The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is for infoboxes only, but the current name implies that it's also for navboxes and such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Its parent cat is Category:Computer and video game infobox templates. --Usgnus 23:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, with a veiw to keep. El.Bastardo 17:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody wants this deleted, least of all me. This is a very useful cat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 3 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was originally a speedy candidate. Most other countries use Biota instead of Flora and fauna. Usgnus 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original nomination: Category:Flora and Fiona of Azerbaijan to Category:Flora and Fauna of Azerbaijan. Spelling. ProveIt ^(talk) 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also accept Provelt's nomination, but with a lowercase "f" in "fauna", that is, Category:Flora and fauna of Azerbaijan. --Usgnus 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency with others in parent cat. --Musicpvm 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ProveIt ^(talk) 17:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Biota of Azerbaijan. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:12, 2 July 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 regarding 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/merge all but Chandler. Conscious 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Clevelanders to Category:People from Cleveland
• Category:Albuquerquians to Category:People from Albuquerque, New Mexico
• Category:Manhattanites to Category:People from Manhattan
• Category:Dallasites to Category:People from Dallas
• Category:Houstonians to Category:People from Houston
• Category:Staten Islanders to Category:People from Staten Island
• Category:Bronxites to Category:People from the Bronx
• Category:Long Islanders to Category:People from Long Island
• Category:Brooklynites to Category:People from Brooklyn
• Category:Queensites to Category:People from Queens

Consistency with all the U.S. states and cities [e.g. for Category:Queensites, the parent category is "People from New York" not "New Yorkers". North Carolina is "People from North Carolina" not "North Carolinians", and et cetera. User:Arual 22:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Phoenicians (Arizona) to Category:People from Phoenix, Arizona

I also suggest merging Category:People from Chandler, Arizona to this category since Chandler is a suburb of Phoenix. User:Arual 21:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Category:New Orleanians to Category:People from New Orleans
• Category:Atlantans to Category:People from Atlanta
• Category:Austinites to Category:People from Austin, Texas
• Category:Ann Arborites to Category:People from Ann Arbor, Michigan
• People not from Ann Arbor, Michigan won't know what the category is about. Picks up about 10k search result pages, mostly from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. User:Arual 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename[/merge all]. We need consistency, so we should eliminate categories that use demonyms. --Musicpvm 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename[/merge all] per nom. Chicheley 22:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some, Category redirect notable, as other recent discussions. However, I do not agree with merging suburban people into nearby cities. Keep them as subcategories. --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree. Maybe people from some edge cities could be included, but not from every place in an MSA. Great caution should be used. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Honbicot 07:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/rename all for consitency. This should be applied to all similiar cats across wikipedia. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do exactly what William Allen Simpson said. Plus, I would recommend using the word "of" instead of "from"; I think it's more accurate (think of how many times someone has asked you, "No, where are you from"?)--M@rēino 16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also prefer of to from, but can live with either; I've lived in so many places I can't really claim to be from anywhere. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Where are you from?" and "I'm from X" seem an ordinary enquiry and response to me – or is that the point...?  Unsure, David Kernow 12:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to go with from over of, for consistency. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename[/merge all] for consistant encyclopedic standards. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all/category redirects for notable demonyms/subcats for suburbs as William Allen Simpson said. Very few of these are intuitive forms outside their own region and we need to be aiming for a consistent level of global user-friendliness (as with expanding acronyms). --Mereda 10:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Per nom. Golfcam 03:06, 6 July 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 regarding 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 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three subcategories which do not follow the style used for the other 17 categories (15 national + parent + stubs).

• category:Dutch royal family members --> Category:Dutch royalty
• category:Swedish royal family --> Category:Swedish royalty (this was a redirect to category:Swedish monarchy, but that is properly a parent category of it, not the same thing)
• category:Danish royals --> Category:Danish royalty
• Rename all as nom Chicheley 22:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Usgnus 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, silly wordsmithing. Ardenn 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain why you favour random inconsistency? Chicheley 02:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Sumahoy 03:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistancy of style. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:15, 2 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with Category:Polish clergy, which is how the other categories are named.

• Delete per nom. Appleseed (Talk) 21:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for consistency. --Musicpvm 21:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for consistency & encyclopedic standards. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. El.Bastardo 18:01, 3 July 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 regarding 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 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Category:Legendary Polish monarchs, which fits better in categories Category:Legendary Polish people and Category:Polish monarchs.

• Delete per nom. Appleseed (Talk) 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and see related renaming proposals above. David Kernow 00:21, 30 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 deleted as repost. In future, just slap a {{db-repost}} on anything like this. Kimchi.sg 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete please - this is about the fourth time that User:Raymond_Cruise has put this up; it was last agreed to be deleted only a few days ago (see copy discussion below). Can someone also slap Raymond's wrist please and tell him to stop it.--Smerus 19:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Chicheley 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -- removed old discussion, the templates won't work well -- here are the relevant links:
  • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 29
  • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 19
  • Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 7

  --William Allen Simpson 02:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Why list it here? Why not just tag it with {{db-reason}} (G4)? --Usgnus 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I did, but I had to clean it out first. --William Allen Simpson

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 regarding 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. Conscious 19:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for two similar categories. Also, "stars" is a very POV term, so it should be merged into Category:Reality television participants and deleted as should Category:Reality show finalists (see below). --Musicpvm 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'stars'. I agree with nom. User:Arual 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as reality televsion is just hyper games shows, and I don't think it is needed. -Lady Aleena @ 07:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "stars" and "finalists," support move to "participants" per nomination. Crumbsucker 07:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:20, 2 July 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 regarding 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 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shows which have been remade in a more modern style. Interesting idea, but probably not a useful category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chicheley 22:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:TV series remakes or the like as I believe this category might be viable, e.g. I recently heard that the British show "Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)" had been remade. Any TV buffs know more?  Regards, David Kernow 00:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the only other series that I know of that would fit here is Battlestar Galactica (1978) and Battlestar Galactica (2004). -Lady Aleena @ 07:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 03:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Name sounds POV. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. El.Bastardo 17:56, 3 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is another "Top X" list from another magazine, generated by a another proprietary formula which provides little value to the end user in relating them to each other. What's more, with 1200 listings which will shift periodically, this presents a far greater maintenance challenge than the Top 20s and Top 100s we often come across. -choster 17:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Either this, or something similar, has been deleted before. Osomec 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and also delete the category redirect Category:Newsweek Top 1200 High Schools. --Musicpvm 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. User:Arual 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Even though my school's on here, I say delete.--24.106.162.8 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an arbitrary list that will change year to year. There are better ways to categorize schools than Newsweek's number-crunching. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete purely because it's a giant maintenance chore; the list is certainly well known in the USA. I'll change my vote if Newsweek hires an intern to constantly monitor the list against fraudulent entries and to update it annually.--M@rēino 16:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmaintainable. BoojiBoy 03:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 03:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unmaintainable and probably useless as well. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sue Anne 02:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. El.Bastardo 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am the creator of the category, and I agree with you! I see that it is WAY to hard to maintain.--Jordan 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's nearly impossible to maintain this page. --GoOdCoNtEnT 23:30, 5 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the context of creation, it looks like 'finalists' means 'coming in second', which I don't think is a useful category. Thre are already categories for many different reality shows, and a all-encompassing category (of all Idol series contestants) doesn't add anything. However, if it's decided to make this an all encompassing category, then maybe Category:Reality show contestants would be a better name. ArglebargleIV 13:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Category:Reality television participants is enough. --Musicpvm 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundancy. User:Arual 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -Lady Aleena @ 07:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not needed. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary -- Nesher 12:36, 3 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the context of creation, it looks like 'finalists' means 'coming in second', which I don't think is a useful category. Thre are already categories for each different Idol series, and a all-encompassing category (of all Idol series contestants) doesn't add anything. However, if it's decided to make this an all encompassing category, then maybe Category:Idol series contestants would be a better name. ArglebargleIV 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we already have Category:Idol series contestants and it's subcategories such as Category:American Idol contestants. There is no need for another one. --Musicpvm 18:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, impertinent. User:Arual 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If we already have categories for that TV show's contestants, no need for one for 'coming in second' Kevin_b_er 09:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. El.Bastardo 17:56, 3 July 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 regarding 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, suggest separate deletion nomination in case anyone feels like it. Conscious 20:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian-specific category Tangotango 11:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - used by the County Watch vandals to rig votes. --Mais oui! 19:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accusing six editors of vote rigging is a strong allegation - how about some strong evidence to back it up? In fact, any evidence at all? Or any evidence these users are actually members of County Watch, rather than people who identify with some of their goals? This is a category of little usefulness, but as far as I can see, User:Jmb, User:Bayerischermann and User:Modest Genius have been involved in no related votes. If you have any proof, this is a serious matter and you should take it to its proper forum at AN/I. Unevidenced ad hominem arguments, however, are not valid criteria for deletion. Aquilina 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the comment relates to instances where users of this category have circumvented certain violations (namely WP:3RR) via means of a system of reverts, due to the awareness that each other exist, rather than it's use for vote rigging. I could be wrong however, and evidence of vote rigging may or may not be produced. Jhamez84 19:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and rename per nom. Lancsalot 20:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per Mais oui! I've noticed that this is a very contentious issue here on WP, and the source of numerous edit wars. ×Meegs 15:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - as per above. Jhamez84 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete - but as part of this CfD discussion. This template is no different to any of the others at Category:Wikipedians_by_politics, the deletion of which is being debated en masse at the aforementioned page. This category should sink or swim according to that decision. Aquilina 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if this category is to stay, it should be renamed as per nom, as it is a category of users, not articles, regardless of anyone's views on the editors in question or what they advocate. That said, I'm not convinced that having this category is a good idea. Users who oppose the use of traditional counties will probably set up their own rival category, and the relative sizes of the two will be used, not for "vote-rigging" as such, but for claiming consensus in related discussions, if consensus in a particular discussion is going the other way. --RFBailey 07:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. Take your prejudices elsewhere. Owain (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. Sorry I missed the obvious "Wikipedians who..." convention when I created it. Yorkshire Phoenix 07:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • '11:03, 26 June 2006 FlamingLawnDart (Talk | contribs) (Create)' does that mean your admitting to Mascarading as User:FlamingLawnDart.--87.75.130.154 14:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I thought I'd 'created' the category by referencing it in a userbox, but it appears this FlamingLawnDart character actually created it. The inclusion of Category:County Watch Vandal in his original version would suggest it wasn't one of us, wouldn't it? Yorkshire Phoenix 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete A userbox is sufficient to allow people to note their interests, especially as the category appears to be relevant to just 6 wikipedians. or 4 if you take into account this comment from Yorkshire Phoenix on the category Talk page:-

What can we do about this banned User:Irate showing up with a new IP address every couple of days to vandalise our own user pages, categories, contributions, etc (apart from the obvious 12 reverts the 4 of us can use each 24 hours)? Yorkshire Phoenix 10:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(personal login reserved to reduce vandalism to userpage) 82.30.72.134 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is clearly User:Mais oui! attempting to rig the vote. However, only votes from registered users with a history of contributions can count. Lancsalot 09:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless he lives in Huddersfield 'hudd.cable.ntl.com.' and Category:Wikipedians in Scotland says he does nay.--87.75.130.154 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Lancsalot but you are wrong. I would never claim to be a Scot, nor have I any knowledge of the other languages that he seems to be proficient in, having just used your link to see his user page. I have only two language skills:- the Queens English and a strong Yorkshire dialect. It seems you have shown your colours yet again! 82.30.72.134 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't make 82.30. whatever a registered user with any right to vote. Yorkshire Phoenix 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. But forgive me for being suspicious when an unregistered user with no previous history turns up to take part in a vote. Lancsalot 15:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be operating under a delusion the admin who closes the vote only has to count valid arguments. Being a registered user is not a requirment or at least did not use to be.--87.75.130.154 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No but being a legit user clearly is. Otherwise people would be using multiple sockpuppets to stack votes. And the only user I have come across who vandalises userpages is you! You also have no respect for consensus which is why you were banned. Lancsalot 15:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope it is the argument that counts. I haven't vandlized you user page. I have added information. Information which you seem eager to prereserve, by Voting for the presevation of this cat.--87.75.130.154 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 87.75.xxx.xxx is one of the favoured IP ranges of the banned User:Irate; the admin who has to sort out this mess should bear that in mind. Also, perhaps 82.30.72.134 could identify him/herself to stop any more accusations. --RFBailey 16:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should they bear it in mind. I havenot offered an opinion. Simple assisting you lot to over come your short commings.--87.75.130.154 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not because I have a point of view one way or the other on the legitimacy or otherwise of traditional counties, but because of the trouble having this category can be, and in fact already has been, caused. The above discussion/arguing demonstrates my point. --RFBailey 16:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per RFBailey's point above. El.Bastardo 18:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Delete based on the comments read above from both sides and on my Talk Page. Richard Harvey 23:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Simply a mutual admiration society for a small number of people with out-of-date views and try to impose those views on others. Not needed. --maelor 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment none of the Category:Wikipedians... categories are really needed, it's just a way for Wikipedians with similar interests to find each other. Absolutely no harm is caused by its existence. Owain (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the users and timely edits from such a category/network that are percieved to cause harm here (not the category's existence) and have provoked the multiple proposals of delete. Any category's existence is the same - whilst say a "Category:Wikipedias who advocate White-supremacy" may not cause harm by mere existence - it's the agenda that's subsequently pushed on articles which is seen as harmful, politicised and just not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Jhamez84 21:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So not only are we "county watch vandals", regressives and flat earth society members, we are also neo-nazis! Your "arguments" consist entirely of personal abuse. Lancsalot 07:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. I suggest you re-read the paragraph. Jhamez84 10:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. You are equating support for traditional counties with white supremacy. You could have chosen Christian Wikipedians for example, which should also be deleted in accordance with your logic. Lancsalot 11:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll vote for that. Were do I sign up? Wikipedians should only split themselves up by 1 dgree of arc Long and Lat. Category:Wikipedians From 53,-3--84.9.194.116 11:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There's currently a debate on Talk:Traditional_counties_of_England#Traditional.3F regarding changing traditional counties to historic or ancient counties. This category change should be amended to follow suit. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 July 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 regarding 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 revised rename. Conscious 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between the legislatures of Punjab State (India) and Punjab Province (Pakistan). And pluralise. --Mereda 10:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom*. Chicheley 22:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Original nom was to "...of Provincial assembly of..."; hope your rename vote still counts. Please amend with my apologies if not. Regards, David Kernow 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per updated nom. David Kernow 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC), updated David Kernow 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'd support David Kernow's tweak. --Mereda 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have tweaked nom accordingly. Regards, David 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per [updated nom]. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:54, 30 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these characters are fictional sidekicks, but there are real-world sidekicks (like Ed McMahon on the Tonight Show, for example). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom as it's a subcat of the fictional character categories. --Musicpvm 05:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -LA @ 07:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 09:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and Musicpvm. --Usgnus 23:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. --waffle iron ^talk 21:48, 6 July 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 regarding 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. Conscious 19:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two terms encompass the same group of musicians, so Category:MCs should be merged and deleted. --Musicpvm 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate rename Category:Masters of Ceremony which is what MC stands for the last time I checked, and a Master of Ceremony is not always a rap musician. -LA @ 07:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is true, but the category states "This is a list of rappers that either rap their hit single or freestyle in concerts" and is a subcategory of Category:Rappers. Even if renamed to Masters of Ceremony, I don't think such a category would be useful. Who would it include? --Musicpvm 07:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:Rappers and MCs...?  David Kernow 09:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but also create "Masters of Ceremony" for Bob Barker and other famous hosts. A dope MC is a dope MC, but he's also a dope rapper. Bob Barker is an MC, but he's not dope. He's a Master of Ceremony. (Hope this makes sense)--M@rēino 14:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who on earth could possibly be sufficiently notable as a Master of Ceremonies qua Master of Ceremonies to warrant a category for that? Merge; the hip hop meaning of the word is redundant with Category:Rappers, and the non-hip hop meaning is entirely unnecessary as a category. Bob Barker's MC-ness is covered more than adequately by Category:Game show hosts. Bearcat 02:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dick Clark and Bob Hope spring to mind as Masters of Ceremony, and they are not game show hosts. - LA @ 12:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd have to include every actor and comedian who'd hosted the academy awards, the emmies, etc. etc. --JeffW 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Also, I agree with Bearcat, Category:Masters of Ceremony is a terrible idea for a category. Recury 14:24, 6 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very important specificity required here because in the past confusion has arisen between some sub-categories of Category:Orthodox Judaism and Category:Eastern Orthodoxy of Christianity. IZAK 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for above reasons. IZAK 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - this should be a no-brainer. --Leifern 06:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. As per nom. --Doright 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 09:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - as creater of this category, I definately agree to this change and regret not iniating it under the proposed name at first -- Nesher 11:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Seems obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Yoninah 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Daniel575 19:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. El.Bastardo 18:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Shuki 22:02, 5 July 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 regarding 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 19:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Recognizing that categories should be consistent, based on recommendations below, I have reworded the suggested name for the new category. Thank you, IZAK 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option one: Rename: This option is "the lesser of two evils" (see option two below): There are already similar sounding categories as Category:Black Jews; Category:Converts to Judaism (and someone just created a sub-category to that Category:Converts to Orthodox Judaism); Category:Mizrahi Jews. To avoid any misunderstandings that any Jews claiming to be, or allegedly belonging to, Orthodox Judaism might or could get themsleves listed/categorized here, this category needs to specify that to be in it, that person needs to meet the Orthodox Judaism criteria as described in Who is a Jew? and hence by default meet Category:Wikipedia notability criteria, especially Wikipedia:Notability (people) (as further examples, see also Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (doctors).) IZAK 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option two: Delete: Because Jews are Jews, it is only from the POV of the denominations or ideologies such as Orthodox Judaism or Conservative Judaism or Reform Judaism that create an impression (which may paradoxically be both true and false) that there are different "types" of Jews. This is very tricky because while Jews have genuine differences based on ethnicity, such as between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews (and it would be a nightmare to create categories for those) to now have "categories" of individuals not noted for anything other than being born, having been, or becoming "Orthodox" by denomination or ideology creates a huge problem. This means there will now also have to be Category:Conservative Jews; Category:Reform Jews; Category:Unaffiliated Jews; Category:Secular Jews; Category:Atheist Jews; Category:Communist Jews etc, etc ad nauseam. To create a trend for categories for all types of people by denominations they are deemed to follow could lead to speculation not based on fact (how do we know or judge if a politician or businessman is truly an "Orthodox Jew"?) and that would lead to wild splintering, probable chaos and sure-fire Snowballing WP:SNOWBALL. IZAK 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever, so long as the word "notable" does not start appearing in category titles. Paul 06:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and if not Delete for above reasons. IZAK 04:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if kept, do not rename as words like "notable" or "famous" should be avoided in category names. If someone has an article at Wikipedia, they are already somewhat notable. "Notable" could be added to the beginning of almost every category, but it is unnecessary. --Musicpvm 04:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musicpvm: There are exceptions and I was trying to be precise according to Wikipedia's own terminology. We already have Category:Prominent Lubavitchers (note the word "Prominent"). I also looked around and found that your "rule" is not always applied: See Category:Famous patients (note the word "Famous") and Category:Important people in rail transport (note the word "Important"). Thanks, IZAK 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what you mean, but I think all the categories you mentioned should be renamed. If "notable" is added to the beginning of this category name, I don't see why it shouldn't be added to the beginning of other categories which categorize people by religion as well. Now that you have added a second option, I will change by vote to a comment though. --Musicpvm 05:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Musicpvm: This is not an easy call, as you can tell, and let's see what others add to this discussion. But I do appreciate your thoughtfulness. IZAK 07:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those should be renamed. Wikipedia is full of bad practice and it doesn't all get dealt with as fast as it should. The existent of those categories lends no more justification to the current proposal than the fact that Wikipedia is fully of spelling mistakes would to a proposal to deliberately insert some new spelling mistakes. Osomec 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (first choice) or rename (my lesser of two evils) - I think these lists of Jews is misplaced to begin with; also it's arguably meaningless. (Orthodox) Judaism doesn't differentiate among types of Jews - Orthodoxy is a category of Jewish communities. --Leifern 05:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any change - Hi IZAK, I feel you are not approaching this issue with the attitude it deserves. By definition, an article can only be accepted on wikipedia if it's notable - so by the time a category is created, that issue should be non-existent. If you're worried about notability, I suggest you go a stage back and verify each article individually for their importance and worth. As User:musicpvm succinctly pointed out, "If someone has an article at Wikipedia, they are already somewhat notable. "Notable" could be added to the beginning of almost every category, but it is unnecessary."

As the person who placed most of the current occupiers of that category, I can state with 100% confidence that they all "meet the Orthodox Judaism criteria as described in Who is a Jew?" - although in case you weren't aware, wikipedia has absolutely no say in defining Jews.

Secondly, as to your super-simplistic and misleading treatment of denominations in Judaism: it is not only "from the POV of the denominations or ideologies such as Orthodox Judaism" that creates an impression of who their adherents are; rather, these adherents are self-admitted and recognised as being Orthodox. I fail to spot any paradox of any sort.

If you had studied the occupants of the category you will have noticed they were not just "born... been, or becoming "Orthodox" - but all are ORTHODOX AT THE PRESENT TIME. Finally, IZAK, please don't panic-monger by invoking meaningless things such as Wikipedia:Snowball clause, which as that pages admits - is only a view and NOT OFFICIAL wikipedia policy. Many thanks, Nesher

• PS: If there exists a category Category:Orthodox Jewish Wikipedians - which includes administrators - then it is entirely contradictory to delete this category -- Nesher
  • Nesher: You are opening a pandora's box here and you don't even know it! Do you think that you are the first one to notice that no "Category:Orthodox Jews" has been around for over two years -- when other more experienced editors have been avoiding creating a category that is bound to breed controversy? It is one thing to focus-in on rabbis and it is simple and non-controversial to label/categorize them 99.99% of the time based on their writings and the positions they have held, but it is quite another thing to label/categorize ordinary Jews not known for contributing anything to Orthodox Judaism in a scholarly way. Another serious issue you tend to gloss over is what's going to happen when someone decides that all the notables in Category:Mishnah rabbis, Category:Talmud rabbis, Category:Middle Ages rabbis justly deserve to be included in Category:Orthodox Jews and then someone else will claim that, hey, those sages are not the preserve of the Orthodox alone and are also meant to be in a Category:Reform Jews and Category:Conservative Jews? How about if someone decides to add Category:Jesus to Category:Orthodox Jews, would they be wrong and how would you deal with that? These are just a few of the problems you have created by starting this category. Just because the "present occupants" of the category are few, does not mean that more problems will not arise as more names and categories may be added. Think before you leap. IZAK 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nesher: By the way, from the way you say "wikipedia has absolutely no say in defining Jews" shows that you have still not grasped what Wikipedia is about! Wikipedia is not concerned with "defining Jews" in any way (Wikipedia is not a Beth Din and it is most definitely NOT a yeshiva!), Wikipedia is a general online Internet (basically very secular) encyclopedia that must attempt to somehow or other convey all the views out there, even those we disagree with personally, in a NPOV fashion, that's it! This is a very difficult notion to grasp and digest and it is often misunderstood by many people, and often people who are devoutly religious cannot function in such an open and free environment, you need to have some familiarity with "the outside world." Why do you think it's now urgent to categorize the world's famous Jews according to their religious beliefs?, or lack thereof, because this is now what you have opened the door to. Or did you not consider the fact that once you create a category that touches on a very delicate subject-matter it may have a snowballing-effect (that is what is meant by "WP:SNOWBALL" -- why do you think I was talking about "policies" when I was talking logic?) as others then, (following your example), will create similar-sounding categories, such as Category:Atheist Jews for Atheist Jews or Category:Christian Jews for Category:Jews who converted to Christianity and who knows what else -- that in all probability will all get nominated for deletion because of the chaos and incoherence that such categories will engender! Finally, just because the occupants of the category now were selected by you, and I know you can identify Orthodox Jews, the problem is that when you are not around it cannot be predicted how this category will be populated and connected by less discriminating, or even manipulative future editors. IZAK 04:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, oppose rename, stop this nonsense about POV. Someone is an Orthdox Jew if and only if they claim to be an Orthodox Jew. Orthodoxy is a religion; it has a birthright but one can also remove oneself through apostasy.--M@rēino 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are no circumstances in which qualifiers like "notable" and "famous" are acceptable in category names. Osomec 17:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's Option 2. Splintering people into so many categories will lead to all sorts of new categories, and will the casual Wikipedia reader think to look under any of them? Yoninah 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Keep (first choice). Delete (second choice). Do not rename to include "Notable". --Usgnus 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)--Usgnus 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC) --Usgnus 17:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (first choice), Rename (second choice), but then would insist on creating Category:Jews identified as Reform and category:Jews identified as Reconstructionist. And as we already have Atheist Jew, I'm pretty sure Category:Atheist Jews cannot be far behind! --William Allen Simpson 04:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: We don't generally concern ourselves about whether a Wikipedian is notable, so the Category:Orthodox Jewish Wikipedians shouldn't be considered any kind of precedent. I've complained before about Nesher's Orthodox tilt. For example, I'm pretty sure that I'm rather more notable than just about any administrator here.... --William Allen Simpson 04:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (first choice) or Rename (second choice) to Category:Jews identified as Orthodox. – Hillel 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - all the articles in this category are already on wikipedia, and without this grouping, many of them have no Jewish link whatsoever in their articles. Hence, this is really a home for many of these articles and an anchor to a common theme that is/was very important in their lives; namely, Orthodox Judaism. If you don't believe me, I ask you where articles such as Meshulam Gross, Robert Aumann, Mayer Amschel Rothschild and Dov Hikind would go. Many of these people deserve to be remembered and recognised where they stand out from their peers - as the minority that tenaciously clung to Orthodox Judaism in testing times. Finally, please explain how the uncontested Category:Orthodox Jewish Wikipedians poses no contradictions to the possible deletion of this category. -- Nesher 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and if not Delete per IZAK. 172 | Talk 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom#2. Tomer^talk 00:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think we should keep things the old way in this case. I don't see any problem in a category of Orthodox Jews. If someone is shomer shabbos, shomer kashrus, davens in a shul with a mechitzah and fasts on the 10th of Teves - then just what could be the problem in classifying him as Orthodox? --Daniel575 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is. About the proposed rename to Category:Jews identified as Orthodox - identified by whom? Maybe the "Central Orthodox Jews Identification Council"??? Or maybe they are identified by there looks or clothes? Anyway, if this category should be deleted or renamed then these should too no?
  • Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians
  • Category:Antiochian Orthodox Christians
  • Maybe the whole Category:Christians by denomination and sub-categories all together as well.

why stop there, lets rename every Religious faiths, traditions, and movements denomination from "X Y" to "X identified as Y" --TheYmode 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per ymode, daniel575 and others. I can't stand the need to categorize people too much, but if its good enough for the gentiles, than why are some editors trying to POV? --Shuki 22:01, 5 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by two categories, Category:Polish music festivals and Category:Polish music competitions, which are more in line with the categorization scheme.

• Delete per nom. Appleseed (Talk) 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 09:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Usgnus 23:37, 29 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 regarding 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. Conscious 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- of course, these are "by category", this is a category! No articles. Move the three categories up to Category:United States Senators --William Allen Simpson 03:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:United States Senators per nom. --Musicpvm 04:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -LA @ 07:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 09:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.--M@rēino 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:United States Senators is currently composed of categories of the form "United States Senators from <state>" and this nomination would merge into that list categories like Category:African American Senators and Category:Female United States Senators. If this is done, I propose that Category:United States Senators by state be created for all the "from <state>" categories. --JeffW 08:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are only two or three exceptions it would be better to move them to the top of the category. Osomec 21:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Mereda 11:08, 4 July 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 regarding 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 and merge from Category:Women in the United States Senate. Conscious 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect capital. Chicheley 20:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from speedy -- Merge to Category:Women in the United States Senate --William Allen Simpson 03:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mr. Simpson. Also, not an incorrect capital. Paul 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom and reverse merge Category:Women in the United States Senate into it as per the separate nomination of that above. "Women in" can by misinterpreted to apply onto to current members. Osomec 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom and merge the other one into this. Cloachland 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Women in the United States Senate to Category:Female United States Senators. Redundant. (Note: The new category is currently nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Female United States senators.) —Markles 11:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I've merged these redundant discussions, as Markles didn't bother to look before nominating. --William Allen Simpson 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Female United States senators. "Women in" could be misinterpreted to apply only to current female senators. Osomec 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  1. The Members don't call themselves "females", they call themselves "women".
  2. It's the "Women's Caucus".
  3. See "Women in the United States Senate" at womenshistory.
  4. The Larry King Live interview is about "Women in the United States Senate".
  5. We call teenage pages (youngsters that run errands) male and female pages.

  --William Allen Simpson 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Female United States senators. It's Wikipedia's practices that are relevant. Deletion would be an acceptable option. Honbicot 07:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Women in the United States Senate, as first choice. Second choice is Category:Female United States Senators with the capital "S". Category:Female United States senators is wrong on all counts. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as Category:Female United States Senators is better than the current alternatives. There's Senate-subject consistency and clarity in using "Senators" here (with a capital) - even though the Congressmen/women next door are under Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives which is closer to a global norm - so what's needed is the gender adjective for Senators.--Mereda 11:19, 4 July 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 regarding 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 Tim! 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neighborhoods is a direct sub-cat of Category:Cities. As such, I believe Category:Cities by country and Category:Neighbourhoods by country should have the same naming convention as they are both permanently located man-made entities. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects, "in country" is used for Cities. The following Neighbourhood by country categories are proposed to match this naming convention:

• Category:Neighbourhoods of Australia to Category:Neighbourhoods in Australia
• Category:Neighborhoods of Brazil to Category:Neighborhoods in Brazil
• Category:Neighbourhoods of Canada to Category:Neighbourhoods in Canada
• Category:Neighborhoods of Cuba to Category:Neighborhoods in Cuba
• Category:Neighbourhoods of India to Category:Neighbourhoods in India
• Category:Neighborhoods of Israel to Category:Neighborhoods in Israel
• Category:Neighbourhoods of Turkey to Category:Neighbourhoods in Turkey
• Category:Neighbourhoods of the United Kingdom to Category:Neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom
• Category:Neighborhoods of the United States to Category:Neighborhoods in the United States

--Kurieeto 03:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all for consistency with city categories. --Musicpvm 04:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Usgnus 23:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. --Carioca 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why are all these categorized by country and not by smaller regions, such as State, Province, County or District? -- Samuel Wantman 09:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the US, the most populated category, there are only 47 subcats. I doubt any state has more than 3-4 cities represented there... so it would be a pain to check 20 categories with 1-3 entries to see what cities were listed. it just makes more sense as it is. --W.marsh 01:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list article such as List of neighborhoods in Texas may be a better way of collecting information for those smaller regions, as per W.marsh. Kurieeto 19:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. El.Bastardo 18:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The sub-categories are quite confused and should probably all be renamed to "neighborhoods in city" style, right? --W.marsh 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, I'll address those in a subsequent cfru. Kurieeto 19:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The CfD notice on Category:Neighborhoods of the United States proposes renaming it to Category:Neighbourhoods in the United States (note the "u" in "neighbourhoods"). It'd be better to keep the U.S. spelling for U.S. topics. -Will Beback 00:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for noticing that error, I've corrected it to the intended "neighborhoods". Kurieeto 19:20, 5 July 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 regarding 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 Tim! 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand, please ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; not an adjectival abbreviation. David Kernow 02:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to avoid confusion. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to avoid confusion. --M@rēino 14:41, 29 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 regarding 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 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a category; possible copyvio?, if not it should be wikified as an article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 06:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to main space as Basketball in England. I did a bunch of websearches and found no evidence of copyvio.--M@rēino 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the content as suggested. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Usgnus 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty, thanks to ProveIt. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:01, 30 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 regarding 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 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is supposed to list all HQ cities of any company listed on NASDAQ. This seems like useless cruft, since it is unlikely anyone would want to navigate entries by that manner. It would eventually just up simply listing most all major cities in the U.S. Bovineone 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a very bad idea for a category. --Musicpvm 04:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Paul 06:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Osomec 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Usgnus 23:35, 29 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.