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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to the standard "in" form for man made objects, which will match the parent category Category:Skyscrapers in China. CalJW 23:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename in line with convention. Carina22 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename All of these should be speedies, not just the country category. Bhoeble 12:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Note - no one has proposed the conventions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) apply to subnational entities (yet). The by-country conventions (including "Skyscrapers in ...") do not currently apply to anything other than countries. If anyone would like to pursue expanding them, feel free to so propose. -- Rick Block ( talk) 05:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Category:Shanghai skyscrapers is fine as it is STopCat 00:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename If there is a convention it should be used consistently. 16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In October an agreement was reached to rename all of these to a neutral form, ie. "venues", but it was only implemented for some of those which used British English. Either the agreement should be applied to North America as well, or local terms should be used everywhere. I suggest that the previous agreement should now be fully implemented.

• category:Horse racing tracks in the United States --> Category:Horse racing venues in the United States
• category:Horse racing tracks in Canada --> Category:Horse racing venues in Canada
• Category:Racecourses in Hong Kong --> Category:Horse racing venues in Hong Kong
• Rename all CalJW 23:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename Bhoeble 12:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep All STopCat 00:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep All If local people use a term, why would you change it to another country's term for something that resides in the local country? I live in Canada, and it would never occour to me to seach for a horse racing "venue". These things here are actually implicity referred to as "the track". I would search for "track", "horse track", or "horse racing". Leaving "track" out of the name removes a lot of the meaning of the idea for me. Also, I don't understand what could possibly be non-neutral about "track". -- Kat 07:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The point made is that an agreement to rename them all has been reneged on in favour granting preferential agreement to American English. Bhoeble 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This user has a very limited edit history, much of which is in CFD. Probably a sockpuppet. Martin 22:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Film directors is the agreed standard form as per Category:Film directors by nationality. (The inconsistency of the Filipino/Philippine/of the Philippines categories should all be dealt with at once I think, and I'll try to get round to it one day.) CalJW 23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Okay merge into a new Category:Filipino film directors. I was trying to avoid the complications of raising two issues at once, which can lead to a no consensus outcome even when no-one supports the existing name, but it didn't work. CalJW 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename Carina22 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose -Filipinos use the word Filipinos to refer to the People.-- Jondel 10:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  Rename BOTH to Category:Filipino film directors -- Jondel 08:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename Deal with the other issue separately as suggested. Bhoeble 12:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Filipinos is the term used to name people from the Philippines. 210.213.144.79 14:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (Silly me, did not log in. Circa 1900 14:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)) reply
  • Rename both to Category:Filipino Film directors Circa 1900 04:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agree with movie → film. No comment on Filipino vs. Philippine (would prefer Filipino tho..). — Insta ntnood 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename There are two issues but there is no need to confuse them. Sumahoy
• Rename (Movie --> Film); Oppose (Filipino --> Philippine). "Philippine" is the adjective to refer to institutions and official things (e.g., Philippine Senate, Philippine Government) while "Filipino" is the adjective to refer to the people and often, cultural things (Filipino actors, Filipino cuisine, Filipino art, Filipino film directors). -- seav 00:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose to Category:Philippine film directors. Rename to Category:Filipino film directors -- Vizcarra 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename both to Category:Filipino film directors. Coffee 05:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename the category to Category:Filipino film directors. -- Jojit fb 05:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Filipino film directors per above -- Taiichi « talk» 08:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Companies are categorised by country in Category:Companies by country and in various other specialist categories. Pharmaceutical companies are based in countries, but they can hardly be said to have nationality affinities. Rename Category:Pharmaceutical companies by country for consistency. CalJW 23:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename as nominated. Carina22 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename for reasons given. Bhoeble 12:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Using "nationality" vs. "country" is undeniably incorrect English -- Kat 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename We don't all treat corporations as people ;-) - N (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Possibly the most useless category I have ever seen introduced. Potentially impossibly large; also, no clear criterion for inclusion (anyone who ever puffed a cigarette or took a hit off a joint? Only three-pack-a day types? Every single person who ever participated in the Native American peace pipe ritual? or what?) -- Jmabel | Talk 20:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. -- Reinyday, 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. With smokers becoming a persecuted minority in North America and parts of Europe, it is interesting and useful to see a category of notable smokers. Verifiable, maintainable, and useful. Owen× ☎ 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. From WP:CG: If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?. Smoking persecution might make a fine topic for an article, but definitely not as a category. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Trivial in relation to nearly all the potential members, who are excessively numerous (and subcategorising them would not be worthwhile). CalJW 23:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per CalJW. Palmiro | Talk 00:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Most people in some periods would belong in this. Carina22 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep or listify. — Insta ntnood 08:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Will never be complete or accurate, and wouldn't be a good thing if it was. Bhoeble 12:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not useful. Sumahoy 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too trivial. I can't imagine with the way smokers "quit" they would be on and off the list every month. -- Vizcarra 00:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete G4 -- this has already undergone CfD once and the result of that debate was delete. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and link from Tobacco_smoking, like other lists on wikipedia. It absolutely is useful (a lot of people here are assuming the list's purpose, which is bad). Can't be complete/accurate is not a good reason for not making something; all topics change over time to some degree, and I doubt it is intended to be an exhaustive list anyway. Furthermore, you can't argue privacy if the person on the list makes it public knowledge in the first place. As an analogy, think of Musician and List_of_musicians_by_genre. There is even a List_of_Jews. -- Kat 07:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing like Category:Musicians. More like category:Tall people. Rhollenton 16:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

POV and not very useful. JW 20:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete or convert back to list. This is an inappropriate category. As a list it might have a discussion of what character each actor has been typecast into. I don't know why it was changed from a list to a category to begin with. - Willmcw 22:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. -- Reinyday, 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All that is required is an article on typecasting. A category cannot provide context. CalJW 23:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify. -- Vizcarra 00:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, totally trash, where is Mark Hammil? This list is pure shit. Mcfly85 11:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Convert to list and link to from Typecasting (acting). Silly as a category, a list could be useful, but the list contents would be very subjective. Unless maybe we only keep Steven Seagal on there. -- Kat 07:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Created from the list that was deleted. Seems like it would be better as something like a List of actors that have been described as being typecast, so that references can be cited. - N (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Appears to be completely redundant. Proposal is to merge to category name more similar to others in Category:United States student societies Dystopos 15:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename assuming that Fraternity is not part of the name. Carina22 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep; not redundant. People less familiar with fraternities may not know what you are talking about; for all they know it is a medical condition or an acronym for something. Also, aren't greek letters used in naming other things as well? Removing "Fraternity" will confuse people. -- Kat 06:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• If, as Kat suggests, the word "fraternity" is needed, Rename to Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity brothers or Brothers of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity ("fraternity" is not part of the name, and should not be capitalised). - N (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

"Mongolic" refers unambiguously to the language family. "Mongolian languages" could mean "languages spoken in Mongolia". I've already renamed the article Mongolic languages, and the category should be renamed to match. Angr ( t· c) 12:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose. "Mongolian" is the more commonly established name for the language family, and is used by databases such as Ethnologue. Also, "-ian" is used in other language family names as well, including where they could appear to ambiguously refer to an established country, e.g. "Burman", "Iranian", "Armenian", etc. language families. - Gilgamesh 13:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

"Mongolic languages" actually gets more Google hits than "Mongolian languages" once you exclude Wikipedia from the search. What Ethnologue does is irrelevant. "Burman" and "Iranian" are unambiguous because the local languages are called "Burmese" and "Persian", and "Armenian" is only a language, not a family. Compare also The Mongolic Languages, a scholarly reference book. Searching for "Mongolian languages" on Amazon only turns up books about the Mongolian language. -- Angr ( t· c) 13:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oppose whether it has more google hits or not,mongolic doesn't sound right.-- Jondel 10:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per Angr who has provided convincing evidence that the term Mongolic is used in academic circles (even if it doesn't "sound right") and made a valid argument about ambiguity. Valiantis 15:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. I stand convinced by the nominator's arguments. - TexasAndroid 20:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. - Mayumashu 05:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

See Category talk:Cities with significant Arab Israeli populations: "If this category must stay, it should be at least be better defined. What does a significant Arab population mean? For example, Nazerat Illit was just added to that category. On what basis? According to that page, this town has only 9% Arab pupulation, which while is not zero (of course), is certainly not "significant", and in fact is lower than the Arab-Israeli percentage in the whole of Israel (20%). The small number of Arab-Israelis in Nazerat Illit is particularly glaring when you compare it to the neighboring city of Nazareth (which is mostly populated by Arab-Israelis). So we need a better definition of a significant population. Are we talking "more than 1%"? "more than 10%"? More than their share in the general population (20%)? Nyh 10:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)" In addition, the user who initiated this category inserted a description "Cities in Israel that are chiefly Arab Israeli cities or have significant Arab Israeli populations." [1] and has placed the sub-categories Category:Haifa; Category:Jerusalem; Category:Tel Aviv into this "super-category" which does not even mention " Israel" in its Category name, only "Arab Israeli" which is clearly POV. IZAK reply

Note: As of: 17:42, 4 December 2005, User:Gilgamesh emptied the category and placed an "empty" template on it [2] that officialy requests "speedy deletion" of this category. IZAK 03:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete for above reasons as it creates a serious pro-Arab and anti-Israel POV. IZAK 11:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Adamant keep (see new vote further down). IZAK, you keep assuming far too much... I realized that the category is of interest to those curious about the Arab population information in Israel. I added all articles whose Israeli demographics mentioned an Arab population and did not say "with no significant Arab population". It is by no means anti-Israel, and the very implication thereof made me pause and blink in disbelief. Is Israel not, afterall, a country with Arab Israeli citizens and Arabic as an official language? They are a minority of particular importance, enough for the Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel to mention them specifically in their population and density reports. If the Israeli government expends this much effort, then why not we? Fully one-fifth of Israel's legal citizen population are Arabs, and many of them live in cities that are either largely Arab in population, or are mixed cities such as Haifa, Tel Aviv-Yafo, and Jerusalem. Anyway, IZAK, did we not already have the discussion about endeavouring to respect your fellow editors and not make assumptions about their motives? Why does it seem that time after time you suggest that I am an anti-Israel? Where did I ever once say or indicate that I was anti-Israel in any way, shape or fashion? Where do you get this from? Anyway, rename the category if you must, but it fully deserves to stay. - Gilgamesh 12:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I cannot fathom how Tel Aviv fits into this category? And you have never addressed UserNyh's concerns as to what criteria to use, and now, you casually say "rename the category" which is far too flippant when dealing with such a volatile subject. This is very alarming, I think. IZAK 12:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Gilgamesh, I can't speak for IZAK, but I for one never said that this category was "anti-Israeli". I just said it was ill-defined and uninformative. The phrase "having no significant Arab population" means that the overwhelming majority of a town's population is Jewish. The opposite of that is not "having a significant Arab population"! A more appropriate opposite would be "having a non-negligable Arab population". If you feel this category is important (and I think it's not - see the next paragraph), at least try to define it better, say, define some percentage which you call "significant". Otherwise, you'll just see edit wars in which one person thinks that a 9% Arab population in Nazerat Illit is "significant" and another person thinks it is not. Another problem I have with this category even if it was not created for that reason, to many readers of the articles involved it may sound racists. As if the "city with significant Arab population" is supposed to somehow have some negative impact on this city. Imagine American cities being labled as whether or not they "have a significant black population" - I think to most Americans, this would sound odd. So, what does "having a significant Arab population" do to a city? Why is it more important to mention that then "having a significant immigrent population", "having a significant Christian population", "having a significant gay population", "having a significant English-sepaking population", or who knows what? The "demography" section of each city should mention all these demographic facts, but my feeling is that that is enough, and we don't need demophics-based categories. Anyway, I vote DELETE unless Gilgamesh better defines this category (what "significant" means) in a way that sounds useful to readers. Nyh 12:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Or how about Category:Arab cities with prior significant Jewish populations? It would work nicely with the article on Jewish exodus from Arab lands very well indeed. IZAK 12:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Sure, why not? I'd be very interested in that. I understand that Hebron had a very important Jewish community before a serious pogrom in the 1920s, and so did Baghdad, Cairo, Tripoli, Sana'a... Actually, yeah, let's do that! I really like that idea. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 13:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Gilgamesh: Sometimes it's best to use one's common sense and not to create anything just because it "pops" into one's head. IZAK 03:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • To be honest I had never thought about the potential racist component. I never thought a city as anyhow negative for having an Arab population. On the contrary, I think the cultural variety makes it interesting and that much more worthy of study. I suppose the category can be renamed to something like "Arab cities in Israel" or even split into two categories—the other being "Mixed cities in Israel", as these cities in particular (Haifa, Akko, Yafo, Lod, Ramla, etc.) have very fascinating histories. - Gilgamesh 13:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete it seems discriminatory to me. Why just the Israeli Arabs? Why are they being singled out - what about the Druze or the Jews? What is important is that they are all Israeli citizens and singling out one of the many ethnic/religious groups seems like trying to make a point. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Izehar 12:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Eh, I never thought of it as derrogatory. I only thought it worthy of repeating from the Central Bureau of Statistics's own methods of classifying information. I wouldn't have done it otherwise, but if the CBS does make a point about it, I thought maybe it really was something worth documenting especially. - Gilgamesh 13:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I didn't know that the CBS used the phrase "City with a significant Arab Israeli population". Given that they do, how do they define "significant". Izehar 13:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Druze are often counted Arabs, Izehar. Some define themseleves so, too. jnothman ^talk 13:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)~ reply
    • Some Israeli Druze do not. Izehar 13:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Abstain and gather concensus on the appropriate way to categorize Arab Israeli culture and statistics (changed vote yet again, see further down) - Gilgamesh 13:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I feel sorry that I've been called over by IZAK, but considering the content and the definition, I do agree. "Significant" is inherantly too vague. We talk of Israeli Arab cities (Umm El Fahm; Abu Gosh; Nazareth) and of mixed cities (Haifa; Akko). [It seems inappropriate that Tel Aviv be subcategorised here, but that is a slightly different question. Haifa and Jerusalem do have significant Arab populations, IMO.] But significant is not descriptive here and I consider the contents of this cateogry either better placed into more descriptively-named categories, or explained clearly by a list associated with the Israeli Arab article. A problem with the use of categories is that an article's membership within that category cannot be qualified; it is absolute. jnothman ^talk
  • That reasoning seems more than fair. Okay, changing my vote again. Delete, maybe reorganize in a more appropriate way under different category names. - Gilgamesh 13:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. as per nominator. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Criteria for inclusion aren't defined anywhere. "Cities in Israel that are chiefly Arab Israeli cities or have significant Arab Israeli populations." doesn't count. Tom e r ^talk 15:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Confusing, and kinda pointless, as just about all Israeli cities have an Arab population of some size, or did in the past. Might as well just tag them all. This is sort of like - "American Cities with significant African American populations": provocative without being informative. -- Woggly 16:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC) If I had read Nyh before voting, I would just have written "what HE said"... -- Woggly 16:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete not a useful or constructive category. Klonimus 16:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Klonimus also "significant" is not well defined. Zeq 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete We don't want the Americans to get any ideas. CalJW 17:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete The Arab-Israeli statistics belong in the Israel article under demographics, not as a separate category. Now that we're talking about it, I would also love to see statistical lists of the Christian-Arab population of Israeli cities, the Druze population of Israeli cities, the Jewish population of Israeli cities, and the English-speaking population of Israeli cities. Yoninah 17:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. -- Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Well...it seems resounding. Do we even need this vote anymore? - Gilgamesh 21:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Del. I think Yoninah's idea deserves consideration. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 22:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree, the article is completley unnecessary when it exists on its own.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete - there are a lot of issues related to minorities in Israel (Arabs, yes; but also Sephardim, Samaritans, Druze, various Christian groups, Ba'hai, etc., etc.). This categorization is vague and casts little light on these issues. I think the point is to highlight that plenty of Israeli towns have Arab residents, but this is as remarkable as pointing out that plenty of American towns have Catholic residents. -- Leifern 23:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As per IZAK and Woggly. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Carina22 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with IZAK gidonb 23:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I have no personal opinion on this controversial matter, but it is clear that after great discussion a preference was established to use Kiev for the timebeing. The main article and the two subcategories both do so. I have no objection to them all being changed one day, but for now I would like the category to agree to the article. Rhollenton 03:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• rename. The issue of Kiev/Kyiv in Wikipedia is more or less settled for now (it may reappear in the future and this is a separate issue). The name should be changed for consistency with other cats category:Natives of Kiev, category:Neighborhoods and raions of Kiev city, category:History of Kiev city and articles if not for anything else. I have recently renamed myself category:History of Kyiv city to category:History of Kiev city and the change went through smoothly. -- Irpen 20:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Kiev, for consistency with the article. Susvolans ⇔ 11:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Kiev -- Vizcarra 01:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Kiev city for consistency with the subcategories. Certainly don't leave it as it is due to this point. Bhoeble 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Kiev city for the same reasons as above -- Kuban kazak 21:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom - N (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 16:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I inadvertently created a category with the wrong name while making an edit.

• Abstain But the whole user category system is out of hand. Carina22 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Empty. Bhoeble 12:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete The whole user category system. CalJW 21:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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