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. Vegaswikian 23:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the two things are entirely different entities, I see no reason why they should be separate. Hbdragon88 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The three articles in category are songs, not compositions, and do not belong in the category. If you look at Category:Compositions by George Gershwin and Category:Compositions by Leonard Bernstein, you'll see that some of their musicals (along with their classical compositions) are present, even though individual songs from those musicals are not. I think part of the issue is that Cole Porter wrote both the music and lyrics to his songs. Usgnus 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Usgnus - Kleinzach 06:48, 9 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category --mastodon 20:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, unused, and unclear what articles it was intended to contain.--cjllw | TALK 08:04, 7 June 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. Vegaswikian 16:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, all articles already moved to (correctly named) Category:Criminologists. GregorB 19:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and common sense. NTDOY Fanboy 01:04, 6 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure these two things are not synonyms, and the members of the category seem to fall into the latter descriptor. "Israelites" seems to be a term that more frequently references ancient people than modern ones.--Mike Selinker 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. All those characters originate from modern Israel, not the Kingdom of Israel. User:Dimadick
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:46, 7 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather confusing category name. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. NTDOY Fanboy 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. By the way, NTDOY Fanboy, I fail to see anything in the nominator's wording which could be used to justify a delete. Could you explain why you want the category deleted? SeventyThree^(Talk) 17:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. Too obvious to require an explanation. --dm ^(talk) 15:37, 10 June 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 now empty. Vegaswikian 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the naming format is wrong. Now replaced. Luis María Benítez 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy - it's obvious, but not within the speedy criteria. Merge SeventyThree^(Talk) 17:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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. Vegaswikian 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is incorrectly named. Category:The arts was recently merged into Category:Arts for the same reason. This is being done in accordance with the categorization project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts.*Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. HAM 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Clubmarx 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --NTDOY Fanboy 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. -- 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. - Kleinzach 09:53, 7 June 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 relist; not tagged Tim! 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the list of adjectival forms of place names the adjective for Lesotho is is Basotho. Sotho is a language, and two thirds of the speakers live in South Africa.

• category:Sotho culture --> Category:Basotho culture
• category:Sotho music --> Category:Basotho music
• category:Lesothan literature --> Category:Basotho literature
• Category:Lesothan novels --> Category:Basotho novels
• Rename all CalJW 09:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename category:Sotho culture to category:Lesothan culture and category:Sotho music to category:Lesothan music which is two fewer renames. The existing Category:Basotho South Africans should not be renamed. I'd rather take the word of the BBC than that of the authors of the unsourced article referred to. Basutoland is a dim and distant memory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Use alternative rename per Angus McLellan. Honbicot 16:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Amendment The alternative rename is certainly clearer. If there are no objections before this item is closed, the list should be amended. CalJW 21:23, 8 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The change would reflect the same name as the main article in this category. The category also refers to articles in Portugal, not only Spain, plus the name Moorish is deemed controversial. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 07:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nominator.--cjllw | TALK 14:14, 6 June 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 relist Tim! 10:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split: Another hybrid CVG category. Split per the reasons I gave in this CfD. Please split into Category:Fantasy computer and video games and Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why not just put them into the more specific categories? Unless there is a reason someone might object, there is no reason to bring it here for a discussion. Vegaswikian 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am asking for the items to be moved to the new categories and this one to be deleted. That is the purpose of CfD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone needs to move them. I can't close since I don't know where they need to go. Vegaswikian 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and Split - No need for further categorisation of the MMORPG cat into genres -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 04:25, 13 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Category based on unfounded statements in the Chrono Trigger article. See Talk:Chrono Trigger#Xenogears. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: (I've been asleep until now.) Sorry, my bad. This is something I had "known" for years. I was surprised when it was actually challenged now as it was. So, certain I could find the reference again, I Googled for the information. And...it turns out that it was a widely-circulated urban legend around Xenogears 's release which was contradicted in interview. So, go ahead, remove the section, delete the category. However, it is still notable that Xenogears shares much of the same development staff and some of the same game engine and story elements of Chrono Trigger, and was still widely considered as its spiritual successor. - Gilgamesh 09:51, 5 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the same reason as the change from DC Comics things to Category:DC Comics objects. The generic term "things" isn't specific and implies a random grab-bag of stuff from DC Exvicious 03:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and prune to remove non-objects (e.g. Sorcerer Supreme).--Mike Selinker.
• Support and prune per above. NTDOY Fanboy 01:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and what they said. Lady Aleena 13:28, 6 June 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 Tim! 10:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this violates any specific policy, but it seems absurd to have a category for people who violate the sockpuppet policy. Chaser (T) 02:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (nomination modified slightly below)[reply]

• Week Keep Thank you for the assertion that I "violate the sockpuppet policy", I would like to point you towards Legitimate uses of multiple accounts.--blue520 11:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. My nomination was ill-phrased. Thank you for pointing out the policy. Nonetheless, due to the potential for abuse, I won't withdraw the nomination. --Chaser (T) 06:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology fully accepted. What is this potential for abuse? Is that not a hallmark of Wikipedia, that almost every part of it has potential for abuse.--blue520 13:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think there's a higher likelihood of abuse with this cat than others. I'll admit I may not be able to fully articulate myself here.--Chaser (T) 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I guess I agree with Blue's comment on my talk that while it isn't necessary to wikipedia's functioning, it has no potential for abuse. My concern was that users would see that and think sockpuppetry was generally OK, without understanding the limits within which it is permitted. Also (and I say this to explain my thinking, not to place blame), the first thing I saw was Blue's userbox referencing "minions", which seemed more devious. I like your new one, btw. Looking again at the category, it has identical language. I'd appreciate it if you made some reference there to the relevant policy discussed here, but even if you don't I'll withdraw. --Chaser T 04:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Change from week keep. Beside the novelty factor I can see no out standing grounds that it improves wikipedia and there is a good chance that it will be used to disrupt or by users who intend to disrupt wikipedia.--blue520 06:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Should be kept, see WP:SUSPSOCK. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn per above. --Chaser T 04:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And a final note before an admin closes. Minutes after I nominated this cat for deletion, an anon IP added [1] Ciz to this category (I've reverted, since Ciz is inactive). Ciz was involved in an Arbcom decision. While ArbCom eventually found that he was not abusing the sockpuppet policy, his sockpuppet's actions violated other policies. That someone would add him to this category six months after he went inactive seems bizarre to me, and I thought it should be included in the record of this CfD. I reaffirm my withdrawal.--Chaser T 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• At Blue's request. I reinstate the nom. If it has no purpose and there is evidence of use by disruptive users, it ought be deleted. --Chaser T 05:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Tools are not evil; only the ways in which they are used. John Reid 18:03, 10 June 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 Tim! 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completly unnecessary category, there is no reason to label these individuals bt sex, there is no corresponding category on Native American men, delete as per policy to keep cat names gender-neutral.--Peta 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment In regards to the policy of keep categories gender-neutral, I think it refers to the naming of the categories, not the categories themselves. Using the category term "hooker" (which pertains only to women) rather than the category term "sex worker" (which pertains to men and women) is an example of the need for gender-neutral categories, as the category of sex worker contains both men and women and thus requires a gender neutral name. But gender-neutrality is only for categories which have mixed gender contant, not for single gender categories like Native American women. Asarelah 03:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep In academics, there are "Women's Studies" but no "Men's Studies". Why? Because women's issues are overlooked due to academic bias. The same principle applies here, especially because Native American women are even more marginalized than their white counterparts. There are several categories pertaining to women (such as women rulers, women poets, women in war, etc.) and each is perfectly relevant because of the traditional academic bias against women's issues and history. Therefore, the category should be kept. Asarelah 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nowadays, I would say it is men's issues that are overlooked due to the biases in academia. CalJW 09:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not see the point seperating people by sex. The above vote states that women are discriminated against but never the less what does that have to do with this category? Are we suppose to show support to women by putting all women in specific female only categories? Isn't wikipedia ment to give the facts not promote ideals and morals? - Tutmosis 03:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Putting the Native American women articles all in one place allows them to be accessed more easily, thus enabling, for example, a person doing a school report on Native women to find exactly what s/he was looking for without combing through the entire Native American people category. This does not "promote ideals or morals", it allows information regarding a specific subject (that subject being Native American women) to be accessed more easily. Besides, if one follows the line of reasoning that dividing people into categories is "promoting ideals or morals", then several categories pertaining to people (such as sexual orientation, ethnic background, place they are from, and so forth) would also be called into question as "promoting ideals or morals". Asarelah 03:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make a list, this just serves as pointless and needlessly discriminatory metadata.--Peta 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe Asarelah's interpretation of the guidelines is incorrect. The quote is "have the category names as gender-neutral as possible (unless, of course, there is a distinct reason to otherwise; please mention that reason on the category page in that case)". "Native American women" is clearly not gender-neutral; it's sophistical to say this rule only applies to categories that "have mixed gender content" but not to a category that is single-sex given that the category is only single-sex because it was created with a non-gender-neutral name! The "distinct reason otherwise" that might allow for this guideline to be bent appears to be POV ("the traditional academic bias against women's issues and history"), but even if we accept this as countering systemic bias, we need to consider if there is some reason why we should have a separate cat for Native American women when we don't for other women by ethnicity or nationality. (The question is what is the standard for the type of cat, not for WP{ as a whole). We don't have Category:Belgian women or Category:Zulu women, so I see no "distinct reason" to have Category:Native American women. The statement "Native American women are even more marginalized than their white counterparts" is definitely POV. Valiantis 15:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWe do indeed have other categories for women of other ethnicities and nationalities. See the metacategory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_by_nationality . It was nominated for deletion, but there was no consensous to delete, according to the categories for deletion log. It simply doesn't make sense to keep the metacategory of women by nationality but to delete the subcategory of Native American women. Asarelah 17:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see the point of the category (as per other comments above). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but possibly rename. Gender studies, and the role of women in general, is a viable and active field of academic study, and therefore appropriate for coverage in wikipedia, whether or not one agrees personally with its precepts. Since biographical material forms part of that study, categories like this one which group entries are likewise viable. If this one were to be deleted, then as pointed out above it would be inconsistent to keep all the others which exist on similar lines. The category's name is a little ambiguous, perhaps, since it's stated intention is only for categorising individuals of the U.S., however Native American can also be understood to apply to non-US people as well (see Native American name controversy. I'm not quite sure what the best phrasing of an alternate title might be, however.--cjllw | TALK 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,. Did anybody notice that this is a subcategory of Category:Women by nationality which includes 32 categories? User:Dimadick

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 now empty. Vegaswikian 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I'm an NBA fanatic, too, but I'm afraid this category is very loose-fitting and does not mean much to the general user. It does not entail or imply anything worthy, e.g. is 2000 season points just good or exceptional? (Besides, as a minor point, "players" should not be displayed as a proper noun, and "2000" should require a comma.) Might as well make a category "NBA players with 150 steals in a season", or "NBA players who shot more than 53% from the field in a season"...and so on.. --Downwards 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, categories such as this are unecessary. - Tutmosis 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep- There are fewer than 100 guys who have done this in history, and I think the "very good but not great" players should be recognized in a category other than the extremely long and clunky "list of NBA basketball players". The baseball sections have lists of each league's all star team every year throughout history, and I think wikipedia's basketball topics should have a similar way to recognize players who were among the best in a certain era. We could do the all-star lists, or some of the other suggestions I've listed on the category's official talk page, but I think this one's fairly good at discriminating between really good scorers (often really good all around players) and guys who were just good. All star lists would have too many Theo Ratliffs and guys like that, IMHO. I guess wikipedia may or may not need this category, but that's what discussion's all about. Davemcarlson 05:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category and Listify. Info is worth keeping but not in a category. BoojiBoy 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category and Listify perBoojiBoy. There is nothing Magic-al about 2000, either. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 7 June 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. Vegaswikian 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific, not useful per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine -AED 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No useful purpose. JFW | T@lk 07:20, 5 June 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.