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 categories by person. Syrthiss 14:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the greatest intersection of "broadest" and "least useful" I can imagine. It's barely populated now; if it were populated, it would be much larger than Category:Living people.Revised nomination to reflect debate below.--Mike Selinker 23:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep" Rename to Category:Categories by person This category came about from a conversation about how to categorize people who have eponymous categories. For example, George W. Bush has an eponymous category Category:George W. Bush. The articles in this category are all related to Bush. For many subcategories, the articles they contain are also members of the parent categories. So, for example, the Golden Gate Bridge is found in Category:Suspension bridges, and Category:Suspension bridges is in Category:Bridges. The Golden Gate Bridge would be a member of Category:Bridges if there were no subcategories. The Pet Goat is in Category:George W. Bush and, just to keep the hierarchy pure, this category was created to be the parent of Category:George W. Bush. The Pet Goat would belong in Category:Articles by person if there were no subcategories. On a more practical level, all these eponymous people categories have similar categorization problems. Lumping them all together here, makes it easier for those of us looking at categorization to see what is happening to these similar categories. I don't think this category will get that big most people do not have their own category. I have added a short description to the category to explain what subcategories belong in it. -- Samuel Wantman 01:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see the goal. OK, then it really has to be renamed, because the current name says to me, "People with articles," which is half the world. Perhaps Category:People with eponymous categories?--Mike Selinker 07:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep possibly rename (e.g. "Categories by person"). The category is a reasonable way to group those subcategories. -- User:Docu
  • I like Category:Categories by person as it is less obfuscatory than Category:People with eponymous categories. -- Samuel Wantman 09:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, that's fine. I changed the nomination to reflect this.--Mike Selinker 16:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Categories by person. There are many times more categories for individuals than are in this category at the moment. CalJW 17:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What is "categories by person" supposed to mean? It doesn't make sense to me. If you don't like the current name, how about "articles related to people"? Mirror Vax 07:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at the parent category Category:People. The only thing in Category:Articles by person is subcategories. There shouldn't be any articles, so whatever the name, it should be categories and not artilces. -- Samuel Wantman 08:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking at Category:People and I don't see any category with the word "category" in the name. They are of the form "X by Y" where X is the type of article and Y is the type of category. For example, Category:People by occupation is a category of occupation categories that contain people articles. This category (Articles by person) is odd in that the articles in the categories have no common element. Hence "articles" (no type specified) "by person" (i.e. categories in the name of a person). I'm not in love with the name but I think "categories by person" is worse. Mirror Vax 08:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is Category:Categories by country. -- User:Docu
        • I think the logic here is that this is a maintenance category, and so it is essentially referring to its Wikipedia purpose rather than any real-world purpose. Quite honestly, I don't see the need for it, but I don't think it's problematic now that I understand it.--Mike Selinker 17:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I pointed you to the wrong category, Please look at Category:Categories by topic which is also a parent of this category. -- Samuel Wantman 05:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Categories by person doesn't mean anything to me. I'd prefer People with categories, People with their own categories, People who have categories, or something similar. --JeffW 19:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Which name do you think would be the best fit as a subcategory of Category:Categories by topic? -- Samuel Wantman 01:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see your point, but it still looks strange in the People category. In fact, I think the formulation x by y is too terse. I'd prefer that they all be changed to x organized by y, but I'm not going to try to propose that. I've withdrawn my opposition. --JeffW 21:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also see your point. Sometimes the names are not immediately understandable. I would probably support renaming many of these en masse if a better system can be thought up. I don't think Category:Categories organized by people would be any better. All the categories were organized by people;) Perhaps all that is needed is puctuation -- Category:Categories, by people. If you have a good scheme for reorganizing all these categories let me know. -- Samuel Wantman 01:44, 25 March 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. Syrthiss 14:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The standard form is "Sri Lankan people" in line with other countries, so merge into that. Honbicot 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as per nomination. Mattbr30 11:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nomination. CalJW 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. David Kernow 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nominator. James F. (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as per modified. Syrthiss 14:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had posted this under {{cfr-speedy}}, but following BL Lacertae's comment below, have moved here for more consideration. David Kernow 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [Comment : Isn't] Foreign Minister an official capitalised title? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As a collection, I thought not – but if anyone with more knowledge of Russian politics pre-revolution, Soviet and post-Soviet could help... Thanks, David Kernow 01:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't have thought that Russian usage would be relevant; in (British) English, it would still be capitalised, though. James F. (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. It's irrelevant how they capitalise titles in Russia as this is the English-language Wikipedia. CalJW 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the title Foreign Minister is capitalised in English so by that argument i would expect this category to be too. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : Wiki seems to be very confused. Category:Government ministers by portfolio uses "m", but most of the subcategories use "M", e.g. Category:Prime ministers. And anyway shouldn't it be Category:Foreign Ministers of Russia whatever the case (and I think it should be upper as BL Lacertae's view). Shrew 16:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I'd become confused between a number of ministers (of various types) and a number of Ministers of a particular type. So, having amended the proposal:

• Rename as per modified proposal. David Kernow 14:39, 23 March 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 rename. James F. (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'bachelor' should have a capital B, as in the main article, Knight Bachelor. I didn't list this as a speedy, since it's the reverse of the usual capitalisation question. -Splash^talk 18:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still a speedy, IMO. James F. (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify: I have no objection to speedying it if someone wants to. -Splash^talk 00:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, speedying. James F. (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Osomec 22:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename. From caps to lowercase, lowercase to caps, I'd say it's all speedy. Regards, David Kernow 01:18, 19 March 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 student political organizations, as they arent organizations of political students (ie students of politics). Syrthiss 14:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from Speedy due to comments. I abstain from voting. —akghetto ^talk 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• These look more like Category:Student political organizations to me. - choster 17:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection supported. Rename Category:Student political organizations ReeseM 02:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Student political organizations and rename Category:Political Student Organisation to Category:Student political organisations (or delete). David Kernow 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two fraternities with the Kappa Alpha name: the Kappa Alpha Society and the Kappa Alpha Order. Although the Order has no category yet, I believe we should dab, simply to prepare for the inevitable (i.e., a Kappa Alpha Order category). — Dale Arnett 15:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, particularly as the Order is now much larger. -choster 17:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 15:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-war" is an inherently point of view term. It uses a lexical trick to imply that other people are pro-war. In my opinion many of these people are responsible for perpetuating war by making the world any easier place for tyrants to operate in. Category:Conscientious objectors is neutral and verifiable, but this parent category is just a matter of opinion - all left-wing opinion of course. Neville Chamberlain was naively committed to avoiding war (though not as naively as some of these people), but is he in the category? Do I need to ask? This category is a major breach of NPOV. Delete Bhoeble 15:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Certainly is POV. Difficult to populate this cat. Alan Liefting 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Anti-war is the common term. Some people really do advocate war, for a variety of reasons (one being a theory that the certainty of war today is preferable to the possibility of a worse war in the future). Mirror Vax 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Anti-war" is a common term. It doesn't mean opposition to all war, or a stance that will best lead to the prevention of war in the long run, it just means opposition to some specific country's participation in some specific war. See the definition on the anti-war page and the discussion on the talk page there. Kalkin 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is commonly used - by people who don't have any reason or desire to observe a neutral point of view. Osomec 22:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename. The category already is a subcategory of Category:Activists. The way I see it, this doesn't imply POV, because it describes people who have been active in such an area. I can see the category itself as being somewhat poorly named. I can understand that viewpoint. Perhaps calling the category "Anti-war activists" would be a more appropriate title to remedy that problem. The category itself, however, is definitely good, and is worth keeping, because it does clump together these people who have been active on anti-war issues. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Anti-war activists per above. -- Samuel Wantman 01:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename as per SchuminWeb. --JK the unwise 11:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Anti-war activists, which is a marginal improvement. Getting categories which reflect fashionable liberal biases doesn't seem to be possible, and that is one of the greatest weaknesses of the category system. CalJW 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean "which DOESN'T reflect fasionable liberal biases"? -- Samuel Wantman
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 02:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anti which war? All wars? A specific war? Some wars and not others? Category:Pacifists seems verifiable as does the previously mentioned [[Category:Conscientious objectors, but many of the people in this cat are there because of their opposition to a particular conflict for specific political reasons (e.g Communists opposed to World War I, hippies opposed to the Vietnam War) and it seems to be a dumping ground for people of all political persuasions who are opposed in some way or other to the current Iraq War. It might be appropriate to create categories like Category:People opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq or Anti-Vietnam war activists, but this vague, POV, catch-all category is a mess. Valiantis 20:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Anti-war activists. --JeffW 21:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Anti-war activists. Activists against particular wars then become members of its subcategories. David Kernow 14:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or make a Category:Anti-war activists with a subcategory Category:American anti-war activists. By the way, where would Abraham Lincoln fit here, as he was against the Mexican-American war? Similarly Henry Ford and the many [mostly Republican] isolationists who were against U.S. involvement in World War II? How much 'action' does it take to make an 'activist'? Thanks Hmains 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Anti-war activists. Inahet 17:20, 25 March 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 upmerge. Syrthiss 15:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant subcategory of Category:Destroyed landmarks. Punkmorten 14:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Bhoeble 15:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. David Kernow 17:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Mattbr30 11:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bradford City A.F.C. players holds players for Bradford City A.F.C.. Only two listings in the category, which have been moved to the A.F.C. category. Mattbr30 14:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete JonHarder 15:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. David Kernow 17:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have depopulated the category and moved them to the more descriptive name of Prince Albert Raiders (SJHL) players to avoid it being confused with Prince Albert Raiders alumni which deals with the current Western Hockey League franchise. -- GTWeasel 04:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Alan Liefting 19:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor Hockey Rosters change fairly frequently, I fail so see the purpose in devoting a cat to this team.Weaponofmassinstruction 19:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category, as with all the hockey team categories, are for current and past team members. These categories make it easier to see who may have played with an NHL great on another team.

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. Syrthiss 15:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:History-related lists to Category:History lists
• Category:Mathematical lists to Category:Mathematics lists
• Category:Religion-related lists to Category:Religion lists
• Category:Sports-related lists to Category:Sports lists

Rename all Make most of the subject oriented Lists subcategories consistent. I didn't include Category:Lists of people because currently it only individual people and changing it to People lists would allow people-related lists which could probably fit as well under Culture or Society. --JeffW 03:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The existing names are clearer. Bhoeble 15:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you prefer that I request that Art lists, Culture lists, Geography lists, Mathmatical lists, Philosophy lists, Science lists, Society lists, and Technology lists all be changed to the form x-related lists? --JeffW 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The proposed alternatives too narrow in scope. However, suggest renaming Category:Mathematical lists to Category:Mathematics-related lists. Regards, David Kernow 17:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Almost all categories in Wikipedia imply "related" in their title. Some categories only have articles related to the subject and still do not include the word "related". An example of this is Category:George W. Bush. I don't think anyone would like to change that name to Category:George W. Bush related articles. Wikipedia categories are not a pure taxonomy for good reasons. -- Samuel Wantman 20:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is a difference between a Religious list, a Religion list, and a Religion-related list (for example). Religion-related is the most general. Either way, Category:Mathematical lists needs to change. SeventyThree^(Talk) 09:59, 21 March 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. Syrthiss 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fires Departments by state without a country qualifier is a typical case of being geographically blinkered. Wikipedia is international in scope not simply American. Alan Liefting 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. David Kernow 14:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason. We have states in Australia too. So does Nigeria to pick one other country at random. This category contains one article about the fire department of an American state. Merge into Category:United States Fire Departments and rename that Category:Fire departments of the United States. ReeseM 02:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge and rename respectively as proposed. Bhoeble 15:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename as per above. David Kernow 17:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have depopulated the category and moved them to the more suitabale name of Category:Environmental awareness days. Alan Liefting 00:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bhoeble 15:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. David Kernow 17:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:20, 26 March 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.