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 -- Kbdank71 12:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Cfr notice was added on July 16 by User:Who. Request to rename to Category:Williams Street Studios series and characters as per Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios Cfd's. -- Kbdank71 17:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename, as I presume Who know's what he's talking about in this area. - Splash 18:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have horrible memory, but I'm sitting here thinking.. "Did i do that?". Nope :) 24.30.157.246 did on 22:45, 11 July 2005. But that's ok ;). I agree. Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 23:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I thought it odd that you'd not completed a nomination. Teach me about trusting an admin, won't it? :) Splash 02:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I thought it was odd too. Sorry about that. -- Kbdank71 12:59, 1 August 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 merge -- Kbdank71 12:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Cfd notice was added by an anon on July 21. Apparently duplicate of Category:Curling at the Olympics. Merge into that category. -- Kbdank71 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge, but shouldn't all these cats really be called Category:Foo at the Olympic Games? - Splash 18:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • No, because that's longer without being clearer. Long subcategory names spoil the appearance of a category page. Osomec 02:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge.. Another tag I didn't know about {{ cfmf}} (created by an anon and not Tfd'd wow.) ∞ Who ?¿? 09:22, 1 August 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 12:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, cfd notice was added on July 23 by User:PullUpYourSocks but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 17:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, evidently redundant. - Splash 18:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:19, 1 August 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 12:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, cfd notice was added on July 23 by User:DavidLevinson but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 17:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, since it is evidently redundant, though I can imagine it could be useful. It can always be recreated if someone sees a need. - Splash 18:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:18, 1 August 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 12:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, cfd notice was added on July 22 by User:Renata3 but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 17:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I would think we are all autodidacts in some form to be contributing here. David | Talk 14:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Hopeless category. Punkmorten 12:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Same reasons. -- Baron Larf 13:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm obviously biased, I created the category. But it is a notable category, like e.g. Category:Consequentialist Wikipedians -- ThomasK 10:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I gather you just created it and did not add yourself. If there were at least 1 user, I would say keep, as I am for most of the Wikipedian categories. Most users do not know about them, its not as easy to populate a Wikipedian cat as it is for articles. ∞ Who ?¿? 11:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• I added myself , however User:Renata3 removed my name from the category. I added myself now back. -- ThomasK 11:16, August 1, 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 reverse changes -- Kbdank71 12:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty category, just got recreated and populated. Although it was kept There was no consensus to rename in this Cfr, it seems it got deleted at a later time and depopulated. Now that its unused, see no point in keeping, as Category:Film by country exists. Category:Cinema by country should have been kept. Revert changes ∞ Who ?¿? 12:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC) addendum ∞ Who ?¿? 22:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• If there was no consensus to delete it then it should be kept and the content reinstated. Especially as the title doesn't match the content anymore. There's no point in listing categories for deletion and us debating it if someone is then just going to ignore the consensus and delete it anyway. If we let people do that it makes a mockery of this whole process. JW 12:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, but just in case there was another Cfd that I missed, I figured it's better to bring it back to Cfd then to let it remain empty and unused. Actually I should have looked at the contents of Film by country, as you are right they are all "Cinema". I did a quick check to see if it was there, only because I semi-remembered a Cfd. I do not want to be the one to do the revert though, as an admin had to delete it. Either it gets reverted, or we list them again together. ∞ Who ?¿? 13:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Revert changes. Looks like the unauthorized changes were made by the same anon who was upset about the first cfd. -- Kbdank71 15:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Revert changes and warn the user that made them. - Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Yep 12.73.195.106. Should we just close this discussion then? ∞ Who ?¿? 21:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Warn him? Against what? Anyone can edit, remember. Your frustrated biases showing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.131 ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 26 July 2005 UTC ∞ Who ?¿? 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • WP:Civil Against going against the consensus and creating the category that was decided NOT to be created and preceding to populate it. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
        • But there was *no* concensus. How can you warn someone "against going against" something that did not exist. Absence of concensus does not - cannot - mean that there was a concensus to keep, but rather that there were not enough participants to make a reasonable, clear determination. Your reply does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.195.132 ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 July 2005

• Keep as Category:Film by country and rename subcategories, articles for terminological consistency = film. Prior discussion of keeping this misnomered as Category:Cinema by country was closed early in mid-discussion before concensus achieved, by "Cinema-POV" admin. See definitions of Film, Cinema for further justification for current name. 12.73.196.131 22:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC) assumed sock puppet of 12.73.195.106 ( talk · contribs) who had category deleted against previous Cfd decision. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Was opened, by me, on 5 July 2005 06:25 (UTC), and closed 13:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC). So that looks like it went 7hours and 18mins over the time, definately not closed too soon. Result, No consensus. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • And this discussion was opened on 25 July, so don't talk about "just closing" it today, then. Also note, the new category was created and filled on 22 July, and nobody's complained for 3 days, and the only ones complaining now are you, kdbank71, and Splash - after the emptied, misnomered category was noted in passing sitting in the to-delete storage category, where it was placed administratively. You admins are not only arguing against good encyclopedic standards (in use of common terminology) but also the process of making and unmaking categories at Wikipedia. You should resign... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.131 ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 July 2005 UTC

• Yes, sometimes things don't get noticed right away, there is no magic ball. Discussion didn't have to be started, it could have been speedied based on prior discussion, hence this one could be closed. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• • • • So, once something's been "discussed" once (even if the discussion has been cut off in mid-interchange, and only a half dozen users were involved), it can never be revived for discussion? Or are you just playing "Queen of Hearts" to this category-maker's "Alice" because you don't like the change he made & the fact that it went over fine with the silent majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.131 ( talk • contribs) 00:36, 27 July 2005
• Comment Let's assume good faith by all concerned. Yes, the rules were followed and there was no consensus, so technically things should have been kept. But since there was not consensus, this seems like a good opportunity to keep the discussion going and perhaps come up with a solution that WILL reach a consensus. The current Category:Film by country could be a workable name for this category. One problem is that it is very close to Category:Films by country so the meaning of it might be confused. A bigger problem is what to name the subcategories. So I'll hold off on voting with the hope that constructive discussion can continue, and perhaps come up with a set of category names that can be acceptable to all. In the previous discussion, I suggested Category:Filmmaking by country. There were objections to this, but perhaps there is some other terminology using "film" that would better convey what is meant by the category. If not, we can stick with "cinema". -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would always agree to a re-nom of a category, based on "good faith" the problem here is, this particular anom ignored the consensus, created the category and populated it. I brought the wrong cat back to Cfd, based on good faith, to reach a consensus. When I realized I brought the wrong cat back, the nom was changed for me. Either way, this cat should have NOT been created, and on "good faith" it was kept as a Cfd rather than a speedy. Even after explaining this, the anon decided to vandalise this page. I am all for the Cfd discussion. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect, and move all content back into Category:Cinema by country where it belongs. Sheesh. -- Visviva 03:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Makes more sense. 12.73.201.81 13:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC) assumed sock puppet of 12.73.195.106 ( talk · contribs) who had category deleted against previous Cfd decision. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't think you can vote more than once, friend. -- Visviva 15:58, 29 July 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 12:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty duplicate of Category:Bahamian football, with wrong capitalisation. sjorford →•← 10:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy per nominator. I didn't move this since it is also a request for deletion. - Splash 16:17, 25 July 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 12:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty category, name makes no sense. Covered by Category:Crops and Category:Horticulture. -- nixie 08:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete redundant and oddly named. - Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I have asked at Talk:Agriculture what would be a better name. Maurreen 17:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Thanks for the link to the talk page, but it was a bit confusing. Seems there was some decision, as it is now empty. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:12, 1 August 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 reverse merge -- Kbdank71 12:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty category, redundant with Category:Compost-- nixie 08:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator as long as we're sure that the process certainly doesn't need a seperate category. - Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• I creatd "Composting" before I realized that "Compost" already existed. I agree that we probably don't need both. But it seems like "Composting" would be more general and that "Compost" would only refer to different types of composts and if kept should at least be made plural. Maurreen 16:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Reverse Merge Category:Compost to Category:Composting. Look at the articles in the former now, many of them are "Foo Composting". DES 22:17, 26 July 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 no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 12:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

This category's name is absolutely unacceptable. Even its existence is fairly problematic. Either get rid of it, or speedy-rename it to Category:People who have died of AIDS or some similarly neutral phrasing. (I really don't care which, as long as this doesn't stay as is.) I also should point out that while the category description explicitly spells out that it's meant for people who've died, I've already had to remove a still-living person from it. Bearcat 08:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The name seems OK to me. David | Talk 09:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • "AIDS victims" is under no circumstances ever acceptable terminology for a person with AIDS. Bearcat 09:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. I see no reason presented to delete. -- Samuel Wantman 09:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename (Preserving talk page) Suggest "People with HIV" See comments on talk page - … Guy M… ^{( soapbox)} 10:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC) (Updated 10:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. I in no way want to minimize the impact or severity of AIDS. However, I think that having died of AIDS is not in and of itself encyclopedic; consider the argument that would arise if someone appeared with a list of 1,000 otherwise non-encyclopedic persons (that notion alone has opponents, that any single person is non-encyclopedic) who were AIDS victims and insisted that each should have an article on the basis of their noteworthy demise. I think it would be more useful for those persons whose affliction has had a significant impact on the treatment, awareness, or understanding of the disease be retained in Category:Famous patients, or a custom sub-category for AIDS, though I don't particularly like the title "Famous patients" as it stands. Thanks for considering this. Courtland 13:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC) I've taken the initiative to add this nominated category to Category:Famous patients, which I hope is generally acceptable. User:Ceyockey
• Keep. I don't understand the controversy. We have other victims-type categories & articles already: List of tuberculosis victims, Category:Holocaust victims, Category:Crime victims -- Hooperbloob 13:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Frankly, "victims" is always problematic, but it's particularly unacceptable in the context of a health condition. Many people have written about the problems with the phrases "AIDS victim", "cancer victim", etc., over the past 20+ years far more eloquently than I ever could, but the basic thrust is that the difference between "person with AIDS" and "AIDS victim" comes down to whether they're being viewed as a person or a Walking Specimen of Disease. That it's been done elsewhere doesn't justify it here; in actual fact, some of those other titles need to be renamed as well. Bearcat 15:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The other categories that you ( User:Hooperbloob) mention are not up for deletion at present (I think). The nature of this voting process is that it allows individual consideration of each case rather than a blanket "they should all be kept / deleted" decision that really seldom helps anyone in my opinion. Courtland 16:23, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't think he thought they were; he was raising them as examples of his position. Bearcat 16:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
      • making myself clearer... sorry for the confusion; what I meant was "if" these others were up for deletion then it would be desirable and expected to consider each on its own merits; apologies for using an indirect way of saying that which implied more than it should have. Courtland 17:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with points put forward by Bearcat and Courtland. -- Kbdank71 16:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to nominator's suggestion. The language, whilst not particularly POV (we talk about victims of disease all the time) is not in keeping with the general style for cat naming. - Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Yes...and the people with the diseases object to it all the time. It is not a neutral POV to talk about an "AIDS victim" rather than a "person with AIDS". Bearcat 16:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Do not rename. Comment: "Victims" is concise. I have no opinion on the existence of the category. Maurreen 16:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC) I see no need to be wordy, but a possible compromise would be "AIDS patients". Maurreen 02:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Whether it's concise isn't really relevant; there's been 20+ years of literature which has been very clear on why "AIDS victims" is unacceptable terminology. The bottom line is that a significant portion of Wikipedia's readership will be offended and alienated by "AIDS victims"; none of Wikipedia's readership would be alienated by an alternate phrasing. This is also a case where it's valid to consider whether this would be better served by a category or a list (which already exists at List of HIV-positive people.) The thing is, as a gay man (particularly as one who just lost a very close friend to AIDS a few months ago) I absolutely cannot let this stand as is. It has to be renamed if it's kept; I will not debate this point any more than I'd debate it if someone implemented Category:Fucking faggots. My only question is whether people want it renamed or deleted. Bearcat 16:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Trim and reduce this category to people whose /death by AIDS/ was notable event (being otherwise notable notable person should not be qualification, the death circumstances should). Including everyone who died by AIDS brings no useful information. Pavel Vozenilek 21:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - rename if you want. As the original author, I believe that this category serves a useful purpose. I note that some people find the name offensive, and I apologise to them. If anyone knows of a better title, please re-name. I can't agree with the previous comment, though - it should include everyone. RachelBrown 21:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If it includes "everyone", what good it is for? Pavel Vozenilek 16:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No, I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this category containing every single person who has died of AIDS. Despite my sympathy for those who have survived the deaths of others, to die of AIDS is not in and of itself encyclopedic. A list, however, that is another matter altogether and I'd not oppose a list of all persons who have ever died of AIDS. It is the category concept, the notion that each person has had an encyclopedic life, that does not sit well with me. Courtland 23:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody's suggested that Wikipedia include every last individual on the planet who ever died of AIDS even if they met no other criterion of notability. The question Pavel and Rachel are debating here is whether we would subdivide PWAs who do have Wikipedia articles, still subject to the same criteria for Wikipedia inclusion as before, into "died of AIDS and can be in the category" and "died of AIDS but can't be in the category" on the basis of a secondary criterion beyond being a notable person who died of AIDS. Bearcat 15:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. - Seth Mahoney 14:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to figure this out before I vote. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life. I hear terms like "cancer victim" and "gunshot victim" frequently and they don't strike me as disparaging, nor do I think they are intended so. I don't understand what is offensive about "AIDS victims". One definition of victim is "One who is harmed by a circumstance or condition", that doesn't strike me as offensive. Again, I'm not trying to debate; just trying to understand. -- Pagrashtak 02:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • A lot of people with particular health conditions -- not just PWAs, but people with cancer, people with diabetes, etc. -- have stated over the years that they object to being labelled "disease victims" rather than "people who have a disease", because they perceive "disease victim" as asserting that they're no longer a person, but a Walking Manifestation of Dreaded Illness. Ultimately, the bottom line is that the term "victims" is offensive to people with AIDS (and people with cancer, etc.), and thus can't be used in the category name whether you understand why it's offensive or not. Wikipedia categories which group people can never use terms which exist in common language but which are offensive to the specific people the category is being applied to. Bearcat 15:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment After reading through this discussion it strikes me as being similar to several other discussions about what to call groups of people. The consensus was that groups of people should if possible, be given the name they choose for themselves and never a name which they find offensive. I don't know if this has been formalized anywhere, but perhaps it should. It is offensive to many people living with AIDS to be called "AIDS victims". With that in mind, I think there should be two categories: Category:People living with AIDS and Category:People who have died of AIDS. -- Samuel Wantman 08:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Wouldn't you need a third category for persons who had AIDS but died from another cause? -- Pagrashtak 15:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
    • If there are notable people who don't fit on either list, we can discuss what to call them. People who have had AIDS?. -- Samuel Wantman 23:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Exploding Boy 23:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and don't rename. "Cancer victims" (a common term) is ok and not "AIDS victims"? The category says about people whose lives have been lost and AIDS was a present factor, not necessarily who "died of AIDS". -- Vizcarra 19:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • No, "cancer victims" isn't okay; the fact that most people don't listen when people with cancer point that out is a different matter entirely. Bearcat 20:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename for reasons given above. Jonathunder 03:49, 2005 July 31 (UTC)
• Comment sorry, but what are you getting at here Bearcat? You seem quite indignant at the use of the word 'victim', but personally I don't interpret it in the way you presumably are. What exactly do you think it connotates? I don't see any problem with the naming of the category unless educated otherwise, and certainly none with its existence, or at least a List of... in the same vein. -- zippedmartin 21:11, 30 July 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 12:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Take care of by Category:Wikipedia community forums, etc. -- Beland 06:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:17, 1 August 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 keep -- Kbdank71 12:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

All the articles in this category are up on VfD. There is no good reason for sepeerate articles on individual characters in a computer game, and it follows that there is no reason for this category to exist. DES 06:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

See the Vfd here. ∞ Who ?¿? 13:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Jack Carrington: These characters have extensive background information and complicated roles in the game. Without the separate articles, much of the story of the game is lost. Why is it a problem to explain the background information on these characters, whose stories contribute an enormous ammount to the game's plot, when characters from other franchises such as The Legend of Zelda etc. have their own articles? Jack Carrington
• Strong keep: There is good reason for separate articles on individual characters in a video game to exist. Look at Jin Kazama: A lot of the information contained therein, especially the analysis of his character as a protagonist, if combined with other articles, would either have to be abbreviated or taken out entirely. jglc | t | c 13:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Iff the Vfd passes. ∞ Who ?¿? 13:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• NOTE: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 18. This was nominated twice for CfD within less than a week. The one from the 18th was a keep. Should we just de-list this nomination? -- Kbdank71 16:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'm in favor of that. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
  • You should also note that there are still entries in the Votes for Deletion--not just Categories for Deletion--existing on both July 18 and July 25. This entire process has been very poorly executed, and to be quite frank, has not taken into account that many of the users here have been working on this process recently to fix it. To nominate for deletion when nothing's been finished or decided on in the discussion pages just seems like a blind crusade against pages falsely perceived as simple fancruft. I honestly think you should cancel out all of these Tekken-related deletions, just so they can go away, and if in three months or so, the situation hasn't gotten better, they can try again without overgeneralizing it as a categorical error and hopefully with better execution. I personally feel that all of these pages have potential, and I don't even really care that much about Tekken. People just need to do more research for the pages and they will eventually show their potential. -- Shackleton 04:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

(Edit: In case it wasn't immediately clear, that's a Strong Keep All. -- Shackleton 04:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)) reply

• Strong keep, wait for the VfD first; if they are all deleted this is a near-automatic delete, if they are kept it's a no-brainer keep. - Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep - see the Vfd for more. if the VfD fails and the pages stay, is there a way to make sure that another VfD doesn't occur...at least in the near future. it seems annoying to go to ur favorite character's page and see this VfD tag sitting prominently on it...if there's controls for useless pages, there should also be controls for needless VfDs. Bubbachuck 23:34, 25 July 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 no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 12:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Should be in plural form.-- Hooperbloob 04:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Maurreen 07:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC) I think I meant to say rename. Maurreen 02:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to plural. -- Kbdank71 16:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to plural; deletion woudl remove the cat from the articles altogether. - Splash 16:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Object If you look at the subcategories this is not just about the intruments themselves, so the proposed name would be misleading. CalJW 21:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This should be singular. For example, "My friend went to Julliard to study Piano". People do not study pianos. Piano is the field, Pianos are many instruments. Piano is the correct name for this category. -- Samuel Wantman 23:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Samuel is correct. This is not a category for types of pianos, this is a category for piano-related articles. Compare Category:Pipe organ. -- Pagrashtak 19:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment The problem is, everything is categorized here, except Pianists, which has its own cat. Bösendorfer is a manufacturer, Piano wire is a piece (probably should be listifed as Anatomy of a piano), and then there are "Piano styles". So it should probably be renamed Category:Pianos to hold all of the non-study related articles, and a new cat Category:Piano styles (flexible on this name) created to hold the relevant articles. ∞ Who ?¿? 23:32, 26 July 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 keep -- Kbdank71 12:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I created this category but someone suggested that it be generalized to Category:Bowed string instruments instead. It sounds OK to me...or should we just leave it as is as a subcategory of Category:Bowed string instruments and move out the non-violins? Hooperbloob 03:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm the person who suggested renaming "Bowed string instruments." Some things to think about: defined most strictly, "violins" would encompass the violin as well as related instruments (the electric violin, famous Stradivarius violins, etc.) but not much else; the cello isn't even technically a true violin because its proportions are different. A "violins" category may be of such interest to violinists that it might merit a page of its own. A "bowed string instruments" category would encompass non-Western bowed instruments like the erhu, kokyu, sarangi, etc. as well as non-lute-type bowed strings like the bowed psaltery, ajaing, or scheitholt (all zithers). I don't think it would get too out of hand to list all of the above on one page, as technically they're all related by their playing technique. It could get interesting!  :-) Badagnani 04:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep. "Violins" is fine, but the rest should be moved out. Maurreen 07:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I presume it would work as a subcat of Category:Bowed string instruments? - Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Violins is already a subcat of "String instruments". I don't think we need to distinguish between "String instruments" and "Bowed string instruments". -- Kbdank71 17:04, 26 July 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 no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 12:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I am not sure whether this category gives any relevant information. Currently the people listed there are important but it has potential to grow without end. Representative list may be better. If someone wants to nominate this on CfD, please do, I don't have firm opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep, I think. It's a category for those people killed in road accidents, which isn't in any great degree different from other categories of people by cause of death. David | Talk 10:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I thought it was an interesting category when I accidentally found it. I learned a few things I didn't know. Interesting and educational information is what Wikipedia is about, right? I see no reason for deletion. RivGuySC 02:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Only see a minor problem with the name, should it be Category:Automobile accident victims instead, as some of them were killed during a professional racing event, not on a road per say. Except for Ernest Chausson, who was killed in a bicycle accident, unspecified location. ∞ Who ?¿? 23:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is more than fair that I vote here considering my activity on the AIDS-related CFD above. As with a death from AIDS, a death from a vehicular accident is not in and of itself sufficient to create an article for a person. However, those person's who's death as part of a road accident are notable for something other than the death itself, such as (maaaaybe) the death of Princess Diana and it's effect on the public perception of and perhaps practices of paparazzi, those persons might well warrant inclusion in such a category. For other persons .. a list would be both sufficient and appropriate. (P.S. thank goodness Google does spell checking) Courtland 23:48, July 26, 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 suspend until titles discussion is complete -- Kbdank71 12:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:Hungarian culture already exists and includes all relevant articles and subcategories. This latter form (i.e. "X-ian culture", rather than "culture of X") seems to be the usual form in Category:Culture by country, so the presently used name is probably correct. This seems to be the case despite the fact that almost all other categories are usually in inverted order (economy of X, politics of X, transportation of X, etc.). -- Adam78 23:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, redundant (though I would prefere culture of X). Pavel Vozenilek 00:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• IIRC, Wikipedia policy is that "subject of nation" is the expected format, and that categories in the "national subject" format are supposed to be replaced; if "national culture" happens to be the norm in Category:Culture by country, it's only because nobody's got around to changing those categories over yet. The rule isn't that whatever happens to be the current norm in that particular category tree wins out over stated policy. So you may as well delete Hungarian culture and keep Culture of Hungary; it makes one less category to change over at a later date. Vote changed to suspend debate as per comments below; I was of the mistaken impression that this was a much more settled policy than it actually appears to be. Bearcat 06:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Suspend pending discussion at Wikipedia talk:Category titles. Maurreen 07:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• Do not rename, to achieve the suspension that Maurreen sensibly requests. These can be dealt with later. - Splash 16:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply
• I'm of the mind to delete Hungarian Culture and leave Culture of Hungary, but Maurreen is correct, we should wait until the title discussion has concluded. -- Kbdank71 16:22, 25 July 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 12:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC) reply

This was misspelled. I made a new category Category:Burials at the United States Naval Academy Cemetery and fixed all the typos that pointed to the misspelled version before I realized there was a CFR tag I could have used. Also, I'm not entirely certain that I've done the nominating procedure correctly (VFD instructions are much clearer). Sorry if I've left a mess in my wake. So anways, now this category is empty and nothing points to it, so I marked it a speedy CFD. Tomer ^TALK 21:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Just for the record, you actually followed the correct procedure for this; the CFR tag is for categories where the renaming is potentially a matter of debate. It's not for categories that need to be renamed to fix a spelling error; the proper procedure in those cases is to just make the change. Bearcat 17:37, 27 July 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.