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 Reverse merge --Cyde↔Weys 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I have no preference which way these categories are merged, though I've proposed a merge to the larger category. - EurekaLott 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and because other city categories use "-ers", "-ians", "-ites", etc. -- Usgnus 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would not be averse to reverse merge if all categories were renamed at the same time. -- Usgnus 23:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Dubliners (people) or Category:Natives of County Dublin per Mayumashu below. David Kernow 02:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC), amended 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Natives of County Dublin unless the nominator can be sure the pages populating the cat page are solely of people of the city Mayumashu 09:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge -- far more "People from" than "-ers", "-ians", "-ites", etc. Worse with the parenthetical. "Short, simple names are preferred for categories." I do agree that the entries should be vetted for city versus county. --William Allen Simpson 03:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge all such categories to "People from...", etc. Avoid demonyms for categories. — Jun. 15, '06 [21:49] <freak|>
• Reverse merge per above. David Kernow 23:48, 15 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 --Cyde↔Weys 15:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC) The category name implies that it will be populated with lists of schools. However, it is populated with the schools themselves. So it should at least become Category:Schools sharing the same name. But the template that adds this category says it's also for colleges and other educational institutions. Thus, I propose the accepted generic name instead of schools Usgnus 22:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (edit: added the word "also" -- Usgnus 14:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Modified. I was confused. These are disambiguation pages, so they are indeed lists. I still think it should be renamed, but I changed the proposal. I am going to notify the below two people directly. -- Usgnus 04:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Educational institution disambiguation per Usgnus below. David Kernow 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC), amended 07:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC) following notification per above, then 23:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carina22 12:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If you look at the subcategories of Category:Disambiguation, you'll see that there is no naming standard. We could call it Category:Educational institution disambiguation -- Usgnus 23:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Educational institution disambiguation seems to work and is certainly shorter... Anyone seeing it among the category links at the bottom of a page could always click on it, then see a brief sentence or two of explanation at the top of the category page. Nice one, David Kernow 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, A college is a school, but "Educational institution disambiguation" is a shorter name, so it's fine by me. And since it's part of a template, it requires only two edits and one deletion to change it. — Jun. 15, '06 [21:48] <freak|>

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 Category:Wikipedia articles whose topics' importance is unclear. Conscious 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..."Category:Wikipedia articles whose topics' [notability/importance] is unclear" as more accurate...? David Kernow 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC), amended 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedia articles whose topics' importance is unclear [as this] seems to explain what is under review better then the others. Vegaswikian 00:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Revisiting this nom, I agree – so have amended it accordingly and vote:

• Rename using either "notability" or "importance" as nom. If the proposal is accepted, I'll reword the preface. David Kernow 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC), amended 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with importance and have changed by proposal above. Vegaswikian 23:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rename to ...importance... Looking throught the policies there seems to be on-going uncertainty about the "proposed" guideline Importance WP:IMP the "essay" on notability WP:N and the various guidelines on specific notabilities. Notability and Inportance seem to have different definitions so I do not think these should be exchanged until the policies/guidelines themselves are cleared up. AndrewRT 12:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As this may never happen, would you support a rename to Category:Wikipedia articles whose topics' importance is unclear...?  Regards, David Kernow 15:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes AndrewRT 23:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What is trying to be achieved here? To create a list of articles which editors can pay attention to improving or to create a list which can be used as a reason to justify deleting the article? Thanks Hmains 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Both, I reckon!  Regards, David Kernow 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with both! AndrewRT 23:09, 11 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 05:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over-disambiguation -- simpler to use Category:Arrested Development, and it would bring this into line with other TV shows (e.g. Category:Seinfeld, Category:South Park, Category:Curb Your Enthusiasm, Category:Family Guy, Category:Daria, etc.). Dylan 21:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 21:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and also considering the main article is Arrested Development. -- Usgnus 22:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, we don't disambiguate unless we need to. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, dab is unnecessary. GentlemanGhost 19:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename to match article title. Eponymous categories should, in fact, be eponymous. — Jun. 15, '06 [21:51] <freak|>

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 Relisted on June 18. Vegaswikian 07:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no category for instant messaging free software, and if one was made, the majority of articles would overlap with the existing "Free IRC category" category. The technologies are very similar and many modern implementation of either technology implement both technologies. Putting both in one slightly broader category makes more sense than having two smaller categories with large duplication. Gronky 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 09:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Free chat and messaging software -- expanding abbreviations is policy! --William Allen Simpson 13:28, 17 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 05:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Men by nationality and its seven subcats for exactly the same reasons I set out below at the discussion on Category:Women by nationality. Of the seven subcats, six only have single-figure usage. The exception is Category:American men (79 article and 9 subcats), the articles in which could be more usefully categorised by nationality + profession, the subcats in which could mostly be more usefully categorised in Category:American organizations being mainly fraternities and other single-sex organisations. Valiantis 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nomination below.--Mike Selinker 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only AFTER proponent has moved all the articles and subcategories to the new categories proposed for use. Thanks Hmains 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are already in multiple cats already so there is no need to do this. Valiantis 13:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started looking through Category:American men, and it includes a number of articles with only this category and sometimes birth/death/living people categories. They probably should have additional categories added before this category is deleted. Examples in the first column alone: Josiah Harlan, Charles C. Hewitt, Alfred Charles Hobbs, Hussain Ali-Khan, and Peter Ladd Jensen. - EurekaLott 22:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Valiantis. The people by nationality is "usually" accomplished with the occupation. --William Allen Simpson 03:21, 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. Conscious 14:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category needs to be renamed to Disaster films to bring it inline with the naming convention of film based items on Wikipedia. Also, the other language categories already have film in their titles, da:Kategori:Katastrofefilm, de:Kategorie:Katastrophenfilm, fr:Catégorie:Film catastrophe, nl:Categorie:Rampenfilm, no:Kategori:Katastrofefilmer, and sv:Kategori:Katastroffilmer. This category should be inline with the international standard. Since the word film appears in the other language categories, this one should have film in its title.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Oppose The usual term is "Disaster movie". We should adopt a commonsense approach and not override normal English usage. The names of categories in other languages are utterly, utterly irrelevant. CalJW 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It was previously commented that "disaster movie" is the one-and-only term. It is probably more commonly used, perhaps because many disaster films are American and Americans tend to prefer "movie" to "film", but the WP standard is to use "film". The term "disaster film" is in regular use internationally as the following links from Google may demonstrate - from the Guardian - British newspaper, article on the genre at filmsite.org - an American site, from crisscross.com, an English-language Japanese news site, a category name on the US retailer Barnes & Noble. Clearly both "disaster movie" and "disaster film" are "normal English usage", so go with the standard. (However, I agree the names of cats on Wikipedias in other language are irrelevant). Valiantis 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per CalJW. A Google search for "disaster movie" returns 435K results, while a search for "disaster film" only returns 246K results. Also, the edit warring of moving the article back and forth between Disaster movie and Disaster film needs to stop. - EurekaLott 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relative size of the Google count is irrelevant. Both are demonstrably common terms so people claiming "English usage" actually mean "my usage". If there was no convention then it would be valid to claim that the more common of the two terms should be used; as there is a convention that "film" is preferred over "movie" then the formula "genre-type film" should always be used if it is normal English. Which it evidently is! Valiantis 13:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also EurekaLott's reference to an "edit war" on the article disaster film is questionable. I assumed that this was being batted back and forth on a daily basis. In fact, on 22 May "disaster movie" was moved to "disaster film" as per the naming conventions. It was moved back to "disaster movie" on 25 May; this was then returned to "disaster film" by a different user on 26 May, where it has stayed since. Scarcely an edit war. Valiantis 14:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Lady Aleena at 14:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It has been stated in the naming convention that "movie" is an Americanization. That tells me that the other English speaking countries do not normally use movie as a term. America isn't that culturally important to make "movie" a world wide standard. Most films attributed to America aren't even made here anymore. Don't let America drag the film culture anymore on Wikipedia. (Note: I am American.)
    • I'm British, and it's "disaster movie" here. "Disaster film" sounds weird to me. Piccadilly 23:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Wikipedia should not now, nor ever be, a slave to Google search results! After reading the article on Google, it tells me it is just as biased as the rest of the search engines out there and not exactly trustworthy.
• Comment: this same proposal was made by the same user on May 22, and was closed just over a week ago as no consensus. - EurekaLott 23:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Valiantis. -- Usgnus 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. English usage beats convention every time.--Mike Selinker 00:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is "disaster film" not English usage? Valiantis 13:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the United States, the colloquial term for a movie like Poseidon is a disaster movie, not a disaster film. Even Dave Barry thinks so.--Mike Selinker 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do appreciate that you are undermining your own argument by beginning "In the United States" and by using the word "colloquial". We aim to be international and to avoid colloquialism in most circumstances. You haven't answered why "disaster film" is not English usage. Valiantis 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please let me know if there are countries where "Disaster film" is the more common English usage. Otherwise, I'll stick with what I've heard most often. Just because it's common in the US doesn't make it wrong.--Mike Selinker 03:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons as last time. --JeffW 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn my opposition because a google search of "Disaster Movie" "Disaster Film" results in numerous hits from mainstream newspapers where both terms are used interchangebly with the same article. So it seems that even though Disaster Movie may be more common the term Disaster Film is far from unknown and it is reasonable to follow the convention in this case. I don't think it is necessary to do so however, so I'm not going to support it either. --JeffW 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per .--Mike Selinker Carina22 12:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Normal usage comes first. Piccadilly 23:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is a naming convention. The naming convention should ALWAYS be followed, no matter normal usage, Google hits, or whatever other reasons. The naming convention standardizes and unifies category names. The naming convention brings uniformity. The fact that there are categories still out there that defy the naming convention is outrageous to me. I didn't make or take part in the original debates for the convention, but I will fight to make sure that it is followed. Categories and article titles that defy the naming convention are an eyesore and should be renamed immediately, no questions asked.
  &#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but a naming convention is mostly for the convenience of Wikipedia editors. People who only occasionally use Wikipedia will search using the name they know best. Ordinary users should not have to learn a naming convention in order to find what they're looking for. --JeffW 02:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • bzzzt, wrong. film and movie are completely interchangeable in this sense. An argument of confusion is totally wrong. No one will get lost, no one will not find an article, at all, if this rename goes through. Find me one person who would be confused at the name "disaster film" and not know what you are talking about. Also, most readers come across articles first, not categories. -- Ned Scott 00:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per NC. I live in the US, all my life, and film is equal to movie in my usage and the usage I observe in modern society and pop culture. Which is more used is marginal and hardly significant. Because both are equally good, we should use consistency and follow the naming conventions. Why any of the editors are opposing is beyond me. The reason we use "common" names is only to avoid confusion, and this will not cause any confusion whatsoever. And, like I said, which is more common is marginal and irrelevant, so naming conventions is the tie breaker. -- Ned Scott 01:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the sake of consensus I believe a great deal of the movie -> film moves that were passed on May 23 should also be taken into consideration. These were supported, why not this? Although I do agree with Road movies as a unique term. -- Ned Scott 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more accurate about my above comments, what actually comes to my mind is disaster flick, horror flick, action flick, etc. So if you really want to start such a silly argument, maybe we should put *flick in the runnings for a potential category naming convention as well. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it's only outside the US that "disaster movie" is treated as if it's an indivisible label for a genre; as well as "road movie", "film noir" and "action movie" are other examples that come to mind. Regards, David Kernow 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think I've heard a single reference to a "disaster film" in my life. Calsicol 20:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google apparently has several hundred thousand. Are you suggesting that we should name cats on the basis of the way you personally use English? Valiantis 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The correct, not popular term should prevail. Just because some people don't capitalize and use punctuation doesn't mean that WP should do that, too... That's what encyclopedias are for. --Dakart 08:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be more convincing if it were correctly punctuated. Septentrionalis 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The popular, not the "correct" (or rather hyper-correct), term should prevail. We follow English usage, not pædantry. Septentrionalis 15:37, 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 rename to Category:Latino civil rights activists. Conscious 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have this category when there is already a Category:Hispanic American history?--Rockero 19:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is more political. --evrik 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but "issues" is so vague. "Latino issues" are the same issues as everybody else's issues (education, health, etc.) The are only a few issues that are of particular importance to Latinos, such as bilingual education and immigration, and these aren't the types of articles that are populating this category.

Currently, the cat holds 2 orgs, one movement, and the rest are individuals (mostly labor leaders). Maybe we can create a categorization system that is more specific. There is already Category:Latino-based organizations, Category:American labor leaders, and Category:Mexican American leaders. Maybe we can just tweak some existing categories to accomodate the articles currently in this category? And possibly create a new supercat of Latinos in the United States?--Rockero 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know ... I created the category so that the parent categories of Category:Social justice and Category:Civil rights activists would have a Latino presence. What about Category:Latino rights activists --evrik 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Latino civil rights activists? I don't know if there is any such thing as "Latino rights", which is the impression the title you suggest creates.--Rockero 21:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I like this one. Septentrionalis 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other possibilities: Category:Latino activists, Category:American Latino activists, or Category:Latino activists in the United States.--Rockero 21:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever. I don't care. I do want to see them grouped as a category. evrik 16:49, 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 keep. Conscious 15:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings and structures are categorized by country (Buildings and structures by country), but Ireland in Wikipedia is the island. From the article: It is composed of the Republic of Ireland (officially named Ireland), a state which covers five-sixths of the island (south, east, west and north-west), and Northern Ireland; part of the United Kingdom, which covers the northeastern sixth of the island. Note that the category Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland also exists. LeRoi 13:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose nomination as currently structured. I agree in principal, but simply deleting this one category is adequate or helpful. It is necessary to reallocate all the articles in advance and/or rename the subcategories at the same time. Calsicol 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move article and then delete Keep, you can always do a subcat after EurekaLott's change of parent cat. Agathoclea 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. Many of the subcategories would need to be addressed for any action to make sense. Also, please note that Category:Ireland and the similar Category:Korea do serve a purpose. For what it's worth, I moved the category from Category:Buildings and structures by country to Category:Buildings and structures in Europe. - EurekaLott 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems that User:Ardfern has virtually emptied this category and removed all of its subcategories. It currently bears little resemblance to how it looked when nominated. - EurekaLott 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind. I think we've sorted things out. - EurekaLott 02:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I had been trying to bring some order to Irish categorisation which has apparently been undisciplined and is all over the place. Much of this is due to the way that cats (not only buildings and structures but many others) are often duplicated between Republic of Ireland and Ireland (as a whole), with the only difference being the addition of Northern Ireland cats in the Ireland one. This is very confusing for writers and worse for readers. I would be happier if the whole area was categorised Republic of Ireland only, as Northern Ireland has separate categorisation for everything and is more naturally accessed through typing Northern Ireland. How do we get an agreed approach to this, before anyone wastes any more time??? Otherwise propose separate Buildings and structures of Republic of Ireland and separate Buildings and structures of Northern Ireland, which could both be categorised under Buildings and structures of Ireland. I would further propose the same approach for all Republic of Ireland, Ireland and Northern Ireland cats. How does this get taken foreward?? Ardfern 22:24, 11 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. Conscious 15:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Proposed name more accurately reflects category content. 67.171.31.165 10:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is MIDI a music notation format?  So far as I'm aware, it's a data format for sequences of events (in music) which may then be used to create music notation, but is not itself a notation format... Anyone else?  Regards, David Kernow 02:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sort of in-between. It is not designed primarily for music notation in mind. It does however uses musical notes from the western chromatic scale as the unit of sound (compared with, say, .MODs whose units of sound are actual sound samples). The MIDI file format also does provide support, thru meta-events, for storing certain types of musical information not directly involved with sound production, such as time signature [1], key signature [2], lyrics text [3], etc. Many music notation software will support importing from and exporint to MIDIs, though nearly all use their own proprietary format as the preferred format, since many notational properties are not representable in MIDI.

Anyway, that's besides the scope of the category renaming. 67.170.72.189 05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the insight. As I'm not a practitioner, I'll abstain, but a little more informed. Best wishes, David 13:44, 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 Keep. Vegaswikian 07:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only member of this category, Sundew, can be safely moved to Category:Drosera. Conscious 09:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep/no merge. Taxonomically, it's rather the other way around - Drosera is a genus of the Droseraceae family, and there are other genera of that family (such as the Venus Flytrap) which could be put into the Droseraceae category. Category:Droseraceae should be kept as a parent category to Category:Drosera (ie the Sundews) and others.--cjllw | TALK 13:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/no merge. Agree with CJLL Wright - MPF 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose - the opposite merge (ie., retag genus members into family cats) would make much more sense. SB Johnny 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/no merge. Agree with CJLL Wright and SB Johnny --NoahElhardt 01:58, 14 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 --William Allen Simpson 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't nearly enough of these to make it anywhere near worth keeping. Dakart 08:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with above Ace of Sevens 09:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article RoboCop already cross refers to the two directors. AndrewRT 12:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this and Category:English popes too. — Jun. 15, '06 [21:52] <freak|>

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 (9d:4k) including unnamed nominator; but sort, as both married and single were kept (no consensus) --William Allen Simpson 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians by marital status
  • Category:Dating Wikipedians
  • Category:Engaged Wikipedians

Relisting from May 31 after tagging subcategories. Please note that Category:Married Wikipedians is already listed under June 7, and Category:Single Wikipedians is already listed under June 4. Conscious 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If WP is not a social club, are these really appropriate? 132.205.93.89 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, God. Delete it. Derex 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 18:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Necrothesp 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this isn't a social network. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. --Coredesat 10:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avogadro 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even Jimbo has one of these silly categories on his userpage. Agathoclea 22:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I nominated the Married after seeing the Single being nominated. If Jimbo cares enough about this he'll weigh in like he did with Category:Living people. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems really harsh. The "wikipedian" categories aren't meant to be encyclopedic; you don't have to put yourself in one if you don't want (and I choose to do none of them). Instead, they're meant to be definitions of what's important to each person, just like using an Xbox or speaking French. So if self-identifying as married is what a wikipedian wishes to do, what harm does it do anyone else?--Mike Selinker 00:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as long as this only appears on User pages, who cares? Lankiveil 01:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ErinHowarth 21:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes it is late to vote, but there was one other. At end of normal voting this was 70% to delete. With the late vote it was 64%. With my vote it is 67% to delete. These counts ignore the one anon voter who wanted to delete. Vegaswikian 07:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that deleting this category would deprive other categories its parent category. Categories which after being listed here were not deleted. I think this is just another front of the Userboxwar and should be settled by clearing up policy rather than sneakingly trying to remove categories. Agathoclea 12:23, 16 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 to Category:Michigan Tech Huskies ice hockey players. - EurekaLott 18:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category descripton says "This is a list of players who played College hockey for Michigan Technological University in the NCAA", so it must be renamed to reflect this. I don't insist on this name, but the purpose of the category must be made clear. Conscious 07:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. This should follow the conventions in Category:College ice hockey players, making the right title Category:Michigan Tech Huskies ice hockey players.--Mike Selinker 00:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mike Selinker. - EurekaLott 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Michigan Tech Huskies ice hockey players per Mike S. ×Meegs 07:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Michigan Tech Huskies ice hockey players per Mike S. BoojiBoy 23:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mike S. -- Usgnus 23:27, 11 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 to Category:Muslim travel writers while pending deletion of all Category:Muslims by profession, and include (reverse merge) all Category:Muslim explorers. All good Muslims travel to Mecca at least once in their lifetimes. Merely travelling is not notable. --William Allen Simpson 18:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not well-defined. Does it take to be a Muslim and to go somewhere to be included? (If it turns out the category makes sense, please rename to "travellers"). Conscious 07:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Though small (for the time being), it is a very useful way of organizing historical figures who were Muslim and who travelled and recounted their travels were known for their extensive travels. The title could, perhaps, be changed to "Muslim travel writers" to be somewhat more exact, and then put as a sub-category of Category:Travel writers. But The page should definitely be kept, whatever the name might end up being. —Saposcat 15:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no grounds for speedy keeping. Honbicot 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added Zheng He, the Chinese traveller, to the category. It is a perfectly valid category, and should be kept, albeit with a very slight name change to Category:Muslim travellers. —Saposcat 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:Muslim travel writers. Writers from the Islamic world earlier times just don't fit into modern country categories. Honbicot 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Muslim travel writers Merge to Category:Muslim explorers which is currently empty. -- Usgnus 23:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that would be that they are not explorers. —Saposcat 07:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of them are and should be categorized as such. I'll change my "vote". -- Usgnus 15:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Muslim travel writers or Category:Arab travel writers whichever would be more appropriate and useful. Thanks Hmains 02:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Muslim travel writers would be better, both because of the idea of umma (or Muslim community), and also because Evliya Çelebi, at least, was not Arab. —Saposcat 07:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But see my note above subsequent to the addition of Zheng He: it should be Category:Muslim travellers, with just a slight orthographic change. —Saposcat 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category makes complete sense as a category for Muslims who made one or more extensive journeys during their lives. It is only ambiguous in the sense that Category:Arabic language writers could be construed as anyone who has ever written anything in Arabic, or Category:Russian tennis players could refer to any Russian who has ever played tennis. I think the users of the Wikipedia are intelligent enough to understand what is meant without it being patronizingly spelled out for them. Some of the Muslims contained in it, such as Ibn Jubayr and Mansa Musa, cannot be called explorers as they journeyed along established routes in their travels. Therefore merging it with Category:Muslim explorers would mean that the category would have to be smaller. Also, not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs so any category name with "Arab" in it would be inappropriate. The final point to make is that not all of the Muslims mentioned in this category wrote about their travels, although a number of them did. So a renaming as category:Muslim travel writers would also be incorrect. As for starting the word "Travellers" with a lower case "t", I have no objection to that. —User:Bukalemun3 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can we add some identifier as to time-frame? If the author of the latest Let's Go guide happens to be Muslim he/she shouldn't be added to the *historic* folks in this category. Carlossuarez46 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but I would be against limiting this category with dates. Firstly, the travellers already in it span a wide number of centuries. For example, Ahmad ibn Fadlan is from the 10th century and Evliya Çelebi is from the 17th century. These can't be contained within just one time scale such as "Medieval" or "the Golden Age of Islam," and furthermore these time scales would have to be defined, leading to further debate and argument. Secondly, although I agree that your hypothetical author shouldn't be in the category – and could always be removed from it – if there were at the moment, which as far as I know there isn't but I could be wrong on this, a Muslim conducting travels similarly to William Dalrymple or Patrick Leigh Fermor, I would think that they should be included on the page. —User:Bukalemun3 7:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Seems like it might be better as category:Muslim explorers. But I'm no expert on this.--Mike Selinker 00:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If name kept, at least lowercase "Travellers". David Kernow 23:53, 15 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 action taken --Cyde↔Weys 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC) The former category contains nothing but Template:Nepenthes. Conscious 06:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge per nom. Honbicot 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - better retained at the family name, i.e., merge Category:Nepenthes into Category:Nepenthaceae; this is more in accord with other plant categories. - MPF 00:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - having a cat for a genus rather than a family is a move in the wrong direction. There are a few 1-genus cats among the plant articles, all due to 1 particular user. SB Johnny 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as per SB Johnny --NoahElhardt 01:57, 14 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a category, saved former text as List of airports in England. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, empty duplicate of Category:Lists of airports.-choster 13:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as (now) empty. David Kernow 23:46, 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category refers to the Duchy of Warsaw, which was formed in 1807, not 1806. It has been replaced by Category:Departments of the Duchy of Warsaw. Appleseed (Talk) 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete [as] nom. Appleseed (Talk) 03:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as (now) empty. David Kernow 23:47, 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. Vegaswikian 05:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list will never go beyond two people at least for the near future. It's fairly redundant. I completely agree with a list of members of Parliament in Australia (which exists), but one for every seat seems a bit pointless. I think this should be deleted. (JROBBO 01:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep unless all others in the Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives by Division are also deleted --William Allen Simpson 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ALL of these categories. None are ever going to have more than a very small number of entries. Division names and boundaries change. For example, there are two categories for the current NT divisions, each with one entry. There is no category for the previous single seat, but even that would only have a very few entries. It would make it even more complex if all previous divisions were given categories. Categories that only include a few entries are useless. However, delete all or none. It would be considered POV to just delete the one for the Prime MInisters seat. --Bduke 02:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is an article for each Division where the members are listed, as well as other information - seems a better way to organise--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC) - Note I had also meant to add, Delete all similar categories as per User:BDuke--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- scope too narrow. I try to aim for 6 articles minimum to fill a category, even 8 at times. - Longhair 02:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would agree that a category really requires at least six entries, which this won't have for some time. --Roisterer 03:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too narrow parameters to be meaningful.

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. Vegaswikian 05:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the other national categories are "Fauna of". I believe the form was agreed on a while back. CalJW 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as above. CalJW 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Honbicot 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 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 merge to Category:Government ministers of Australia. Conscious 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Government ministers in Australia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --William Allen Simpson 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename Category:Government ministers in Australia to Category:Government ministers of Australia. David Kernow 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC), amended 03:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, but the others in Category:Government ministers by country use in not of --William Allen Simpson 02:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the English I've read, heard and used, I'd say "X in Y" almost always forges a more passive association between X and Y than "X of Y"... Does "Government ministers in Australia" carry the same sense of belonging (rather than simply presence), accountability to and/or responsibility for Australia...?  Yours, David 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, but would still prefer to keep them consistant. I would support a vote to change all the Government ministers in to Government ministers of. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have set up blanket proposal here. Regards, David 03:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Government ministers of Australia per blanket proposal, Kernow, and ProveIt. --William Allen Simpson 03:21, 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.