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 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military aircraft are categorized by 3 different attributes: decade, country, and use (bomber, fighter, patrol, and so on). This is a good idea. The problem is, that all three attributes are combined to form categories like Category:French military reconnaissance aircraft 1920-1929. This does not work. In most of the (sub-)sub-sub-sub-categories (by nation-(nation)-(type)-decade) is only one plane. Many don't even exist, because there has never been a plane of that use in that decade in that country. Or worse, a plane like the Breguet 19 is in four different because it was used in four different ways. This is madness. We should delete the last category level so that there are only the following: Military aircraft by nation by use, military aircraft by use by decade, military aircraft by nation by decade. In the few cases where these sub-categories will be too full, there can be created new subcategories, but this should be decided individually. -- Mkill 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: Why is there no Category:Military aircraft by maker and Category:Military aircraft by war? That's where I would start searching for a specific plane. Mhh. -- Mkill 00:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next question: What about Category:Military helicopters? Who looks for helicopters in Category:Military utility aircraft (that's where they are)? -- mkill

• Keep You might want to raise these questions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft which is where the categorisation system was conceived. Geoff/Gsl 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reorganize (edit: I have revised my vote to: retain categories where sufficient articles exist, but delete extraneous webs leading to single articles, and replace decade-based categories with era categories) I agree that there is a lot of confusion in the aircraft category, but the plan is going to have to be developed to take on the whole tree before any tweaks are going to do much good. I do agree with moving away from categorization by decade in favor of categorization by era (WWII, Cold War, modern, etc.) which make more intuitive sense. However, I don't see the problem with multiple categories for a plane article if it fulfilled a variety of roles (not uncommon in military aviation for sure!). Joshbaumgartner 09:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have presented some of this matter on the WP:Air talk pages to solicit responses from some of the project members. Joshbaumgartner 09:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since categorization and article creation is an ongoing process, I think it'd be easier to make 'tweaks' now rather than wait for the whole tree to be developed, since that may take a long time, and that would mean you're doing the same work twice. I think I'd agree with Mkill that this is too specific catting (just like we do people by "country & profession" and by "birth year", but not by the three of those together). And certainly, rename from decades to eras. Decades are arbitrary, eras are not. Radiant_>|< 09:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reorganize, as I mentioned below the separate categories for each deacde are not very useful, and tend to make the network far too granulated. - SimonP 16:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, leave organization of the topic to the regular editors -- please hash this out at the WikiProject if you think change is needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually given the impact of this issue, a short proposal for this should be written at the wikiproject, and taken to RFC. Radiant_>|< 10:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If this is what the aircraft buffs want it is fine. Doing a couple of extra clicks is fine, especially if it gets you to a more precise location. Honbicot 23:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The military buffs should reconsider. There is no use for a super-complicated categorization system when it's unusable for the non-specialist wikipedians.

1. 33 countries x 17 types x 10 decades = 5610 possible categories. Of these, only roughly 400 exist. Of these 400, most contain only one plane. The only categories, that are somewhat full with more than 10 planes, are Soviet / US / British / German / Japanese figher / bomber planes of WW II, which is split in 1930s and 1940s.
2. Most readers who use the categories to check for planes will maybe know the general decade, or the war, and the nationality. Or the type and the nationality. Under the current system, they have to check a large number of categories to find what they are looking for.
3. To see how faulty the current system is, check Category:Bulgarian military aircraft. It has the following subcategories: Category:Bulgarian bomber aircraft, Category:Bulgarian military aircraft 1940-1949, Category:Bulgarian military reconnaissance aircraft, Category:World War II Bulgarian aircraft, which have the subcategories: Category:Bulgarian bomber aircraft 1940-1949, Category:Bulgarian military reconnaissance aircraft 1940-1949, Category:World War II Bulgarian bombers, Category:World War II Bulgarian reconnaissance aircraft. In fact, there is another level of subcategories, Category:World War II Bulgarian light bombers. Ok, 9 subcategories so far. Now, how many articles were there, that 9 subcategories were there to order the mess? ONE. Now, if all of Wikipedia was organized like this, we would have OVER SEVEN MILLION categories. We really need to delete some categories here.

-- Mkill 22:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Bulgarian situation is a great example of the problems. Sub-categories are appropriate wherever there are significant articles to fill them, or where one could reasonably expect such articles to be added in the foreseeable future. The DAR-10, which has led to all the categories above, should be added instead to three categories, Category:World War II aircraft, Category:Bulgarian aircraft, and Category:Bomber aircraft (perhaps also Category:Military reconnaissance aircraft). Get rid of the rest unless someone knows of a slew of Bulgarian aircraft that should be having articles made soon. Doing the same to Category:French aircraft however, would be a mistake as there are obviously a great variety of important French aircraft that have or should have articles, and these should rightly get greater sub-categorization. Joshbaumgartner 00:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People who know what they are looking for will by be able to find it, and I dare say that many who are less expert will appreciate the guidance this system offers. CalJW 00:29, 14 November 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 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Wikipedia related projects". Radiant_>|< 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to ... — Category:External Wikipedia-related projects. Courtland 18:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - good idea. ∴ here…♠ 21:54, 11 November 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 18:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has a smaller scope than the recently created Category:Project for the New American Century. Category:PNAC member contains one article, Category:Project for the New American Century contains 37. It is proposed that the sole article in Category:PNAC member be moved to Category:Project for the New American Century, and then that Category:PNAC member be deleted. Kurieeto 23:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. If at some point there are enough articles for PNAC members, it should be Category:Members of the Project for the New American Century or Category:Project for the New American Century members to avoid use of the acronym for those who don't know what PNAC is. Joshbaumgartner 09:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. siafu 18:42, 14 November 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 20:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one article in category.  — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 23:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is nothing wrong with a one article category and this one certainly has potential for expansion. This will just make it harder to find articles for no reason and it is sure to be recreated when there are more articles in any case. CalJW 00:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per CalJW -- Ian ≡ talk 06:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of potential. Admittedly speed skating is a bit of a minor sport in Finland these days, but there's a couple more Finns who have won World Championships for men, a couple for women, and three or four active ones. Sam Vimes 07:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it'll grow. Hiding talk 14:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the sportspeople by nationality superstructure. -- Reinyday, 14:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --SM 22:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since it's part of a superstructure of sportspeople by nationality, it can potentially be a home for articles about the skaters Sam was referring to, plus any other Finns that may emerge in the future. There are quite a few "sportspeople by nationality" categories with only one or two articles. — Dale Arnett 02:48, 12 November 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 17:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague; overlaps with Category:Teachers and Category:Academia. If Category:Professors was deleted...well, this is even less useful. The subcategories can stay. --zenohockey 20:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This makes a lot more sense than Category:Professors, because it's a description of a person's notable activity, not his job title. It doesn't overlap with Category:Academia; it's a subcat thereof (and most of the remainder of Academia is not bios, whereas Academics should be almost all bios). Different from Category:Teachers because an academic is usually noted more for his research than his teaching. --Trovatore 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's true that there's an unfortunate ambiguity in the name; it could be understood to refer to academics as an area, rather than individual academics. For that reason I wouldn't oppose a rename and redirect to something like Category:Biographies of academics or Category:People in academics. --Trovatore 23:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Trovatore's explanation makes my case for me. What does it mean to say that "a person's notable activity" is being an academic? The American Heritage gives two meanings for the noun "academic"; the first doesn't apply if Travatore is correct that the category doesn't describe one's job title. The second definition is: "One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background." What is an "academic viewpoint"? Is it possible to have one while never having attended an institution of higher education? Do we have to add every scientist, historian, economist, etc. to the category? If we can agree on some consistent, specific guidelines for inclusion—guidelines that don't include everyone who's ever studied anything in depth—then I'll be satisfied. --zenohockey 22:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first definition from your link above is not a job title but rather a job description; that's already an improvement (e.g. doesn't exclude UK "lecturers" or German "Privatdozenten"). The idea is clear; it's someone who is notable for work of the sort that a professor would normally do, exclusive of teaching. So it should include fellows of the Institute for Advanced Study, who have no teaching duties and aren't professors.
    • If your main objection is just that there can be people that we could argue about whether they should be included or not, my reaction to that is that I just don't really care. It's not a good reason to get rid of a category. --Trovatore 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, from the official Wikipedia guidelines on categories: "A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in. For example, Queen Elizabeth should not be listed directly under People, but Queens of England might be a good place for her." But what academics are famous academics qua academics -- i.e., apart from their specific fields?

Second, answer me this -- because maybe this whole thing is the result of confusion on my part: Would Martin D. Free Jr. [I meant Marvin D. Free Jr., FWIW. I'd never heard of him either. --zenohockey 04:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)] be placed in Category:American sociologists and Category:Sociologists? And should he be placed in Category:Academics too? --zenohockey 05:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him, but assuming he's an American sociologist, then I suppose that's the category he goes in. Then by heredity he's in Sociologists too, without being listed there directly (there really needs to be a better UI for the tree search, but that's a global issue we can't fix here.) My guess is he'd wind up in Academics the same way, without being listed there directly. In fact Academics might wind up without any articles, only subcats; there are lots of categories like that, and they're useful. --Trovatore 06:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I haven't really paid much attention to categories until recently; I'm still learning the guidelines for them. Your last sentence makes sense -- but I just haven't seen that happen in action. To use another person no one's ever never heard of, Barry Everitt is listed in Category:Neuroscientists, but not Category:British neuroscientists -- and there is no "American neuroscientists" category. But if all this at too great a scale for a CFD vote, then I yield. --zenohockey 04:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. despite the potential confusion as talked about above for the simplicity of name. but what about the name Category:Scholars which could also include pre- mass university system individuals who did not hold an academic post but were scientists as well as researchers in research institutes other than unis. another possible name could be Category:Academic researchers. -Mayumashu 01:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment yeah, there's a bit of a redundancy with Category:Scholars, isn't there? I guess I think of scholarship as second-order research, research about other people's research. A researcher creates new knowledge; a scholar summarizes it. Or something like that. Both scholars and researchers are academics, so they might make good subcats. --Trovatore 20:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but i don t think that s necessary how many people see the difference in the two words. I still wonder what to do with pre-mass uni people who did scientific research and made significant discoveries but did not work at a uni and also people who do research in non-uni institutes or whatever. aren they best described as scholars and isn t scholars the supra-cat? more a rhetorical question really -Mayumashu 15:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Trovatore, though if it were renamed per Trovatore I would suggest the name Category:People in academia. —Blotwell 03:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename → Category:People in academia, per User:Blotwell. Courtland 04:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — Instantnood 18:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Key major occupational category. Honbicot 23:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Category:Teachers only covers part of this, and Category:Academia is by no means limited to people. There is no category that sufficiently overlaps to warrant axing this one. siafu 19:31, 14 November 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 17:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category was used to house a whole group of very short articles that have now been merged into the main article Broken News by consensus - leaving the category entirely empty

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 18:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the following categories:

• Category:French naval ships to Category:Naval ships of France
• Category:French aircraft carriers to Category:Aircraft carriers of France
• Category:French Navy ships of the line to Category:Ships of the line of France

This will bring this category to be consistent with other Ships of Foo categories.

• Rename all Joshbaumgartner 18:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The proposed names are inconsistent with most of the other naval ship categories (a similar proposal for US Navy ships was recently defeated). They are clumsy and not normal English and add no information or clarity. CalJW 00:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are different from the US Navy and Royal Navy categories...those are proper name entities and indeed are clumsier when altered. This is an elimination of using the national adjective, in favor of using the country name. This is not a huge deal for French v. France, but it has bigger ramifications for British v. United Kingdom, American v. United States. I believe using the country noun is more precise than the adjective. In the French categories, the use of French Navy is not consistant, and frankly isn't needed at all...all French aircraft carriers are going to be of the French Navy, for example. Simply saying aircraft carriers of France is plenty specific. Joshbaumgartner 09:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Three reasons. 1. Renaming the French categories would make France inconsistent with other countries. 2. Individual French ships are named French ship XXX 3. It's awkward English. That said I agree that French would be better than French Navy, but I oppose this particular renaming. JimmyTheOne 14:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per JimmyTheOne Honbicot 23:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Consensus has developed around country-based rather than nationality-based category naming for naval ships. The other subcats of Category:Naval ships need to change, not vice versa. The Tom 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say there is a "consensus" when the vote went against for U.S. Navy ships and it is going against so far here? CalJW 00:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The U.S. Navy ships debate was a case of "Ships of X" versus "X ships" where X was the proper name of the navy. You're quite right in pointing out that there hasn't been consensus on that issue yet (Finland went one way, the United States the other), nor do I see that as being an issue in this debate. What I'm referring to is the massive moving over the past few weeks from the likes of Fooish cruisers to Cruisers of Fooland which have all passed easily. Fooish has been consistently rejected in all situations except when it has actually been a part of the navy's name, like "Royal Australian Navy" or somesuch. French Navy ships would be fine if all of them were part of a maritime force officially named the "French Navy." As this isn't the case here (I think "Royal" was a part of the name pre-Revolution), Naval ships of France ought to be used. The Tom 01:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. For reasons listed above.
• rename use country-name instead of adjective. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for France and all other countries. --Vizcarra 18:54, 15 November 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 18:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that this category does not provide useful value. Or even if it does, its name seems to be confusing. Some comments at category talk:Categories seem to say the same thing. I would like to suggest that this category be deleted or otherwise renamed. Arguments for why this category is useful are very much appreciated. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Move subcategories to Category:Fundamental and delete, per Courtland below. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a heck of a lot friendlier than Special:Categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EurekaLott (talk • contribs)
• Keep (opinion changed Courtland 23:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)) Move sub-categories to Category:Fundamental and Delete. My thinking is that Category:Fundamental should the place where top-level categories reside. If any of the sub-categories does not appear to be of sufficiently fundamental nature to be in the Fundamental category, then they should be moved to be children of a more approriate category parent. Courtland 23:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the obvious name for the highest category - "Fundamental" certainly isn't. CalJW 01:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not a justification, but an observation; in Wiktionary, "Fundamental" is the top and there is no "Categories" child, but there is a "*Topics"; in Wikiquote, "Fundamental" is a child of "Categories"; in Wikimedia Commons, "Fundamental" is a child category of "Article type", which is in turn a child of "CommonsRoot", and "Categories" is a deleted category replaced by "CommonsRoot"; in Wikisource, "Fundamental" is a child of the root category "Categories". Taking all this into account, I'd be hard pressed to say that one of these solutions is the "obvious" one to pursue. Courtland 01:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There isn't an obvious solution but the name 'fundamental' is more clear than the name 'categories' (unless people want it to duplicate Special:Categories, in which case it's pointless). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiant! (talk • contribs)
• Keep. It seems natural to me that there should be a root to the category tree (OK, category DAG), and this is the most natural name for it. What its children should be is a separate question. Maybe it should be pared down to the ones that appear at the top of the main page: Culture, Geography, History, Mathematics, People, Science, Society, Technology, with maybe one extra grab-bag category (say, Category:Wikipedia, and throw all the other loose cats into it). The one that seems useless to me is Category:Fundamental

. --Trovatore 18:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• comment of a really minor nature ... it's more of a graph than a directed acyclic graph as cycles are supported, albeit discouraged; sorry, I work with hierarchical data structures too much, I think :) Courtland 18:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we could go with Category:WikipediaRoot, similar to Commons. Courtland 18:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Who would ever think to type that in? You'd find it only by tracing up from a category, not by just entering it in the search box and hitting "Go". The existing name, in contrast, is completely intuitive; I don't see any reason to change it. --Trovatore 19:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you asking "who would think to search" for "WikiepediaRoot"? If that is the question, nobody should need to do that, I would think. The Root in any category structure is generally an architectural thing and often itself is devoid of meaning outside of its structural role. Maybe that is in part the problem - a difference of opinion between folks on the role of a root node? Courtland 19:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The root node is where you see the top-level categories listed. I think that's a useful thing to see, so it should have an intuitive, easy-to-find name. --Trovatore 19:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was revising my input and conflicted with you ... here is the additional material Related to this is also the notion of where you enter a tree; routinely entry points to a conceptual tree are not at the very top but at sub-nodes that are suited to particular navigational needs. Thus, on the Main Page, the entry point Category:Culture is not a top level node, nor need it be, nor need it be a second or even third level; the shape of the tree has purposes that are both user and system driven and each should draw benefits from the shape while not necessarily being directly exposed to the full shape of the tree in either case. These are reasons why I don't think an editor friendly name for the top level node is essential. Courtland 19:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess I just disagree with you here. It seems to me that it's natural for user purposes to know what the root is, and to see its immediate children, which should be the conceptual top-level cats of Wikipedia. --Trovatore 20:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that Category:Fundamental is a better name for a top-most category than Category:Categories. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not my intuition. What are we categorizing? Categories. So the first place I look is Category:Categories. Simple-minded, of course, but the way to make things easy to find is to think simply. --Trovatore 20:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or keep and delete Category:Fundamental. One has got to go, the actual name is irrelevant, although I've grown accustomed to Fundamental (as probably many other users). Karol 11:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am looking for a list of all existing and/or approved categories. This seems to be a basic need. I tried "category:categories" and came here (where I learned about the existance of "category:fundamental." I certainly would never have guessed "category:fundamental" on my own. So if you do delete, at least redirect. (Although it makes more sense to me to keep the more obvius name, I guess.)

  Information Pearle Wisebot might be of interest to you. Courtland 03:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Change of opinion I have changed my opinion above from "merge and delete" to "keep"; the reason for this is not that I've had a change of heart over the fate of the category but that the usability issues that are high in some people's minds are real and indicate a deficit in certain Wikipedia categorization functions that will not be addressed by the current deletion but rather will be exacerbated. Rather, I think that the discussion of what exactly to do should be taken up at Wikipedia:Categorization and considered to be proposed changes to the categorization guidelines. Courtland 23:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. additional venue for further discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Category_schemes Courtland 04:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Rename both to Category:Fundamental Categories. Category:Categories in Wikipedia. Further, Category:Fundamental is entirely different, attempting to build knowledge by category, not act as a container category for all categories on wikipedia. I don't even think that this violates Avoid self references, and none of the categories included should be self-references. I suppose the fickle will require Category:Wikipedia:Categories to include Wikipedia: namespace categories as well. ∴ here…♠ 04:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely warrents, and requires, a number of edits to project namespace.

• Wikipedia:Categorisation_FAQ lists Category:Fundamental as top level. (categorisation / categorization sp?)
• Wikipedia:Categorization lists Category:Categories as top level.

∴ here…♠ 04:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support this notion. Karol 20:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Keep but Delete Fundamental. These categories both seem to be designed as root categories. In addition, there are different opinions on which categories are "root" categories and which are children of them, and we should not be portraying this root as the best one, which we are now. Brian Jason Drake 07:32, 17 November 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 17:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some anon created this category as an article (and a duplicate one at that). The information can already be found here. Kross | Talk 17:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.--Kross | Talk 17:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete. If there is any distinct and useful content, merge that into Halo 2 enemies, then delete Courtland 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:39, 14 November 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, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category duplicates information in List of Protestantism by US State article. - EurekaLott 17:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It does not matter if a category duplicates a list, sometimes that is useful. I voted for Delete because it does not contain a single article that is about Protestantism in State X, like Protestantism in Alabama. It only contains 3 articles, and all are wrong there. -- Mkill 23:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Empty, unhelpful, redundant (the two articles currently included definitely do not belong there). siafu 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per above. dunerat 09:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)dunerat[reply]
• Delete. As above. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:43, 16 November 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 17:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Recently Category:Professors was done away with and i propose the same here for this cat and its sub-cats as all professors are academics in a broad if not narrow sense. (i m willing to put this cat's 17 sub-cats up for merger vote if this one passes vote) -Mayumashu 14:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. Honbicot 23:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above discussion on Category:Academics. siafu 19:42, 14 November 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 10:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the category "American people by occupation", and most of the others are "American...". Martin 14:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or use Investors of the United States 132.205.45.148 17:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely non-standard and it is also non-sensical as they didn't "invent" the United States. No-one would use such a term in an article. "American" is normal English and everyone knows what it means, including those who say that it might confuse some imaginary reader (they never seem to say that they were confused personally). CalJW 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:American inventors CalJW 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Courtland 01:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Hiding talk 14:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Darwinek 14:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Honbicot 23:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, reluctantly I prefer the "U.S." versions of all these cats, but we should pick one or the other and they've all been going to "American". --Trovatore 23:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. Intended rename does not match the scope of the category. American refers to two entire continents and 33 different nationalities. U.S. only refers to 1 nationality on 1 continent. So unless the category is intended to cover the entire western hemisphere, the name should not be changed. dunerat 09:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)dunerat[reply]

  Comment Technically this is correct, but the usage to refer to both North and South America is almost always "Americas" with each being referred to specifically by "North American" and "South American" or together as "North and South American", while the term "American" is colloquially equivalent to "of the United States". A key question come from this: Is "American" = "United States" colloquially almost everywhere English is spoken? A second question also arises: Should the title of the category reflect colloquial usage or technically correct usage? Courtland 13:18, 15 November 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 21:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian categories should have "Wikipedians" in their titles for clarity. --BorgHunter (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Yes, Trekkie Wikipedians sounds good. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 12:28, 10 November 2005 (CDT)}

Rename as per nom. - TexasAndroid 20:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Altogether - One more useless vanity cat full of links to vanity pages. Absurd; no real, credible encyclopedia would ever allow this sort of rubbish, much less the extent to which it dominates here. 12.73.196.42 03:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to ... — Category:Wikipedia:Trekkie Wikipedians. This will remove it from the main article categorization space. If the person who made the last comment would think for a moment, also, no "credible encyclopedia" would accept anonymous input either, would they ... but "incredible" ones might. Courtland 18:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it won't. There is no "Category:Wikipedia" namespace, only "Category". So let's not be redundant and have a redundant "Wikipedia" redundantly in the name. Radiant_>|< 16:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite right, I used the wrong terminology ... rather it would place the category in the Wikipedia-related subcategories, which is a set of subcategories dealing with issues outside the main article space by and large. Courtland 18:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, would the actual fans prefer "Trekkie Wikipedians" or "Wikipedia Star Trek fans"? Radiant_>|< 16:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a Star Trek fan and I prefer "Star Trek fan"; however, in reading a bit of the material here on Wikipedia on the matter I think that diehard fans tend to prefer Trekkie over either Star Trek or Trekker, but that's a conclusion based on skim-reading here an not on conversations with actual fans. Courtland 18:45, 12 November 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 20:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for speedy renaming to Category:Commander Keen characters, by --Dangerous-Boy 06:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection. Several things in this category aren't characters. We could theoretically have a CK cat and subcat it for characters/machinery/locations etc, but the cat isn't large enough to necessitate that. Radiant_>|< 14:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also object, doesn't seem to fit any speedy criteria. Hiding talk 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • GOod point. Moved here, and my vote to not rename stands. Radiant_>|< 13:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm against the renaming. And if it absolutely must be renamed, i'd like "Commander Keen Universe" instead -- De Zeurkous, root@zgsnet.xs4all.nl, Thu Nov 10 17:07:28 UTC 2005
        • Object per Radiant!. Some of the things in that category aren't characters. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 12:26, 10 November 2005 (CDT)}
          • Just to clarify, I still object per Radiant! Hiding talk 14:02, 11 November 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 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary; we have the User namespace and Category:Wikipedians already. --BorgHunter (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it per nom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:51, 16 November 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 20:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless category, though some of its sub categories may be valid on their own but theres no need to group conjoined twins and celebrity duos under a parent category. Arniep 12:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is useful for Wikipedia statistics and bots, to separate biography articles about one person and about small groups of people. For example, while single person articles have a set birth and death date (of the person), normally this does not apply for groups, where everybody has different birth and death dates. -- Mkill 23:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to move into the Wikipedia namespace to Category:Wikipedia:Multiple people or (better) Category:Wikipedia:Biography articles about more than one person. This is based on the notion that the primary utility is for Wikipedia and editors and not for readers. Courtland 23:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category is not pointless, because there are really a lot of articles about multiple people. --U.U. 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there are articles about multiple people, it's not a useful categorization, just like "tall people" isn't. Radiant_>|< 10:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quirky and fun Honbicot 23:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Radiant! --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 13:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• (I didn't place a vote with my nom), Delete Multiple people is not correct usage of the english language without a context. If keeping it should be renamed to Category:Articles about multiple people regarded as one entity. Arniep 17:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename, it is useful to have a list of articles that need to be split, when it is empty it should be deleted. Martin 12:47, 17 November 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 20:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is one article in this category (for which an anon. editor seems to have created it), and it's difficult to see that it could be much expanded, if at all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the CfD notice after it was removed. The person who removed it has added a handful of articles, most of them clearly not appropriate (people with mixed backgrounds of which only a quarter or less was French, people with no French ancestry who happened to have been born in Paris, etc.). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They were actually, clearly appropriate. If you are Mexican and born in France, you have both nationalities, therefore you are a French-Mexican, the same way that you are French even if you don't have "French blood". The category is part of a series of Mexicans with various European/Middle-Eastern descents (or born in those countries). --Vizcarra 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being born in most countries doesn't automatically make one a citizen; I understood that to be the case in France — do you have grounds for saying otherwise?. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I understood" are not grounds. --Vizcarra 18:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Being born in France to Mexican parents makes you a French National, a French Citizen, and a Mexican National, but not a Mexican Citizen. You would have to apply for Mexican Citizenship to become one. Source: Citizenship Laws of the World France recognizes Dual Citizenship, but Mexico does not have any provisions on the matter, except for drawing an explicit distinction between Citizenship and Nationality. dunerat 09:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)dunerat[reply]
    • Comment Mexican National, if yo-u're born in France, still makes one a Mexican, hence French-Mexican. Antonio King of Tabloids Martin
• Delete. As per nomination. dunerat 09:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)dunerat[reply]

"Per nomination"? Nomination claims "one article", there are twelve articles now. "It is difficult to see how it could be expanded", the author of this nomination is probably unaware that Mexico had a French government once. The article is not about citizens with both citizenships, so comments on the matter are not relevant. The article is about Mexicans of French origin. --Vizcarra 17:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep if Viz things this is usefull - I see no harm. He allready proofed wrong(?) the "one article"-claim. Maybe review in half a year or so. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep regardless of how flawed "bi-national" categories may be, if we have Category:Irish-Americans we can have this too. And regarding Dunerat's comment, Mexico does allow dual citizenship (since the early 1990s I believe) Proof of this is that I am a dual citizen and I'm from Mexico. The distinction between citizen and national is correct though, and its even in the constitution.-- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see what the big deal is. In the United States it very common for people to consider themselves Italian-Americans, German-Americans and Mexican-Americans. It doesn't mean that they have dual citizenship, it only means that the persons ancestry is recognized. If the category French-Mexican is deleted, then it is only fair that the categories I've mentioned and many others are delt with in the sameway. Tony the Marine 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if the analogy is with "Italian-Americans" et al, then first of all the category should be renamed with the hyphen, Category:French-Mexicans, and should refer to Mexicans of French descent, not vice versa (a French person of Mexican descent would be Mexican-French). Now, whether those terms are actually used, I don't know; I don't recall ever hearing them. I don't really think we should be making up words in Wikipedia. --Trovatore 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Trovatore has a point, French-Mexicans should be Mexicans of French anstery. Tony the Marine 19:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So are people in Category:Mexican Americans. How many of those American born and who live in the US you think have applied for Mexican citizenship? My guess is zero. In Mexico people of non-Spanish/non-native origin are referred to as "Franco-mexicanos", "ruso-mexicanos", "italo-mexicanos", etc. --Vizcarra 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP After all, they are people of French descent or origin who were born in, or immigrated to Mexico. The French-born people in the category are Naturalized Mexicans, meaning they are Mexicans either way. >>> Sagitario 21:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP If not, other categories such as Italian American, Jewish American, etc. should be nominated for deletion as well! Antonio Queen of the Tabloids Martin 9:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP In Mexico there is dual-nationality (but that is not the main point here)... not a problem, besides the article can be expanded, since this people have certain towns founded by them and they like to stick around them, for example, Santa Rosalia in Baja California Sur. There is a lot of possibilities for expansions... EjidoMike 16:54, 17 November 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.