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 for reasons stated. Syrthiss 14:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this cat would be better off in the cats dealing with the individual orders. Necrothesp 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why this category couldn't be kept as a parent to the categories on individual orders? Grutness...wha? 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is not a single article devoted to the history of any mendicant order and anyway, "mendicant" is miscapitalized—either it is an adjective, "mendicant orders," or a proper noun, "Mendicant Orders."-choster 23:37, 3 February 2006 (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. Syrthiss 14:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as below: unnecessary abbreviation. Seancdaug 21:48, 1 February 2006 (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, expansion of acronyms. Syrthiss 14:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary abbreviation. Seancdaug 21:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to match main article, TurboGrafx 16 ×Meegs 11:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE The category should be renamed Category:PC Engine family, as it encompases NEC's PC Engine family of consoles. The article is at PC Engine not TG16. You'll note the articles about the PC-FX and SuperGrafx (PC Engine 2). 132.205.45.110 20:45, 3 February 2006 (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. Syrthiss 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into much larger (and abbrevation free) duplicate. Sumahoy 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Bhoeble 09:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge —Mirlen 23:28, 4 February 2006 (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 21:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only article so far is Loxie & Zoot. --(trogga) 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Give it a few months to fill up, if nothing happens bring it back here. Arniep 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. That a category has few entries is only a reason to delete it if it doesn't have the potential to expand in the future, and that doesn't seem to apply here; nudism is unusual and noteworthy enough in modern society to be worth having a few categories for. It couldn't hurt to wait a while longer and see if any other characters are added to the category; if none are in the future, we can always delete it later, no harm done. Plus most of the "fictional characters" categories are currently very underpopulated: see Category:Fictional athletes (1 entry!), Category:Fictional Mormons (1 entry), Category:Fictional golems (2 entries), Category:Plant characters, etc. A minor awareness-raising campaign would probably help get people to add more characters to categories like this. Whether there are enough fictional nudists out there to merit a category like this, I don't know; problem is, the only way to find out is to leave the category be for a bit longer. -Silence 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just added Ugly Naked Guy, and if I can think of one, others might be able to as well.--Mike Selinker 00:40, 8 February 2006 (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 and rename as nominated. Syrthiss 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to match all other categories in Category:Racecar drivers by nationality. There's an odd redirect page from the Australian page that gives no explanation why it might be different.--Mike Selinker 19:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the adjective form of Liechtenstein? Liechtensteinian? Liechtensteiner? Or just Liechtenstein? - EurekaLott 01:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person from Liechtenstein is a Liechtensteiner. But all the Liechtenstein people categories are just "Liechtenstein".--Mike Selinker 21:10, 2 February 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy since there were issues raised. Vegaswikian 19:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen is required a compound between "Canadian" and "Americans". adnghiem501 09:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename. New name is ungrammatical. A hyphen is used for adjectives, not nouns. DHN 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some adjectives for the names of countries connected with Americans are still used with a hyphen for categories. I've deliberately disagreed changing a new name. In other words, I've seen Category:French-Americans was renamed to Category:French Americans by a user's request. French is an adjective used to describe Americans as a noun. adnghiem501 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hyphenated American categories are, I have always assumed, for people with American nationality who are also notable for their particular ethnicity. What are the defining characteristics of Canadian ethnicity? Is this ethnically French-Canadian or ethnically Anglophone Canadian? What about the many Hyphenated Canadians; do they become Polish-Canadian-Americans etc. if they take US citizenship? The cat has no definition in it and there is no corresponding article Canadian American or Canadian-American (or similar) which strongly suggests that there is no such thing as a Canadian-American (with or without hyphen). (Currently the cat includes people born in Canada who later took American citizenship, people born in America whose parents were Canadian, people who live in America but retain their Canadian nationality, and numerous other combinations). Valiantis 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the old category but don't rename it. adnghiem501 23:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgive my ignorance on this but aren't Canadians Americans anyway by virtue of living in North America? :P Green Giant 23:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Keep unrenamed (this is a national origin and not necessarily an ethnicity category) from discussion below, the hyphen makes the name an adjective and not a noun Mayumashu 03:13, 8 February 2006 (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 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy since there were issues raised. Vegaswikian 19:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen is required a compound between "Vietnamese" and "Americans". adnghiem501 09:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename. New name is ungrammatical. A hyphen is used for adjectives, not nouns. DHN 18:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A hypen is used for adjectives, not nouns". Where did you get that? There are even *people* whose last names (surely the ultimate in nouns) are hypenated. 12.73.195.189 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some adjectives for the names of countries connected with Americans are still used with a hyphen for categories. I've deliberately disagreed changing a new name. In other words, I've seen Category:French-Americans was renamed to Category:French Americans by a user's request. French is an adjective used to describe Americans as a noun. adnghiem501 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Vietnamese is an adjective. Arniep 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: Vietnamese-Americans can be confused as an adjective, if you rename. I suggest you deny this. Vietnamese Americans are Vietnamese people who live in, were born in, or are citizens of the U.S., and must not be hyphenated. adnghiem501 03:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't rename: My objection was that Vietnamese American is a noun. If we hyphenize it, it becomes an adjective. DHN 01:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename A hyphen should not be used when describing Americans of Vietnamese descent. A hyphen should only be used when referring inter-nation topics such as Vietnamese-American relations. — J3ff 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename. I looked into this a while back. Current style guides most often recommend dropping the hyphen between the two names, such as "African American" instead of "African-American." [1](search for hyphen). Some recommend hyphenating when used as an adjective, but not when used as a noun. On the other hand, compounds with name fragments, such as Afro-American and Indo-European, are recommended to be hyphenated.--Nectar 19:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• do not rename. "Vietnamese" is adj describing noun "Americans". This is not a category on people claiming to be both.--Jiang 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please nominate at Category:Canadian Americans to Category:Canadian-Americans, as well as this section. adnghiem501 02:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do not rename name needs to be a noun Mayumashu 03:18, 8 February 2006 (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 (and I don't have a feel for which solution is better). Syrthiss 13:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategory with only one entry. Merkur only made two cars, the XR4ti, and the Scorpio. Merkur Scorpio is a redirect to Ford Scorpio. There is no room for more growth. Should be merged. Pc13 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Ford category is large and will get larger. The number of brands is small, and each merits a category for the sake of consistency. Bhoeble 09:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – would Category:Mercury vehicles be a more appropriate destination? ×Meegs 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a possibility. Merkurs were sold through Lincoln-Mercury dealerships, and there are less vehicles in the Mercury category, which would adress Bhoeble's concern. --Pc13 13:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way Category:Ford vehicles is set up is unusual, with Ford-branded models in the top level category and all other brands subcategorized. Compare that to Category:General Motors vehicles where GM and Chevrolet are peers, and there are a few stragglers that aren't subcategorized at all. It's Ford's weird setup that makes the proposed awkward for me. Unless we're going to rock that boat, though, I'll weakly advocate that we keep the category. ×Meegs 06:57, 5 February 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only sub cat of Category:World War II battleships to not fit format per naming policy. Rename. Josh 18:20, 1 February 2006 (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 with modification. Syrthiss 13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons of naming consistency and abbreviation avoidance, primarily. – Seancdaug 17:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are we going to have Americans in Canada, Americans in Brazil, Americans in France, Irish people in England, French people in Australia, Swedish people in France? Arniep 01:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is some value in having a category for every permutation of expatriate in the encyclopedia.-choster 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Americans in the United Kingdom to include deceased individuals. Arniep 01:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Americans in the United Kingdom as per Arniep. This is a combination of much more than average significance. CalJW 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Americans in the United Kingdom; per Arniep and CalJW. —Mirlen 23:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if there is no deletion. Personally, I think categories like this are far, far, far, far, far, far too granular. I think they're distinctions without difference, trivia, and, at most, onanistic. However, if the question is whether to rename it or not, yes: there is no way we can take this even further and make it about living people, and then there is the naming convention. Geogre 00:55, 9 February 2006 (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 to Drug-free, two grammar errors for the price of one cfd. Syrthiss 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are highly populated. I'm kinda hoping against hope that this does not devolve into a vote to delete both, because I'm really just trying to clean up the duplication here. Unfortuneately, it likely will. Whichever, the second is the more gramatically correct, and there's really no reason for both to be in use. - TexasAndroid 16:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into since the second one has the gramatically correct title. --Vizcarra 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. I believe one or the other already survived a delete vote a few months back. All non-silly user cats should be allowable. Valiantis 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Both are sending the same point across: they're drug-free. Since the second one is more gramatically correct, we should merge the ungramatically correct list into the correct one, as proposed. —Mirlen 23:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Drug-Free Wikipedians suggests Wikipedians who are free of drugs, but without the hyphen it sounds like a command - i.e. Drug all Free Wikipedians :P Green Giant 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge, trivial spelling error. If we hold weeks-long votes for every single one of the hundreds of Wikipedia user categories that have a minor title error, it will be years before any semblance of consistency or coherency reaches many categories. -Silence 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this nom, speedy merge to Category:Drug-free Wikipedians instead. Why correct one grammatical error (lack of a dash) while not correcting another one (unnecessary capitalization)? Wikipedia categories are not capitalized except where they would be in normal conversation: it's "drug-free" ("Drug-free" at the start of a line), not "Drug-Free". -Silence 18:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. Hopefully it's not too late that this will cause a no-conscensous, but I would support this alternate renaming as an even more proper alternative. - TexasAndroid 20:04, 8 February 2006 (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 was speedy deleted. Syrthiss 20:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is 1) in a foreign language, and 2) an article, not a category Bluap 15:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Broken category doesn't appear technically in the criteria for Speedy Delete, but surely an Italian-language article in the category namespace is a speedy? Deborah-jl _Talk 17:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted as an attack page together with Category:Il Gabri; see the latter page's history for an explanation. - Mike Rosoft 14:42, 4 February 2006 (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 or rename as listed. Syrthiss 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with appropriate Monasteries in... category and delete. The abbey cats seem unnecessary. All abbeys are monasteries and a large number of monasteries are abbeys. The standard categorisation is Category:Monasteries by country.

• Category:Abbeys in Austria to Category:Monasteries in Austria
• Category:Abbeys in France to Category:Monasteries in France
• Category:Abbeys in Ireland to Category:Monasteries in Ireland
• Category:Abbeys in Italy to Category:Monasteries in Italy
• Category:Abbeys and priories in the United Kingdom to Category:Monasteries in the United Kingdom

Also rename the following cats:

• Category:Abbeys and priories in England to Category:Monasteries in England
• Category:Abbeys and priories in Northern Ireland to Category:Monasteries in Northern Ireland
• Category:Abbeys and priories in Scotland to Category:Monasteries in Scotland
• Category:Abbeys and priories in Wales to Category:Monasteries in Wales

Necrothesp 14:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In England and Wales in particular, abbeys are far better known for being churches, since almost all of them have not been monasteries since the 16th century. The vast majority of people would never consider places like Westminster Abbey as monasteries and wouldn't even be aware they ever had been. Grutness...wha? 05:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but the vast majority of abbeys in the category are indeed monasteries, operating or ruined, not solely churches like Westminster Abbey. -- Necrothesp 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a sensible and necessary change, considering the category as a whole. The current use of "Abbeys in.." ( or "Abbeys and Priories in... ") forces an awkward and artificial dislocation in categorisation when dealing with religious houses, which is what these are, and of which there are many more worldwide than churches in the UK that used to be abbeys. Some abbeys in the UK are indeed now churches; many others are stately homes; but "abbeys" by definition are monasteries, as per nominator. There is no reason why extra links and redirects can't clarify the individual UK exceptions, for which it is not worth spoiling the whole category.Staffelde 08:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom. Bhoeble 22:41, 3 February 2006 (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, bring a separate cfd discussion for entertainers who committed suicide in their XXs please. Syrthiss 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actors are covered by the Category:Entertainers who committed suicide family of categories. I just finished converting a number of red-cat articles from various "Actor Suicide" listings to the "Entertainer Suicide" listings. Then I discovered this one actor suicide category actually existed. But since it's the only one and is already covered by an existing set of categories, IMHO this one should be merged into the one that is more widely used. - TexasAndroid 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Overcategorisation. Valiantis 14:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. As per Valiantis. -- Necrothesp 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please. If you want to delete the second, fine. Set up a CFD on it, though it makes little sense to me to delete the one for 60s without deleting the rest of the ages. And the whole lot survived a CFD very recently. While I have no issue for/against that CFD being done again, I would really, really, not like this CFM to devolve into it and lose sight of the issue at hand, the one lonely actor suicide category. Also, given how divided that previous CFD was, a rerun of it deserves it's own CFD, with full tagging etc. To quietly delete just the 60s cat, without even tagging it for CFD (which I have no intention of doing) is improper. So please, if you want to trim out the age based suicide categories, please work up a separate CFD for it and please do not derail/detour this current one into an issue that has such potential to overshadow the current CFD. - TexasAndroid 15:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I agree it is overcat as well probably would say delete both, but as Texas said, that is for another CfD. Josh 18:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, overdeletionism. --Vizcarra 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to what? This is a merge proposal. If you want to rename you will need to suggest a new name. Valiantis 20:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Lini 12:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - What exactly is the relevance of having committed suicide in their 60's? Green Giant 23:28, 7 February 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something is illegal or not varies from time to time and place to place. The category system cannot express these subtleties. Cock fighting, which is in the category, is not illegal in Mexico and probably lots of other places, but boxing, which isn't, is illegal in at least one European country. Delete CalJW 10:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, POV magnet and systemic bias. >Radiant< 11:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bull fighting? Marskell 17:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - problem caused by inclusion of entire Category:Baiting. Now fixed. GCarty 15:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bull-baiting is not the same as Bull fighting. The first is illegal in most countries and involves baiting, the second is humans against bulls.

• Delete silly title per CalJW. Arniep 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sports illegal in most countries? GCarty 15:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and Comment This category is acceptable and accurate. In regard to baiting sports they are illegal in most countries with varying degrees of enforcement. I think if a sport is considered illegal in the vast majority of countries it should be included. SirIsaacBrock 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Imprecise and pov. Bhoeble 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI don't see how it would be a POV to consider mailbox baseball an illegal sport. I'm sure there are a variety of other sports which are consider vandalism, assault or endangerment by most countries laws. The problem here is not the category, but that some of the articles place under the category have questionable illegality, there are such sports that do not have questionable illegality and deserve this category.--BerserkerBen 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep how can it be POV? A sport is either legal or illegal there is no in-between. --Vizcarra 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Haven't you heard that there is more than one jurisdiction in the world? Merchbow 22:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I have. Last time in my MBA courses. Still we have Category:Criminals although some of them may have committed what is not considered a crime somewhere else. --Vizcarra 22:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a very poor analogy. People live in a particular jurisdiction in a particular period. A sport may be practiced in any jurisdiction at any time after it is invented. Bhoeble 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Illegal when and where? Golfcam 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well mailbox baseball and mailbox vandalism is covered in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1705, (in federal law since 1948) as punishable with $250,000 and/or up to 3 years in prison, per mailbox, I'm sure most other countries probably also cover the sport of destroying mailboxes as vandalism as well, either generally or with a specific law against it (like the US).--BerserkerBen 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Green Giant 23:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. - TexasAndroid 20:05, 8 February 2006 (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 Speedy delete, by RHaworth, created in error and creator wanted it deleted. Bobet 13:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty cat (so far) created by user:Oasiselec who is currently in the process of creating numerous advertising articles, presumably to be categorised in here once done. this bizzarely is a super-cat of "eletrical components" Delete Zunaid 10:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete now, but it seems to have been a redlink category until you created it (the first edit is adding the cfd notice). Just removing the one article from the category would've gotten rid of it :(. - Bobet 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn!Didn't know that. Sorry. Zunaid 10:05, 2 February 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding abbreviation. - EurekaLott 01:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom Choalbaton 08:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Josh 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Youngamerican 19:03, 2 February 2006 (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 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Kerowyn 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any chance that any cleanups from February 05 were removed when they weren't cleaned up (eg by vandals)? If so, would counter-vandals want the article relisted back in February 05? Andjam 01:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any subsequent relisting should go into the current month/day/year category, as its highly unlikely a page sat vandalized since Feb 05. I will say though that I've been forced to go back to January 05 to move things listed in Jan 06 to the appropriate year... wonder if i'll have to do that for Feb 05.  ALKIVAR™ 04:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Melaen 11:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --FlareNUKE 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know why this person voted keep, as there's no reason to keep it. All of the articles in it have since been cleaned up. Any subsequent cleanup would go to the most recent cleanup subcategory. Also, deleting would help remind people who accidentally put 'feb 2005' instead of 'feb 2006' {{User:Vacuum/sig}} 15:13, 5 February 2006 (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 21:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus already exists, see Peruvian Terrorists Descendall 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These people need to be organised like any other related group. The claim that there is a consensus to delete is false. Contrary to the statement in the selected link the main terrorists category survived all 4 of its previous nominations and the vote in its 5th nomination is currently 6 to 4 in favour of keeping. Choalbaton 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with the general category (a long way) below. CalJW 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, attack magnet. >Radiant< 11:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violation of WP:NPOV - 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' Cynical 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terrorism is definable, but people who have used this tactic are never going to be accepted to be labelled as such by many Wikipedians so the category cannot hope to be WP:NPOV. Arniep 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only other place to put them is in criminals, which presents the same (overstated) problems. Bhoeble 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apart from general fuzziness of the term it is not really apt term for Austria (AFAIK). Is Friedrich Adler terrorist because he shot Karl von Stürgkh? Or was he acting to save the world? I cannot see how Wikipedia could sucessfully solve this. Pavel Vozenilek 21:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Green Giant 00:23, 8 February 2006 (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 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus already exists, see Peruvian Terrorists Descendall 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These people need to be organised like any other related group. The claim that there is a consensus to delete is false. Contrary to the statement in the selected link the main terrorists category survived all 4 of its previous nominations and the vote in its 5th nomination is currently 6 to 4 in favour of keeping. Choalbaton 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with the general category (a long way) below. CalJW 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violation of WP:NPOV - 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' Cynical 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terrorism is definable, but people who have used this tactic are never going to be accepted to be labelled as such by many Wikipedians so the category cannot hope to be WP:NPOV. Arniep 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only other place to put them is in criminals, which presents the same (overstated) problems. Bhoeble 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all terrorist classifications. See my explanation on vote for parent category (big chance for war zone). Pavel Vozenilek 21:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Green Giant 00:24, 8 February 2006 (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 21:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus already exists, see Peruvian Terrorists Descendall 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These people need to be organised like any other related group. The claim that there is a consensus to delete is false. Contrary to the statement in the selected link the main terrorists category survived all 4 of its previous nominations and the vote in its 5th nomination is currently 6 to 4 in favour of keeping. Choalbaton 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with the general category (a long way) below. CalJW 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violation of WP:NPOV - 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' Cynical 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terrorism is definable, but people who have used this tactic are never going to be accepted to be labelled as such by many Wikipedians so the category cannot hope to be WP:NPOV. Arniep 01:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only other place to put them is in criminals, which presents the same (overstated) problems. Bhoeble 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all terrorist classifications. See my explanation on vote for parent category (big chance for war zone). Pavel Vozenilek 21:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Green Giant 00:24, 8 February 2006 (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 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus already exists, see Peruvian Terrorists Descendall 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These people need to be organised like any other related group. The claim that there is a consensus to delete is false. Contrary to the statement in the selected link the main terrorists category survived all 4 of its previous nominations and the vote in its 5th nomination is currently 6 to 4 in favour of keeping. Choalbaton 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with the general category (a long way) below. CalJW 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violation of WP:NPOV - 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' Cynical 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terrorism is definable, but people who have used this tactic are never going to be accepted to be labelled as such by many Wikipedians so the category cannot hope to be WP:NPOV. Arniep 01:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there will be much debate as each name is added to the list but this should not invalidate the categories existance. D'Iberville 03:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only other place to put them is in criminals, which presents the same (overstated) problems. Bhoeble 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arniep. Ardenn 07:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all terrorist classifications. See my explanation on vote for parent category (big chance for war zone). Pavel Vozenilek 21:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Green Giant 00:24, 8 February 2006 (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 21:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus already exists, see Peruvian Terrorists Descendall 00:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These people need to be organised like any other related group. The claim that there is a consensus to delete is false. Contrary to the statement in the selected link the main terrorists category survived all 4 of its previous nominations and the vote in its 5th nomination is currently 6 to 4 in favour of keeping. Choalbaton 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with the general category (a long way) below. CalJW 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violation of WP:NPOV - 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' Cynical 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lori Berenson is listed in this category, and she and her supporters ardently deny the charges against her. Even George W. Bush complained about her trial, and he's not known to be a great supporter of the rights of the defense in terrorism trials. Perhaps her inclusion is POV.--Descendall 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terrorism is definable, but people who have used this tactic are never going to be accepted to be labelled as such by many Wikipedians so the category cannot hope to be WP:NPOV. Arniep 01:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The only other place to put them is in criminals, which presents the same (overstated) problems. Bhoeble 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all terrorist classifications. See my explanation on vote for parent category (big chance for war zone). Pavel Vozenilek 21:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Green Giant 00:25, 8 February 2006 (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 20:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird and unused offshot of Category:Botany, currently an orphan, delete.--nixie 00:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. CalJW 10:56, 1 February 2006 (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 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusable category abakharev 00:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by author Do wikipedian categories have to be useful? Self-deprecating humour is (I feel) a positive addition to a project where ego is sometimes a problem. Andjam 01:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless. Choalbaton 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Try to keep user categories relevant to content please. CalJW 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, silly. >Radiant< 11:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not silly enough to be funny. -Silence 13:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categories either have to serve some functional purpose (e.g. [[Category:Wikimedia no licensing permissions]]) or some means of organising Wikipedians which strengthens the community (and therefore strengthens Wikipedia) - e.g. Wikipedians by browser/religion/country etc. Cynical 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...functional purpose...or some means of organising Wikipedians which strengthens the community." If only people felt that way about Userboxes. Marskell 17:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable. Arniep 01:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do user categories get verified? Andjam 09:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was under the impression that user categories had to be "useful", for example I interpreted Category:Rouge admins as non-"useful". I assumed that people are free to do what they like with user pages so long as it isn't harmful (eg advertising or inflammatory material). Given the consensus that's emerging, I'll reluctantly support its deletion. Andjam 09:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-useful. --Vizcarra 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, basically for the reasons stated above. Deletion of categories like this interferes with deletion of actually harmful categories. There are several other good reasons for not deleting this category, but it would take more than this page to explain them. Herostratus 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, does no harm. Thryduulf 10:41, 8 February 2006 (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.