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 20:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a useful category. Delete, or listify. MakeRocketGoNow 23:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. and listify as suggested above -Mayumashu 02:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No reasons for deletion given by nominator. This category was kept and renamed after a previous nomination. CalJW 10:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although did we get the right name last time. Is drunk driving the legal offence people are convicted of? Would driving under the influence be better, or perhaps driving whilst drunk? Drunk driving just sounds a little off to my ear. I do however disagree that this is not a useful category, it is a useful subcategory of Category:Criminals Hiding talk 12:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Yeah, drunk driving is bad, but it's not a notable or uncommon thing to be convicted of. What's next, Category:People convicted of speeding in school zones? Category:People convicted of blocking the box? (not to trivialize drunk driving, but there's gotta be a floor somewhere...) Postdlf 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As Postdlf says, it isn't so notable or uncommon, so it would be a pretty long (but absurd) list. I think long lists are easier to manage with categories, or we could entirely do away with the category and not listify. ---Aude 18:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and list per Postdlf and per my comments on the previous cfd. siafu 00:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. — Instantnood 18:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should we have a category for people convicted in every crime there is? /Slarre 15:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having driven while drunk is usually not one of the five most notable things about an individual. There comes a point when more categories make things harder, not easier, to find. For example it seems to me that George W. Bush could do with getting rid of this category so that article's more useful categories are easier to find. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems unlikely that this category draws any useful link between its articles or will be useful to readers. Also second Haukurth's comments. Palmiro | Talk 00:33, 13 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 20:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly capitalized. I already created another with proper syntax Category:Montana state parks. — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC) delete for the reasons given and use newly formed cat -Mayumashu 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Hiding talk 17:49, 10 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 20:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the following subcategories:

• Category:District of Columbia geography --> Category:Washington, D.C. geography
  • Note: this listing should not affect the state geography subcategory renaming proposal below, except to decide which one gets kept and then renamed.
• Category:Government of the District of Columbia --> Category:Government of Washington, D.C.
• Category:Images of District of Columbia --> Category:Images of Washington, District of Columbia
• Category:History of the District of Columbia --> Category:Washington, D.C. history

These should all be merged because there is no rhyme or reason for keeping parallel category structures for what is for all relevant purposes the same topic. From Washington, D.C.: "The District of Columbia and the city of Washington are coextensive and are governed by a single municipal government, so for most practical purposes they are considered to be the same entity." District of Columbia is a mere redirect to Washington, D.C.. Because these are not treated or maintained as separate article topics, these should then not be maintained as separate category structures.

This category division was previously discussed here but left unresolved, simply because there was a lack of consensus as to which direction to merge. There was, however, a consensus to merge, and lack of agreement on the name is a poor reason to maintain a confusing and arbitrary separation and redundancy under two titles that our own articles do not observe.

The solution at present should simply be to merge to the categories that follow the parent article name. If that article is incorrectly named (on which I express no opinion here), then that is appropriately discussed on Talk:Washington, D.C.. If a change is made, only then should the categories follow suit. Similarly, if consensus is that Washington, D.C. should be split into two, rather than District of Columbia simply redirecting there, then that also should be discussed on the talk page and then the categories modified to follow the separation of content between the two articles. Postdlf 21:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild disagree - Although I admit there is a great deal of wanton duplication of parallel categories, there is some rational for having a separate parent category for the District vs. the city of Washington: namely that historically they were not the same thing. For example: there are a few articles (such as Alexandria County, D.C.) for historical divisions of D.C. that would not logically fit under a "Washington, D.C." parent category. Perhaps this should be proposed in the opposite way: eliminate all "Washington, D.C." categories in favor of "District of Columbia" categories. Doesn't categorization normally goes from general to specific? If there is duplication, then wouldn't it make sense to lean toward the general? In this case as the city was a subsection of the district, and now coterminous, then the District would be the general and Washington the specific. This would also solve the abbreviation problem. — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's an abbreviation problem when the abbreviation is part of the common name and is how the parent article is titled.
  • Yes, historically the District was greater than Washington, but that hasn't been the case since 1871 when Georgetown was annexed, and nothing that is not a part of Washington today has been part of the District since 1846. Considering how this is all grouped together under a unified history of Washington, D.C., I don't see any virtue in doing it differently in the categories.
  • As for whether all of them should be named differently, could we for now just follow the default of what the lead article was named to get consensus on merging them? I personally might even be convinced a rename is proper, but I think we should leave that more involved discussion for Talk:Washington, D.C. Postdlf 00:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to merging all now, and consider renaming separately. I still think that "District is Columbia" is preferable over "Washington, D.C." only because (as far as my logic goes) it is never wrong to place a City of Washington article under a "District" category, but it is sometimes (although probably extremely rarely) incorrect to place a District article under a "Washington" category. (A side note: as a native Columbian, I almost never refer to the place as "Washington" -- always as "the District" or "Dee-Cee".) — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Washington, D.C. and the District of Columbia are the same thing. These cats are redundant. "Washington, D.C." is the preferable form since it is most widely recognized by English speakers worldwide, although "History of District of Columbia" may be preferable because of the historical distinction between D.C. and the city of Washington. --D Monack 22:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - Multiple categories are duplicative. The categories should be consistent with how the article is named, "Washington, D.C.". The categories on Wikipedia Commons also use "Washington, D.C.", which is how the city is most widely known. ---Aude 00:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, my license plate says "Washington, D.C." and not "District of Columbia". ---Aude 00:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As does my driver's license. Evidence that the govt. of the "District of Columbia" recongnizes "Washington, D.C." as the more common usage — not that that should be decisive in this vote. --D Monack 01:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, not the same thing. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would a Category:Historical District of Columbia, a sub category of Category:Washington, D.C. help to hold all those articles which would not naturally fit in the parent? Hiding talk 12:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea, but why not just use Category:Washington, D.C. history as we had before? We do just have a single article, History of Washington, D.C., to cover the topic... Postdlf 13:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was making the suggestion so as to have a place to house such articles as Alexandria County, D.C., which was noted above as being ill placed in Category:Washington, D.C.. Hiding talk 14:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also expect to find such articles in Category:Washington, D.C. history, and advise against making the categories so specific and perhaps redundant. ---Aude 15:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I get it. Yeah, I'll agree to the merge with the same motivation, that there should be a common name, although I lean towards Category:District of Columbia I'll settle either way for the sake of an argument. Hiding talk 17:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE, reverse merge to District of Columbia as DC is more inclusive.
  • History of DC is much better than History of Washington DC
  • DC matches statewise categories, Washington matches citywise categories. If Washington DC is used in the statewise heirarchies, it would encourage the production of city based categories for which there should be no precedant set.
  • DC has made a bid for statehood, not the city. Should it come to pass, there would be a state legislature established. If DC is instead retroceded to Maryland, then all the city categories would bave to be rebuilt properly instead of being along statewise lines.
  • 132.205.45.148 17:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: (1) Why should it be filed under statewide categories? D.C. isn't a state. (2) There's plenty of precedent for city categories (cf. Category:Chicago, Illinois, Category:New York City, Category:Paris, Category:Mexico City, etc.) (3) D.C. and Washington, D.C. are both trying to achieve statehood; they're two names for the same thing. (4) If D.C. achieves statehood or retrocession to Maryland, the category names will all have to change no matter what we name the category now, so how should that be relevant? --D Monack 21:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: For NYC and Chicago, they are subcats of their respective states, or even counties. Granted, DC is not a state, but it was/is/(could be again?) a higher level of organization than a city -- and because they are coterminous now, then the category should be DC-based, rather than Washington-based in a top-down organization scenario. As for statehood, it is just speculative right now, but if we want to engage in speculation, then it is theoretically possible (U.S. Constitution art. I sec. 8) for Virginia to give Arlington back to the District of Columbia, in which case it may not become part of the city of Washington. A more likely possibility: if Congress gave most of the current residential/business areas of the District back to Maryland, it could still withold a core government area that would still be the District of Columbia, and then abolish all city government (this would require a "Washington, Maryland" category system, I presume). In all of these cases, NOT merging into a Washington-only-based category system seems the most useful. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both category:Washington, D.C. and category:District of Columbia. Although the city and the district has now one government, they are not the same entity. Geographically they did not always overlap in the entirety of their history. — Instantnood 12:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DC didn't get home rule (a mayor and city council) until the 1970s, so when did the city of Washington have a separate government from the District? And how does your observation reconcile with the fact that we only keep a single article for Washington and the District? Other than the Virginia land, which has been gone since 1846, what was once part of the District that was never part of the city of Washington? Postdlf 13:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The city of Washington had an elected mayor before 1871. Georgetown and Washington County were not part of the city until they were annexed in 1895. — Instantnood 18:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
      • But they were annexed, and so Gtown and Wash. Cty became part of Washington, D.C. as a city and as a topic. I didn't know about Washington having a mayor back then (one of the other D.C. articles is incomplete/misleading on this issue), but please note that to get information on Washington mayors, Georgetown mayors, and District of Columbia mayors, one simply goes to a single article—List of mayors of Washington, D.C.. Once again, maybe that article should be split, but that should be discussed on the appropriate article talk page prior to the creation of a split category system; the categories should simply reflect the outcome of the article editorial decisions. Postdlf 19:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source for List of mayors of Washington, D.C. is likely http://www.h-net.org/~dclist/timeline1.html, which I've found to reputable. Though, that article is somewhat misleading as it doesn't explain the role of the 'mayor' during those earlier time periods. Walter Washington is widely considered the first, elected mayor of Washington, D.C. But that's aside the point here, to keep the categories consistent with the article names. ---Aude 19:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:images of District of Columbia as category:images of the District of Columbia, and category:images of Washington, District of Columbia as category:images of Washington, D.C.. — Instantnood 18:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the categories should reflect present day geopolitical boundaries. Georgetown, D.C., Washington County, D.C. are all part of Washinton, D.C. history and as such any related images or articles should go in that category. If we want a separate articles on "District of Columbia" that explains these nuances, (and associated categories), let's discuss that at Talk:Washington, D.C.. For now let's keep the categories consistent with what the articles are named. ---Aude 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In response to various items: The District of Columbia does not have "home rule." It is a federal district managed directly by the federal government. The City of Washington, DC cannot become a state, as there would then be two States of Washington, one of which was only a city. If the District of Columbia were to become a state, it would be the State of Columbia, with its capital at Washington. The District of Columbia should not by filed under statewide categories, as it is not a state. From a historical, referential, and sensical standpoint, the reverse merge is better. dunerat 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)dunerat[reply]
  • Once again, the article is Washington, D.C. to which District of Columbia is a mere redirect. As long as that remains true, the categories should conform. Postdlf 15:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, if one edits the Washington, D.C. article, he gets a "This page is 51 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." message. Perhaps a separate D.C. article is not a bad idea? --Eoghanacht 15:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe. But let's discuss that on Talk:Washington, D.C.. For now, let's merge to the categories that follow the article name, and then if an editorial consensus is reached on the Wash, DC talk page to maintain separate articles, create a separate D of C category structure that follows the division of content between the two articles. Right now, the division is an arbitrary mess because there is nothing to guide it. For example, the articles on the ANCs, which report directly to the city council, are in the Gov't of DC category, not the Wash, DC gov't category. Postdlf 15:58, 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 20:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Build myself as I work to eliminate red categories from the year structures. As I continued working, realized that the name did not match the other similar articles in Category:Northern Indian Ocean tropical cyclone seasons. Rename to match. - TexasAndroid 20:24, 9 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 20:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category was replaced by Category:Spirituality stubs per discussion. Request speedy delete. — Richard_RDF^talk 20:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the wrong page, my friend. I'll speedy delete this one since it was on my to-do list anyway, but in future, take this type of thing to WP:SFD. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! It's a good thing you had my back on this one. I seem to have kept winding up in the wrong places. Thanks, Good Buddy! >;-o) — Richard_RDF^talk 01:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any time ;) Grutness...wha? 23:58, 10 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 20:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category and Category:Harvard football below were created yesterday by User:Mike Selinker, but since they were so sparsely populated Mike and I agreed that merging them into the new Category:Ivy League football would be preferable. I've already moved the relevant articles; both categories are empty. Chick Bowen 19:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Please do this.--Mike Selinker 20:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. Thanks! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{02:21, 10 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 20:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category and Category:Yale football above were created yesterday by User:Mike Selinker, but since they were so sparsely populated Mike and I agreed that merging them into the new Category:Ivy League football would be preferable. I've already moved the relevant articles; both categories are empty. Chick Bowen 19:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Deleted. Thanks! -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{02:21, 10 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 20:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only article is well categorized otherwise, and the next Pacific season to have a category is 1991. Also, don't really see the potential for additional entries in the category. - TexasAndroid 19:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. If there is a need to list earlier storms, then maybe a catch all cat of Category:Pre 1991 Pacific typhoons could be created. Vegaswikian 23:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT I don't see how you can say there isn't potential for more entries. Pacific Typhoons are well documented in Imperial Records of Japan and China. 132.205.45.148 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. I created this category, but mostly to test out my template and to see if it would work out. Older storms should get articles where appropriate, and they should be categoriezed, but it doesn't necessarily have to be done by century. Jdorje 17:49, 10 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 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. - EurekaLott 14:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - Speedy*. No way anybody could know how individuals of different religions have voted, even if it was relevant to anything; this data is not and could not be asked by election offices. At best, is a poll-based "random sample", extrapolated; at worst, guesswork by whoever created the Cat. In either case, obviously posted for POV reasons based on article content. 12.73.195.168 15:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the quicker, the better. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - suitable for an article discussing relationship between religious demographics and voting patterns, but completely useless as a "category". MisfitToys 18:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with above. Joshbaumgartner 00:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, I'm sold, seems a useless categorisation. Hiding talk 17:49, 10 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 Speedy rename, essentially a typo. Martin 17:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Manual of style, "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country". This is a category, but the same standards should apply. BrianSmithson 14:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename. -- Reinyday, 15:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. MisfitToys 18:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. -Mayumashu 02:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename Hiding talk 17:49, 10 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 20:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this category is too ambiguous. In fact, the category's description links to a disambiguation page. --Brunnock 14:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• At the very least, a category which includes both genealogy and IMAX venues needs some cleaning up. MisfitToys 18:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you clean up a category that doesn't have a definition? --Brunnock 15:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree that it is too vague. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:35, 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 Rename. Martin 14:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horseracing wasn't included in the recent renaming of sport categories because it wasn't in Category:Sports by country as the time. We might as well standard the form of "horseracing" used. I don't think this is a variants of English issue; usage is probably mixed in most countries. In any cases, Japan is not an English speaking country and I will assume Australians aren't greatly attached to the hyphen unless some Australians tell us otherwise.

• Category:American horseracing --> Category:Horseracing in the United States
• Category:Australian horse-racing --> Category:Horseracing in Australia
• Category:British horseracing --> Category:Horseracing in the United Kingdom
• Category:Canadian horseracing --> Category:Horseracing in Canada
• Category:French horseracing --> Category:Horseracing in France
• Category:Hong Kong horseracing --> Category:Horseracing in Hong Kong
• Category:Irish horseracing --> Category:Horseracing in the Republic of Ireland
• Category:Japanese horse racing --> Category:Horseracing in Japan
• Category:New Zealand horseracing --> Category:Horseracing in New Zealand

Rename all CalJW 06:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about doing similar with Category:Racehorses.Eric 58.84.88.11 07:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. Horses should be classified in the same way as people. CalJW 16:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, absolutely. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Hiding talk 17:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 00:38, 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 Speedy delete. Martin 22:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. candidate for a speedy deletion I d say. all like cats have been done away with. add to that there s only one member populating it and that it redirects to a list of famous Canadians. -Mayumashu 03:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Established to be an unacceptable type of category. CalJW 06:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, CSD#G4. Radiant_>|< 14:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Categories shouldn't have the qualifier of "famous" or "notable" because we're not going to have articles on individuals who haven't achieved some degree of fame or notability. We might as well have Category:Canadians who have Wikipedia articles. Postdlf 23:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Hiding talk 17:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete; Postdlf is right in that some degree of fame or notability is inherent in the fact that the person has an article on Wikipedia at all. Though I suspect the user who created this actually thought doing what he did would just automagically add Shane Sutcliffe to List of Canadians. Bearcat 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• How's about we rename it to Category:Canadians who have Wikipedia articles in this category?  ; ) Postdlf 21:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or how's about we just kill it, since Shane Sutcliffe is already filed in Category:Canadian boxers? ;-) Bearcat 23:57, 10 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 Category:Catalan writers rename Category:Catalan language writers as nominated --Kbdank71 19:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Changed to Category:Catalan language writers, a best definition, a few minutes after created. Sorry.--Joan sense nick 02:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Comment. Shouldn't that be Category:Catalan-language writers with a hyphen? Valiantis 13:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Without the hyphen, it sounds like they're writing the Catalan language and not in the Catalan language. —BrianSmithson 14:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There should be separate categories for writers who are Catalans/from Catalonia, and writers who write/wrote in the Catalan language. — Instantnood 15:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Catalan writers that use spanish language are included in "spanish writers". Another category is not useful, since "catalan-language writers" is also a subcategory of "spanish writers". But some present valencian or balearic writers in catalan language can feel unconfortable under "catalan writers". So remove this one, and rename "Catalan-language writers" using the hyphen. --Joan sense nick 22:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I think two categories would create too much redundancy. ---Aude 00:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is it too much redundancy? There are writers from England writing in languages other than English, and writers from elsewhere writing in English. — Instantnood 13:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How many writers in Category:Catalan language writers are not Catalan writers? Writers from England and English-language writers are not good comparisons — There is a substantial number of English-language speakers who are not from England (83%). However, only 10% of the 10.5 million Catalan language speakers are not from Catalonia or Valencia, most of whom are from Spain's Balearic Islands, offshore of Catalonia. I don't think there are so many Catalan-language writers not from these places, to justify two categories. ---Aude 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer keeping them as two categories as long as the two categories do not entirely overlap. I guess in modern times there are some writers from Catalonia who do not write in Catalan, or are not famous for their works in Catalan, but other languages. — Instantnood 18:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I don't have great preference one way or the other. In practicality, I don't know how many writers would fit in the respective categories, how distinct the lists would be, etc. I think that's what should drive the decision. ---Aude 18:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Aprox. half of the Catalan-language writers currently listed are not from Catalonia. Probably some of they consider themselves as catalans, but most valencians or balearic do not. In spite of this, they use to consider themselves Catalan-language speakers, and members of a generic "catalan culture".--Joan sense nick 23:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How many writers in Category:Catalan language writers are not Catalan writers? you say? just have a look to the Catalan Wikipedia and see: [Category:Catalan language writers http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Escriptors_en_catal%C3%A0] 101 [Category:Catalan writers http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Escriptors_catalans] 94 Isn't that enought? Are categories to categorize or to everybody to feel comfortable with?--Friviere 11:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. — Instantnood 08:29, 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 delete --Kbdank71 19:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to remove captital and improve clarity. CalJW 01:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a plausible category? Surely every convicted murderer who entered a not guilty plea should be in this category? Delete on that basis. Hiding talk 16:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Would this be like about Florida where there's a time limit on appeals, and other jurisdictions where you cannot appeal with new evidence even though it exonerates you, because your trial was procedurally correct? 132.205.45.110 18:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too vague. Every conviction in which the defendant pleaded "not guilty" was "disputed" (and even some where they pleaded "guilty"). Category:Overturned murder convictions would be worthwhile, however. Postdlf 13:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What do we mean by "disputed"? There are other cases where the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt (e.g. Robert Blake) and the accused waS acquitted. By the law of the land, he is not guilty and there's no dispute, though some still suspect him. Would he be a "disputed" murderer? I don' think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to be an arbitrar of "disputed". ---Aude 00:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Prisons are full of innocent men. siafu 00:40, 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 Rename. Martin 11:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are cows, others are bulls (Ferdinand, Babe the Blue Ox, etc). MisfitToys 00:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A previous nomination to this effect (Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_3#Category:Fictional_cows) resulted in no consensus. I vote rename to Category:Fictional bovines—see the previous debate for what's wrong (in various people's opinion) with all other options. —Blotwell 10:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the vote seems to have been 5-1 for renaming last time; I'm not sure where the "non consensus" comes from. I'll add a note that cow and ox both redirect to cattle, while bovine redirects to bovinae. MisfitToys 18:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to cattle or bovines, I don't care which, both are better than cows. Radiant_>|< 14:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME to Category:Fictional bovines, so that it can cover oxen and such that many people think of as cows. 132.205.45.110 18:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Radiant Hiding talk 17:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as "cattle." (Although "bovine" is close, there really is no good gender-inclusive term for a single member of the bos genus. Why is this, by the way?) &#151; Eoghanacht ^talk 17:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "cattle", so as to include my fairy cowbull (who knew there were so many articles on fictional cattle anyway?). siafu 00:42, 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.