould be amended to reflect this. Apwoolrich 08:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obv. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. And start a policy to get older people to use wikipedia ;) Larix 23:07, 29 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 19:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuti Militari is the highest Polish military decoration. Currently the category lists 129 cities, ships, military units and persons. Since this is not primary characteristic of a person, city etc. I recommend to convert it into list and put the list into Virtuti Militari article. It would reduce categories clutter (e.g. pilot Josef František has 5 of them) and it would discourage people to create new category for every medal in the history. Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this is the most notable medal we have here and so far it's the only Polish award-related category, eventhough it has been in use for more than one year now. Also, creating a monstruous, never to be completed list out of it would definitely not solve the problem of not being a primary characteristic of a person. After all the people listed at Category:Nobel laureates did not wear their medals on their foreheads nor were they primary known for that award. Anyway, I see no need to delete just this one when there is a perfectly valid Category:Recipients of formal honors, which lists dozen of similar award sub-categories. Halibutt 01:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the recipients, Ludvik Svoboda, has also highest awards of Czechoslovakia and Soviet Union (plus countless number of others - he liked them). Yet it is not his main characteristics - he was soldier, hero, professional traitor, defense minister and president. The list of holders on Virtuti Militari can be quite compact in form and will be better maintainable. I nominated this category because I saw it in an articles I was interested, the other medal categories should be dealt as well, IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that Virtuti Militari article already contains two incomplete lists, one is rather strange infobox form. Here's chance to make the article better and reduce overcategorisation. Pavel Vozenilek 01:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider it an overcategorization, it is rather the flaws of the category system itself, which could be healed only as a whole, not on a case-by-case. As to the list in the article - it lists mostly the members of the chapter, as well as some of the most notable personalities. However, if you are to prepare a list of all the 50,000 or so recipients - I am willing to change my vote to support ;) BTW, Svoboda has currently only 4 categories, which is not much. Winston Churchill has 11, Franklin D. Roosevelt has 27, Stalin has 12... Halibutt 03:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it is fault of category system. But seeing glacial pace of software used for Wiki I do not think it will be fixed n next couple of years. The put-everything-in-category people will be much faster. Pavel Vozenilek 00:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A thing worth noting: the article on Virtuti Militari is FA now and IMO it definitely deserves a category. Halibutt

• Keep Having categories for the main decoration of a country is fine. This appears to be the Polish equivalent of the Victoria Cross categories, and for many of the people in those, the decoration is the sole reason they are in wikipedia and is therefore their primary category. CalJW 08:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per CalJW. Valiantis 14:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CalJW; apparent equivalent of Category:Medal of Honor recipients. siafu 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another sign of Anti-Polonism from User:Vozenilek... - Darwinek 10:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But please drop the unnecessary allegations. Choalbaton 10:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The medal has the same meaning to Polish history as does the VC to the British and the Medal of Honor for the US etc.--Rhodie 21:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Virtuti Militari is equivalent to the US Medal of Honor, and is worth its own category. There are also thousands of recipients, so a category will be easier to maintain than a list. Elonka 19:49, 26 December 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.

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 17:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battles have now been moved to where they belong in Category:Battles of the First Boer War and Category:Battles of the Second Boer War so this category is now redundant. Loopy 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. -- Natalinasmpf 22:15, 23 December 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.

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 17:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, covered by Category:Natives of Sao Paulo (city). MeltBanana 20:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. wknight94 00:45, 24 December 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.

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 deleete --Kbdank71 20:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are killing the whole Art vs. Arts thing, because it is hard to remember all the fine distinctions. This goes also. -- Fplay 23:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Art magazines, or a subcategory thereof, and delete. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 20:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

poorly named duplicate. MeltBanana 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, this cat is used as Mexican soldiers, but original name gives misconception that it is akin to Category:Military of Mexico. Consider renaming to Category:Mexican military personnel. Joshbaumgartner 20:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Military personnel of Mexico (or "Mexican military personnel" is consensus disagrees with me on wording). There are, as far as I can tell, precisely four articles to populate this category, so we don't exactly need to differentiate between branches of service. siafu 23:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed It is in Category:Soldiers by nationality so the alternative proposal is unsuitable. Carina22 17:49, 23 December 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 19:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the successful December 8th CFD which established "in country" as the naming convention for ethnic groups by country, the following category renamings are proposed regarding ethnic groups by region:

• Category:Ethnic groups of Africa to Category:Ethnic groups in Africa
• Category:Ethnic groups of Asia to Category:Ethnic groups in Asia
• Category:Ethnic groups of Australasia to Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia
• Category:Ethnic groups of the Caribbean to Category:Ethnic groups in the Caribbean
• Category:Ethnic groups of Central America to Category:Ethnic groups in Central America
• Category:Ethnic groups of Dagestan to Category:Ethnic groups in Dagestan
• Category:Ethnic groups of Europe to Category:Ethnic groups in Europe
• Category:Ethnic groups of Kosovo to Category:Ethnic groups in Kosovo
• Category:Ethnic groups of the Middle East to Category:Ethnic groups in Middle East
• Category:Ethnic groups of Montenegro to Category:Ethnic groups in Montenegro
• Category:Ethnic groups of North America to Category:Ethnic groups in North America
• Category:Ethnic groups of Oceania to Category:Ethnic groups in Oceania
• Category:Ethnic groups of the Pacific to Category:Ethnic groups in the Pacific
• Category:Ethnic groups of Serbia to Category:Ethnic groups in Serbia
• Category:Ethnic groups of South America to Category:Ethnic groups in South America
• Category:Ethnic groups of Vojvodina to Category:Ethnic groups in Vojvodina

Kurieeto 19:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename clearly Tedernst | talk 04:54, 23 December 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most enries already under correct name. Per policy. Joshbaumgartner 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• merge clearly Tedernst | talk 04:55, 23 December 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.

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 discussion was Merge. The merge has been completed, and the category has been deleted. -- Essjay · Talk 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated category, only a few links, compared to hundreds on the new category. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. KC. 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename to Category:Wikipedia Counter Vandalism Unit. Several reasons: having 'user' and 'wikipedia' is redundant; using slashes is discouraged; 'en' is obvious since this is the enwiki; and 'member' should be plural if used at all. Radiant_>|< 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename to Category:Wikipedia Counter Vandalism Unit. As per Radiant. Valiantis 14:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That existed? Merge! Merge! Merge!. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge--Kevin Hanse (talk) 19:40, 29 December 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.

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 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non used category, unlikey to get much use. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How would one know whether it was accurate? Carina22 17:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: irrelevant, and will not stay up-to-date. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Accuracy is a concern with this category, as inclusion in the category might mean that an editor is under- or over-stating their edit count. Use user contributions, Kate's Tool, or a similar tool if you want to know how many edits somebody has. The categories, if a lot of editors were to actually use them, would just reinforce editcountitis and are unnecessary since we can use automated scripts to count edits. --Idont Havaname 04:22, 29 December 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.

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 17:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non used categoryunlikey to get much use. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also seems to be redundant with several other categories e.g. Category:Wikipedians with 4000-10,000 edits--Bkwillwm 07:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: irrelevant, and will not stay up-to-date. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Although I wouldn't be opposed to a category for the top 10 people or so. Antidote 10:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Use user contributions, Kate's Tool, or a similar tool if you want to know how many edits somebody has. The categories, if a lot of editors were to actually use them, would just reinforce editcountitis. --Idont Havaname 04:20, 29 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serves absolutely no useful purpose. JFW | T@lk 16:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't sound as primary or even secondary characteristics of a person. Pavel Vozenilek 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Those included are all notable primarily for being rabbis. There Their religious affiliation within Judaism, whether current or former, is therefore significant and relevant. Valiantis 14:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hellooooo, please see the conventional Category:Orthodox rabbis or other parts of Category:Rabbis where they appear already. No need to appear like there is a need to label these individuals in ways they never did to themselves. This is "original scholarship" at its worst. IZAK 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - They are all notable individuals in their own right; and, with the possible exception of Solomon Schechter, their respective backgrounds in the Chabad movement contributed greatly to who they are. Daykart 14:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what, did they call themselves "former Lubavitchers" for all we know they were the "true Lubavitchers"? IZAK 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Their religous affiliation whether current or former is relevant for the article but the category serves absolutely no useful purpose. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles are about rabbis, who are notable for their religious affiliations and work. Repeated assertion of serving "no useful purpose" is baffling - how should religious figures be categorized other than by religious movements? siafu 03:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errr, have you seen Category:Orthodox rabbis and other Category:Rabbis? They are already in those. IZAK 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's insulting, and how the heck does anyone know for sure if someone is a "former" anything? IZAK 10:09, 30 December 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.

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 18:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first is empty, so might qualify for speedy, but it's linked up with the second, so I figured to put them both up here. The second contains only two sub-cats, the first, and another that appears to only marginally belong in the cat. - TexasAndroid 16:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Empty; the other subcat of Category:Asian studies was Category:Russian orientalists, which belongs much more sensibly in Category:Russian historians, right next to Category:Russian byzantinists (it was already in Category:Orientalists by nationality as well). siafu 23:44, 22 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 18:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates, since all that is in the first is a single "site" subcat. The second form is beter populated, and better named for what they are actually containing, namely "site" articles. Suggest merge and remove the first without prejedice for rebuild if there are non-site archeology articles availible at some point in the future. - TexasAndroid 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not a duplicate. Other major countries have both. I have added the 43 strong French archaeologists category and it is highly likely that there are other articles which could be added to it. CalJW 08:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CalJW. siafu 02:57, 25 December 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.

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 17:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, and duplicate of Category:Dallas-Fort Worth Texas based companies which has many entries Neier 13:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Though shouldn't the other have a comma (D-FW, Texas)? siafu 00:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Duplicate. Carina22 17:47, 23 December 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.

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 17:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty duplicate of conventional Category:Portuguese football managers. Delete Calsicol 12:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, typo. Pavel Vozenilek 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC) - oops, wrong place. I meant different category. No vote here. Pavel Vozenilek 00:58, 23 December 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This cat recently survived CfD with substantial feeling that it should be renamed. It already lists other politicians and would be more useful to draw in all politicians, not just those elected to Parliament. 'Gay' is less standard than LGBT. Being a subcat of Category:British MPs is creating problems, which would be relieved by this being a subcat of Category:British politicians instead. Mtiedemann 12:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination. Cleduc 16:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed, to allow the category to include MSPs, Assembly Members etc. Vclaw 19:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename much better name. -- Samuel Wantman 20:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (previous debate was here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 11#Category:Gay UK MPs) --TimPope 21:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to British LGBT politicians, which is more in keeping with nationality-foo standard for people. The Tom 00:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Gay politicians from the United Kingdom. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to British LGBT politicians as per The Tom. This is the standard for nationalities. Valiantis 14:39, 23 December 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.

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 18:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small category of which all members have been put up for AFD. QQ 10:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. I would argue that "notable" (i.e. long-running or large) clans should be included in Wikipedia. However, if we categorise them purely as "gaming" clans then the category will grow to be unwieldy. IMO they should be sorted by 1) their primary game, or 2) their primary genre, or 3) their geographic area, or 4) their pro status (where applicable.) Nach0king 13:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Setting any commentary on notability aside, Category:Electronic sports teams, which is strangely a subcat of this one and not the other way around, is much more appropriate to any of these articles which survive AfD. There are only eight articles in the two categories, so merging would not at all be burdensome. siafu 00:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. notability for games clubs = winning a major tournament. there is a few major winners in Category:Electronic sports teams, which can stay, but this category only encourages clan-cruft. Zzzzz 10:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Zzzzz Choalbaton 10:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. Ze miguel 17:52, 29 December 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.

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 17:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accidently created by me with stupid spelling error (wafare anyone?). Exists correctly as Category:Modern amphibious warfare vessels of France. Joshbaumgartner 07:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy! siafu 00:13, 23 December 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The propose form will match the other subcategories of Category:Suburbs of Australia. The only other exception, category:Hobart suburbs was nominated for renaming by someone else a few days ago. Honbicot 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Honbicot 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:14, 23 December 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.

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 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to all other subcats of Category:Actors by series, this includes all guest appearances, not simply regular cast

• Delete. In a sense overbroad. Would work as a list. But the result is inclusion of the category on the pages of actors with only miniscule connection to the show. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category: Miami Vice actors and exercise discretion about contents --TimPope 21:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listificate. This is not category material. There are only three actors who are primarily and unequivocably associated with the show to even consider having a Category:Actors on Miami Vice in the first place. siafu 00:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Guest starring on a show just isn't important enough. Carina22 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 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.

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 17:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These categories was created by a user who attempted to rename the less ambiguous Category:United States television networks and Category:United States radio networks without bringing the matter here. He inserted the {{categoryredirect}} template (which caused a bot to recategorize many of the articles), but I reversed the process. The same user also performed a copy-and-paste move of List of United States cable and satellite television networks to List of American cable and satellite television networks, the latter of which was speedily deleted. —Lifeisunfair 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely. An example of being both bold and reckless. User:Ceyockey 05:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: ...and move the United States articles to these categories. As I stated below (#Category:U.S. aircraft to Category:American aircraft), there's nothing ambiguous about the word "American". I've never met anyone that thought "American" meant anything besides United States. Besides, starting categories with "American" is much more prevalent than starting them with "United States". wknight94 00:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicate. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, good old Ronald20. Dollars to donuts he did this because I moved his "Mexico (subject)" categories to "Mexican (subject)" last week. Has anybody ever managed to figure out how to get him to acknowledge feedback? Could somebody attempt to explain to him that there's an ongoing and as-of-yet-unresolved debate about which wording to use for US-related categories, which doesn't negate the use of adjectives otherwise? At any rate: I've frankly ceased to care which one is used, as long as there's some consistency; it gets really irritating to have to double check every time I need to apply a US-related category whether it's "United States foo" or "American foo" in that particular case. But whichever one is kept, slap a {{categoryredirect}} on the other one, because this will happen again. Bearcat 09:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicate. Gene Nygaard 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicate. Ze miguel 17:53, 29 December 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.

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 17:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary to have category listing for this because some people have made an article about this. It is a publication's opinion of who they consider to be the "top public intellectuals." J. Nguyen 03:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overcategorisation. The article should be enough. Pavel Vozenilek 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Pavel Vozenilek Honbicot 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not appropriate as a list of as a category. Antidote 10:10, 26 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per above. wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME TO Category:Aircraft of the United States 132.205.45.148 18:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This suggestion goes against the other similar categories like Mexican aircraft and Polish aircraft. wknight94 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's Category:Mexican aircraft and Category:Polish aircraft, for those doing fact-checking. siafu 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On technical grounds. The term American does not apply exclusively to nationals of the United States; for example, Canadians are also North Americans because they live on the North American continent. The same also applies to South Americans. Changing the category name could create confusion and might also appear too "United-States-of-America-centric".
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I know plenty of people who are Canadian and South American as well as Central American and, if I ever referred to them or something made in their native country as "American", they would look at me like I was crazy. Are there really people that, when they hear "American", they think of the entire Western Hemisphere?! I don't buy it. Should we rename American Samoa to Samoa of the United States and American Idol to Idol of the United States? When protesters shout "Death to Americans!!", are they including Peru and Honduras? Of course not. I think we're being silly here. There's already far more categories starting with "American" than there are starting with "Unites States" or "U.S." wknight94 06:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been resolved—Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American—beat this particular horse into glue. The Tom 05:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per anon to Category:Aircraft of the United States. siafu 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is this some new standard a few people are going for? Every other related category has the nationality as the first word. We want one of them to be different now? wknight94 06:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is less clear cut than the people categories, which should certainly all be "American..." Choalbaton 10:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States aircraft. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to follow standard in parent category. Vegaswikian 08:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), where aircraft are specifically listed under Nationality X format. Personally, I find it unfortunate that this is so while other related cats like ships and military equipment go under ... of Country format, but it is policy at this point. Joshbaumgartner 17:06, 27 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per above. wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME TO Category:Agricultural aircraft of the United States 132.205.45.148
  • Comment: This suggestion goes against the other similar categories like Mexican agricultural aircraft and Polish agricultural aircraft. wknight94 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On technical grounds as described above.-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Agricultural aircraft of the United States, though really the fate of this one should be obvious and determined by what happens to its parent. siafu 00:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The standard is for people categories. Choalbaton 10:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States agricultural aircraft. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to follow standard in parent category. Vegaswikian 08:35, 27 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 17:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per above. wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep 132.205.45.148 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This goes against your suggestions above — wouldn't you want Category:Radio of the United States? wknight94 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On technical grounds as described above.-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The parent category is Category:Radio by country, not Category:Radio by nationality; I actually think there might be some merit to having it be the latter (e.g. language, culture to match Category:Literature by nationality), in which case the adjectival form would be preferable. siafu 00:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to follow standard in parent category. Vegaswikian 08:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Gene Nygaard 21:39, 28 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per above. wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep 132.205.45.148 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This goes against your suggestions above — wouldn't you want Category:Magazines of the United States? wknight94 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On technical grounds as described above.-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment per above, this might be better as a larger discussion of media categories. siafu 00:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to follow standard in parent category. Vegaswikian 08:33, 27 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 16:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per above. wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep 132.205.45.148 18:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This goes against your suggestions above — wouldn't you want Category:Newspapers of the United States? wknight94 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On technical grounds as described above.-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to follow standard in parent category Category:Newspapers by country. Vegaswikian 21:52, 29 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 16:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per above. wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep 132.205.45.148 18:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This goes against your suggestions above — wouldn't you want Category:Media of the United States? wknight94 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On technical grounds as described above.-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. -Sean Curtin 04:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to follow standard in parent category Category:Media by country. Also rename:

Category:Media of Afghanistan

Category:Media of Africa

Category:Media of the Dominican Republic

Category:Media of Ecuador

Category:Media of Japan

Category:Media of the Netherlands

Category:Media of Singapore

Category:Media of South Africa

Category:Media of the United Kingdom

Category:Media of Zimbabwe

Vegaswikian 21:57, 29 December 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per above. wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: Per above. Honbicot 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME TO Category:Middle-distance runners of the United States 132.205.45.148 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This suggestion goes against the other similar category Category:British middle distance runners. wknight94 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On technical grounds as described above.-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. This is no different from the other 200+ American occupational categories which have been standardised. CalJW 09:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. I thought these has all been done already. Carina22 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed to match its parent category. Choalbaton 10:40, 24 December 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.

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. Martin 23:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per above. wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: Per above. Honbicot 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME TO Category:Sprinters of the United States 132.205.45.148 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This suggestion goes against the other similar category Category:British sprinters. wknight94 19:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On technical grounds as described above.-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. This is no different from the other 200+ American occupational categories which have been standardised. CalJW 09:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. I thought these has all been done already. Carina22 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed to match its parent category. Choalbaton 10:41, 24 December 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.

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. Martin 23:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per above. wknight94 02:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: Per above. Honbicot 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME TO Category:Hurdlers of the United States 132.205.45.148 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. On technical grounds as described above.-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. This is no different from the other 200+ American occupational categories which have been standardised. CalJW 09:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. I thought these has all been done already. Carina22 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed to match its parent category. Choalbaton 10:41, 24 December 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.

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 17:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled. The correct version is in Category:Tampa Bay Lightning. wknight94 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per above. wknight94 00:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Dilete. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 01:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Cthulhu fhtagn![reply]

  (Could've been a typo—has Tampa patented some kind of reverse tanning process?) (Not serious).-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 01:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*:BTW (being serious now), this category could be moved to speedy renaming section; I think it qualifies. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 01:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)My bad. Don't know what I was thinking. Perhaps I was sidetracked by my own jest.[reply]
-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy. Just a spelling error. siafu 00:29, 23 December 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.

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 17:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category created by an anonymous user who hasn't been here in months. Not sure about this one but I figure it should at least be renamed to Category:Tampa Bay region. I'm not sure if that region is defined officially though. wknight94 00:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not real useful and difficult to define (if it's supposed to be the Tampa Bay region — if it's supposed to be the body of water, it's even less useful). wknight94 00:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Carina22 17:51, 23 December 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.