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 (no change). ∞ Who ?¿? 01:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Only one article and not likely ever to have any others. -- D Monack 22:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. R adiant _>|< 09:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is necessary for thorough categorisation. 29 U.S. states have such categories and I expect they all will soon. The article in this category should not be left unsorted. CalJW 14:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No need for a category with just one article. Even if it is kept, a comma should follow "D.C." Maurreen (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep No reason not to have a one article category if it is a necessary part of a larger scheme. Osomec 17:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Really they should be just gardens by state categories. Then there wouldn't be some articles in category:Gardens in the United States that can't be sub-categorised and this category would also contain the White House Rose Garden, Dumbarton Oaks and the United States National Arboretum, probably with potential to add. Bhoeble 17:28, 5 September 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 (no change). ∞ Who ?¿? 01:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Being an adoptive parent seems like a fairly minor piece of trivia, and the people listed here don't have enough in common to justify a cat. Currently it is an odd mix of ancient Romans and modern celebrities. - SimonP 19:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Ancient Romans? What the... anyway Delete. R adiant _>|< 09:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• If it's such a "fairly minor piece of trivia," why do so many articles mention it? Keep Wiki'dWitch 22:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agreed. To any adoptive parent it is anything but minor. Keep Daniel Case 22:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Adoption in ancient Rome was actually an extremely common activity; specifically, it was a way for a politically ambitious and wealthy (adult) plebian to become a patrician: the childless patrician preserves his branch of the family's name, and the adult child can potentially qualify for office and begin climbing the cursus honorum. That being said, this category seems to have nothing to do with all of that. So delete. Nandesuka 03:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Certainly not trivial. Osomec 17:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• OK, if we lose here, how about listifying? That would probably allow some sorting of the category that even I wouldn't do as subcategories. Wiki'dWitch 19:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Trivial. At best, convert to a list. - Sean Curtin 03:16, September 5, 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 to Category:Luton Town F.C. players. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

This should be renamed Category:Luton Town F.C. players in line with the other 28 categories in Category:Footballers in England by club. At the moment it also contains some managers, but I will separate them out, which is also standard practice. CalJW 17:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename the nominator is quite correct. - Splash 18:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as is none of the people in the category are Luton Town F.C. Players Bob Palin 02:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Rename All of these categories contain past and present players, so this point is simply a misunderstanding. This can be explained in the blurb after it is renamed, as is the case for the other categories. Osomec 17:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It is not a misunderstanding, I created the category and have populated it specifically to not include current players. I realise that this fact gives me no rights to the entry and will go along with the majority decision but I did create exactly the category I considered useful. Bob Palin 21:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • What's supposed to be done with any articles about current Luton Town players? Someone might write some. You have created an unnecessary problem. Please reconsider. CalJW 15:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I have created some player pages, currently they are not under a Luton Town category at all. I really don't think they need to be, to find the current players surely you would go to the team page and follow the links from there. There is no need for everything to be categorised to the finest level possible, it just makes the wikipedia hard to maintain without enhancing usability. Bob Palin 16:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
      • All articles should be categorised. You may use Wikipedia in a certain way, but other people use it in a different way: the category system is very popular. A club's article should only contain the current squad and its all time great players. As Wikipedia evolves there will be many articles about ex-players from each club that fall into neither of these categories. This category is non-standard, and it needs to go. CalJW 19:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per standard. Bhoeble 17:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Bob Palin is the creator of this category. So far he is the only person to vote keep. CalJW 19:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • What's your point? Bob Palin 05:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • That if an objection by the creator of a category was enough to block deletion on its own, this whole process would grind to a halt. CalJW 21:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I agree, please see my second entry in this discussion, but does that mean I shouldn't participate as an equal? Bob Palin 22:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• What I really object to is that the new name is in fact completely incorrect, the category will contain players that are not only not players for the team but are in fact actually playing for other teams. The categories for the other teams are mis-named, if you don't like the use of the word alumni perhaps the categories should be "Former xxx players" and "Current xxx players". Bob Palin 05:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per CalJW. The former/current argument is irrelevant, since virtually all WP categories do not make the distinction as to whether the subject is formerly or currently a member of that category - e.g. Category:British Prime Ministers. Qwghlm 16:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • British Prime Ministers is a poor example, there is only ever one at a time and they are unlikely to ever pop off to some other country for a few million quid (much as we might wish it), neither are they actually EVER likely to be PM of another country. The contents of a "Current" category are fluid and relatively rapidly changing, the contents of a "Former" category would be static and the distinction between the categories would be useful I think. Bob Palin 22:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Qwghlm could have chosen virtually any of the thousands of people categories as the same principal of including both past and present members is applied. CalJW 16:56, 7 September 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Per Splash in the entry below. "They don't have a nationality in the usual sense of the word." TexasAndroid 17:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Or is that per myself? - Splash 18:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Is this not the sort of thing that we're discussing at Category:titles? Hiding talk 20:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I thought about that, but Unis/Colleges don't have nationalities so not really. At the subcat level, yes, but at the parent cat level, no. It'd still be ok to have Fooish things underneath it, I think (although this is a good argument for not going Fooish in this case). - Splash 02:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • OKay then, Rename. Hiding talk 18:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nominator. Bhoeble 20:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 09:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. R adiant _>|< 09:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. -- Necrothesp 01:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Djbaniel 05:48, September 5, 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 Delete superceded. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

More appropriate category is Category:Universities and colleges by nationality. Moved the single entry, so category is now empty. TexasAndroid 16:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Universities and colleges by country. They don't have a nationality in the usual sense of the word. (So delete the nominated cat, and the existing ones consequentially.) - Splash 16:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This nomination is just about Category:Universities by country. All entries (81 at this count) are under the Category:Universities and colleges by nationality category. I'll submit a separate rename request for renaming it. But IMHO, this request is not the place to discuss the rename of a currently unnominated category. TexasAndroid 17:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Ok delete this empty one then, with a preference that the CfR above be the ultimate destination. - Splash 18:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above. See next debate up. Bhoeble 20:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Empty. -- Reinyday, 09:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and object to the renaming. R adiant _>|< 09:36, September 3, 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 to Category:Villages in Iran. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

As far as I can see, Category:Villages in Iran is the much more standard naming. (All other subcats of Category:Villages follow this pattern.) Have moved the few entries over to Category:Villages in Iran, emptying this one. TexasAndroid 15:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, and advertise Wikipedia:Category titles which is about to unleash upon you a similar proposal. Eventually. - Splash 18:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename CalJW 19:15, 4 September 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 with Category:Navies. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Don't see a good reason for both Category:Navies and Category:Navy.

• KTC 02:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Should be plural. Cat redirect may be nice though. R adiant _>|< 08:43, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Category:Navies. JW 11:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• MERGE and CategoryRedirect 132.205.44.43 14:14, 2 September 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/No change nothing for Cfd to do, NOT moved to WP:MD. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Found this at the top of the ego-category Wikipedia:Wikipedians and also referenced in the ego-article on Wikipedians. It's just a bunch of obscene graffiti!! Then again, considering the level of maturity involved in creating all these "Wikipedian" categories, maybe it does belong... 12.73.198.137 01:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Special:Listusers is an important software feature, and not a category. You'll need to take it to Wikipedia:Important software features for deletion, I'm afraid. - Splash 01:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• It's not obscene graffiti, it is a list of all users, and as such, an important software feature. -- Kbdank71 13:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• AFAIK, anything SPECIAL: is WikiMedia software. In anycase, it's not a category. So... this delete request should be dumped to non-mainspace thingies for deletion. NfD/ WP:NFD 132.205.44.43 14:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Those are now WP:MD. Maurreen (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • We don't have the power to change the MW software, via NFD or any other on-Wiki means. If anything, it should be taken to Bugzilla, but honestly there's no chance; it's a very useful feature. If the nominator wants the category deleted, he should perhaps renominate. - Splash 16:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• On a sitenote it might be an idea to suggest that users permanently blocked for having "offensive" usernames be hidden from that list by default (a complete "unfiltered" list should still be accessable though a "show all" link or some such)... The first few pages arepretty much just a list of insults and racial slurs and such prefixed by exclamation marks to put them at the top of the list. I can see where the "obscene graffiti" remark came from (though the feature itself should naturaly not be removed even if we had the power to do so). -- Sherool 00:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• If this is a discussion topic that needs to be further reviewed, I suggest it be brought up either on buzilla or meta. This is not in the CFD scope and will not be moved to WP:MD as it is a software feature. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:53, 9 September 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.