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 all. Naming conventions candidate. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

10 out of 15 categories are in the form "Rail transport in" which I think is the best option as it is an inclusive term. The exceptions are:

• category:Indian Railways --> category:Rail transport in India
• category:Railways in Austria --> category:Rail transport in Austria
• category:Railways in Hong Kong --> category:Rail tranport in Hong Kong
• category:Railways of Ireland --> category:Rail transport in Ireland
• category:Railways in New Zealand --> category:Rail transport in New Zealand

Rename all CalJW 23:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, and add "Rail transport in foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Rail transport by country to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I remember the primary route destinations articles coming up on articles for deletion recently and it looks like the were all deleted because this is now empty. Delete CalJW 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No argument. siafu 23:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete all the contents were deleted -- TimPope 13:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This category was created last month, and a couple of days ago I created category:Curators. The latter just has one subcategory, which is for British curators, but it already contains more articles than the other one. I think we should merge category:art curators into category:Curators. While the majority of curators work with art, there are some prominent ones at major science and natural history museums and the like who don't. The main article (which is in the art curator category) is simply called "curator" and only a very few of the articles, which to judge from their variety were written by many different people, use the full term "art curator". CalJW 23:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge as per nom - TexasAndroid 13:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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. Naming conventions candidate. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to standard Category:Monasteries in Russia. CalJW 22:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename and add "Monasteries in foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Monasteries by country to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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. Naming conventions candidate. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I failed to spot this non-standard "of" before. Rename category:Churches in Norway. CalJW 22:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Amendment It turns out that category:Churches in Norway already exists, and it contains 41 times as many articles as category:Churches of Norway! But it isn't in the Norwegian menu (though I'll fix that). So merge category:Churches of Norway into category:Churches in Norway. CalJW 23:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge and add "Churches in foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Churches by country to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Agreeing to the convention aspect would also force the same decision for Category:British churches and Category:Serbian churches. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  Conventions shouldn't be about "force", they should be guidelines. There should still be freedom of expression for people who believe there are grounds for exceptions or maybe a change to the convention. There is not so much obstruction on here that we need to use rules aggressively. Votes for the other two would go through without telling people that its the rule so they have no choice. CalJW 03:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 all. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The majority of these are already in the standard "in" form for man-made objects, but some are not:

• Category:Belgian cathedrals --> rename category:Cathedrals in Belgium
• Category:British cathedrals --> rename category:Cathedrals in the United Kingdom
• Category:Danish cathedrals --> rename category:Cathedrals in Denmark
• Category:French cathedrals --> rename category:Cathedrals in France
• Category:German cathedrals --> rename category:Cathedrals in Germany
• Category:Italian cathedrals --> rename category:Cathedrals in Italy
• Category:Romanian cathedrals --> rename category:Cathedrals in Romania
• Category:Cathedrals of Russia --> rename category:Cathedrals in Russia

Rename all CalJW 22:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, and add "Cathedrals in foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Cathedrals by country at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 ?¿? 02:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I suggest renaming this category to Category:Plame affair, which is both more concrete and NPOV. Slarre 22:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename CalJW 22:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Calicocat 22:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Suggested name is sound, natural and NPOV. support suggested rename, to Category:Plame affair, reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 ?¿? 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This is the only national hotels category which is not in the standard "in" form for man-made objects, or at least the only one that has been put in Category:Hotels. Rename category:Hotels in the United States. CalJW 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename and add "Hotels in foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Hotels to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block ( talk) 06:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 02:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicated by Category:Canadian student newspapers and Category:Campus radio stations in Canada. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment Those appear to be suitable sub-categories for this, not dulplicates, but do they both actually exist? CalJW 22:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  They do; there was a typo in the "campus radio stations" link. Bearcat 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I specifically created this as a parent category to group the two categories Spinboy named above. It's not an essential category, I'll admit, but to my mind having a "university and college media" parent makes more sense than filing the newspaper and radio categories directly in Category:Universities and colleges in Canada, without any kind of wikilinkage existing between the newspaper and radio categories. But no vote from me, just a clarification. Bearcat 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I don't think we should have a category just for two sub-categories. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  And I don't think the radio and newspaper categories should be filed directly in Category:Universities and colleges in Canada. So where does this leave us? Bearcat 02:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep No reason not to have a category with two subcategories. CalJW 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Carina22 16:34, 2 October 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 ?¿? 02:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Inherently POV. The term "LGBT rights" is not a concrete political stance; it's a slogan. The equivalent for the other side would be something like Category:Family values opposition. Slarre 22:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am unable to tell whether the alleged bias is for or against, which inclines me towards voting keep. CalJW 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Jebur 23:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep for the same reasons it was kept when nominated about a month ago. Jonathunder 01:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Perpetual renominations should be opposed. Septentrionalis 03:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's an inherently POV category. -- TrojanMan 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Look at the category's talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - Seth Mahoney 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is indeed a POV category, I agree with Slarre's point. -- Radicalsubversiv2 04:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Look at the category's talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - Seth Mahoney 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• We went through this a month ago, and a month or two before that. It got kept both times. Keep, or present a far better case for its deletion than has been shown so far. And don't renominate things every time you don't like the answer you got last time. Bearcat 05:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, valid category. -- Angr/ _{tɔk tə mi} 06:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: How can this be a "valid" category when it clearly violates the NPOV policy? Or would you say that this category is neutral? / Slarre 21:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Commment: Yes, I'd say the category and its name are NPOV. A name like Category:Neofascist homophobic morons who ought to be burned at the stake would be POV. I don't think renaming this category Category:LGBT politics makes sense though. At the moment, this is a subcategory of Category:LGBT civil rights; an article named Category:LGBT politics would have to be the parent category of that. -- Angr/ _{tɔk tə mi} 05:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: jeez I'm sick of this. There have been numerous CfD nominations for this category in the past (which it has survived). Here's the gist: This category is a tricky one to name (though if you had bothered to look at the talk page you would notice that there are some other attempts at more obviously NPOV names), so the current name unfortunately relies on a sort of pun: If you're part of the opposition, you generally will oppose the idea of LGBT rights as rights. If you're against the opposition, you will see the category as defining people who are opposed to LGBT rights specifically. All this is moot, though, because again, if you had bothered to look at the talk page you'd have noticed that we'd nearly reached consensus on renaming the category to Category:LGBT politics. - Seth Mahoney 22:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There is nothing remotely valid about this category. Those supporting it are obviously pushing some kind of political agenda. -- Judson 17:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Look at the category's talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - Seth Mahoney 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Have a look at Category talk:LGBT rights opposition (generally, before nominating a page or category for deletion, or even voting for or against a page's deletion, having a look at its talk page is a good idea). I propose renaming it as per the suggestion there. - Seth Mahoney 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep for all the reasons as before. CDThieme 02:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete this is a point of view category. -- Cloveious 02:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Look at the category's talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - Seth Mahoney 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, needs proper annotation to be useful. - SimonP 03:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Look at the category's talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - Seth Mahoney 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. POV. siafu 13:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Look at the category's talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - Seth Mahoney 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yet another attempt to delete this category after it has been renamed, etc, withtout actually giving a valid reason for doing so. It seems some who find the whole idea of LGBT rights intolerable just want to keep rolling the dice until they get the result they want here. Axon ( talk| contribs) 15:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This is not a matter of some people finding LGBT rights intolerable. We don't have Category:Racists (or whatever the more PC version would be, Category:Minority rights opposition?) either, for reasons of NPOV. siafu 15:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • There is much talk of this category being NPOV without anyone actually giving any concrete examples or reasons as to why they think so. I think trying to delete this category time after time after demonstrates clear bias. Axon ( talk| contribs) 02:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Do you mean POV? - Seth Mahoney 02:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I repeat: the term "LGBT rights" is not a concrete political stance; it's a slogan. What should be defined as "LGBT rights" is not something that both sides of the conflict can agree on. I don't think that e.g. George W. Bush sees himself as opposed to "equal rights" for LGBT people. / Slarre 17:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
        • Sorry, but there is nothing in the above that is itself a "concrete" explanation of why this category is POV, except your own sloganing, semantic games and conjecture. Axon ( talk| contribs) 15:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Has a single person here looked at the talk page for Category:LGBT rights opposition? Did the user who nominated this category even look there? There are a number of proposals there for renaming, and one proposal in particular, Category:LGBT politics, has gained a fair amount of consensus among people for the current category name and against it alike. (Begin rant:) Jeez, I'm so sick of this tyrrany by the majority bullshit that happens on these voting pages, where all it takes is a "Delete. POV" with no argument, no explanation that could help to improve the category/article, and no value placed on rational discussion and debate. Something is pretty broken here, and it needs to be fixed. (End rant) - Seth Mahoney 22:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Rename Valid cat, effort to remove it is itself, POV push. Calicocat 02:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename following discussion on talk page, or bring the discussion here from the talk page. Do not delete. - Sean Curtin 01:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not again, please. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now, then renominate with a rename motion when an alternative name is found. There are POV issues here, but the fact remains that there are people who are self-declared or indisputable opponents of homosexuality (in that they seek to limit the influence and mainstreaming of homosexuality). The category is clearly intended to include these people (and doing so serves an encyclopedic purpose), but it needs a better name and better criteria. - A Man In Black ( Talk | Contribs) 09:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep (but would support a rename) The fact that someone opposes the principle that LGBT people should be treated fairly is a notable deviation from what most educated people would regard as normal; if that person is in a position of influence, that they hold such views is noteworthy (inclusion of people who hold little influence in this list would, on the other hand seem wrong). A better name in my opinion would be Category:Opposition to LGBT equality SP-KP 21:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Why is this constantly being relisted for deletion? KrisW6 01:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and would support a rename to Category:LGBT political opponents. This is a category of people who go together. I have not heard any argument that says these people do not go together. -- Samuel Wantman 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep POV allegations unproven and not very credible. CalJW 09:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • What do you mean unproven? The name itself is POV! What is gay rights opposition to one person is a gay icon to another. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • I still can't see what way it is supposed to be biased. You have to be told it is biased to see that it is, and then, like me, you might forget which way it is supposed to be biased by the following day. CalJW 11:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete inheritly POV. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment AFAIK its better to use the cfr template when proposing a rename. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Sure, but this category was listed for deletion before talk about renaming was concluded. Apparently, the nominator was so offended by the category that s/he couldn't be bothered to read its talk page to notice that discussion regarding a rename was already well underway. So, for now, in order to even get to the point where a rename is possible, we have to yet again argue against this category's deletion. - Seth Mahoney 16:15, 6 October 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 ?¿? 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to standard form: Category:Synagogues in the United Kingdom. CalJW 21:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 all. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I would like to see all of these switched to the "in" form. At present only 6 out of 11 are in that form, but it is standard for man-made objects.

• category:Prisons of Iran --> category:Prisons in Iran
• category:Australian prisons --> Category:Prisons in Australia
• Category:French prisons --> Category:Prisons in France
• Category:Polish prisons --> Category:Prisons in Poland
• category:Russian prisons --> Category:Prisons in Russia

CalJW 21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• 'Rename as per nom. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename and add "Prisons of in foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Prisons by country to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I expect this is another typo for "in" like Rick Block made elsewhere. CalJW 11:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Yes (obviously). Good catch. -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename logical order, natural name
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 ?¿? 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to standard form: category:Churches in Spain CalJW 21:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 Sure, Rename :). ∞ Who ?¿? 01:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Amend to standard form: Category:Politics of Latvia CalJW 19:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No argument. siafu 23:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  I hope you mean Rename. Type O Spud 01:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  Actually, I meant to vote on another section. But sure, Rename. siafu 13:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This is clearly nothing more than a joke and thus not worthy of inclusion. The text at the top of the category is jocular in nature and admits that no one is actually a native speaker (having to learn the language in school rather than by immersion means, by definition, that the language is not native). It is common knowledge that Latin is a dead language, meaning it "no longer has any native speakers" (even in the Vatican), because it evolved into the Romance languages. Other Wikipedia articles (e.g., extinct language) support this assertion. Flex 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete KHM03 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I seriously doubt that Latin is devoid of native speakers. There are native speakers of Klingon and Esperanto; I would be highly surprised if there was no scholar out there that raised thier kid speaking Latin to them. As much as that, it's better to be consistent across languages instead of deleting some natives and not others. Prosfilaes 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  I still question whether a potential, isolated case of here or there merits a category. If the category remains, however, then a number of Wikipedia articles need to be corrected for the inaccuracy of declaring Latin and other languages extinct. -- Flex 16:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  I question whether it merits deleting a user-space category. Latin, for all practical purposes, is an extinct language, whether or not there are isolated speakers.-- Prosfilaes 17:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  To keep the category means that You can speak Latin in your common life. It means that we have to create a new language, a new Latin, with the words that don't exist in Latin. This adaption to the modern life would include more than 3,000 words. So it would be a new language. -- Genji11 11:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

  And let me crititise Flex for bringing this up again, and especially without mentioning the previous CfD. It takes a lot more work to run a category through CfD than it does to keep an empty category around, it's deceptive not to mention a previous CfD, and it's rude and very wasteful of Wikipedia resources to bring up an article for CfD repeatedly with a short period of time.-- Prosfilaes 23:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  I apologize for not mentioning the previous Cfd. I didn't realize that was necessary. However, I discussed with admin Kbdank71 about when renomination was permissible. (I actually renominated it shortly after the first Cfd was defeated, but that was over-ruled because it was too soon and I was told to wait a few weeks, which I did.) See the discussion here. It was my impression that a couple jokers voted to keep this cat around the first time. I wanted it to get a wider hearing. (BTW, thanks for changing the category text, Prosfilaes. If the cat. is going to stick around, it's best to have the actual rationale for the hypothetically necessary category than a silly "explanation".) -- Flex 12:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  A couple of questions:

  1. Does this mean you intend to keep on nominating it until it the cat get deleted? (Try nominating it for deletion over Xmas... :-)
  2. It also follows that categories can then be recreated "after waiting a few weeks".
  3. Me thinks/concludes the VfD "Project" is somewhat broken.

  ⊄ Sumburgh 13:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC) ⊅ reply

  As I said, I just wanted this category to get a wider hearing than it did last time. I think that has already been accomplished, and if the vote is to keep, I will let it rest. -- Flex 13:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  Sorry to be so hash. Recently I had a Cat deleted by "someone" that didn't even bother to to enter a dialogue with the article contibutors before nominatin for deletion. ⊄ Sumburgh 14:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC) ⊅ reply

• Weak keep: since this is a category used for user pages, and not pages in the main article space, I don't see a problem with having it around for a bit of community humour. — Matt Crypto 16:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per nomination. Could cause confusion. -- JiFish( Talk/ Contrib) 17:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Jim Ellis 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete CalJW 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Created as part of the Wikipedia:Babel project. All languages have had templates etc. created to allow users to record their fluency at one of 5 levels. Removing this level for Latin is inconsistent with the overall project and deleting the category will set a bad precedent. If Latin goes then someone will then argue (for example) that there are no native speakers of Esperanto (the 2 users in that category describe themselves as native speakers of both Esperanto and French). There is also a user who states he is a native speaker of Old English, for example, which he learnt from age 5. I have no reason to doubt the word of these users. Valiantis 19:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As much as I love Latin and as much as I would love to see the day that it is once again a native language, I would have to vote to delete on the grounds that it is a misrepresentation to maintain that there are those for whom Latin is their native language. Being a native language implies that it is the language that parents rear their children with in a certain culture group. I am assuming that this is so for Esperanto as it is for the Hebrew language--which had been a dormant language into the early modern age. Is there another category that one could confect to replace this misrepresentation? How about la-P for "Latin proficient" or la-F for "Latin-fluid speaker"? Another test of a language being "living" and a "native" language is for it to continue to coin new words and idioms through everyday life. Can one point to a culture that speaks Latin as their native language? drboisclair 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

As a follow-up I would think that we need to rethink deleting this category because classical Greek has a "native speaker" category, and classical Greek does not have any native speakers according to my definition above. Perhaps we need to define what "native speaker" means. If I were back in the time of the Attic poets, could I speak their Greek so that I could be understood by them and they by me? drboisclair 21:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete. I am an "inclusionist," and as such, this goes against my grain, but it is only logical that we would not have a template for cases which do not exist -such as this one -where we have no native speakers. However, since it is for "user" pages, my vote is mitigated to "weak" delete, since we have more latitude in user pages.-- GordonWatts 20:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: This issue has already been voted on and there was no consensus. -- Reinyday, 20:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As per discussion with admin Kdbank71, I renominated it after a waiting period. -- Flex 12:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Gator1 20:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete — Mark ( Mkmcconn) ** 23:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Valiantis. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Latin does not have any native speakers, and the template should be altered to reflect that (as I mentioned the last time this vote came up). siafu 23:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe English was 'extinct' also: For the 300 years following the Norman Conquest in 1066, the Norman kings and the high nobility spoke only a variety of French. The elite did not write in english until Geoffrey Chaucer braved their denial of existance and wrote The Canterbury Tales. ⊄ Sumburgh 03:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC) ⊅ reply
    • I'm afraid I don't follow your argument. Obviously English did not go extinct, as its still spoken now and was therefore clearly spoken by the population during the time of French-speaking nobility. Equally obvious is the fact that the language spoken and written by those in England prior to 1066 was clearly dead by the time Geoffrey Chaucer began putting pen to paper. I would refer to Category:User ang-N as an equally deletable example of that difference. If you're suggesting that in this case absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I would point out that there could well be a language spoken somewhere by some small population called "flarganargablargen" and it could well deserve a category for native speakers, but unless or until such a group can present itself as needing a category, wikipedia does not and should not have one. siafu 05:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. People should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they are native speakers. They may be lying or exaggerating, which may be the case with any of the languages put in Babel boxes, but they also just might have grown up in an eccentric family of linguists that only speak Latin at home. You never know. Don't accuse people of lying or joking about their native languages just because there isn't a nation or tribe that speaks the language. The same is true of Esperanto, Interlingua, Quenya, etc. -- Krun 01:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep for consistency within the Babel project, as Valiantis explains well above. Jonathunder 01:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep This motion is improper. On the merits, I repeat what I said the last time: Montaigne spoke Latin before he spoke French; his father commanded the servants to speak only Latin around him. It would surprise me if no homeschooler had done the same. Septentrionalis 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Wikipedians have already decided to maintain the fiction that a Latin-language Wikipedia is worthwhile, so why not maintain the fiction that Latin has native speakers, too? There's also a Category:User ang-N for "native speakers" of Old English (only one user in the category for now, but it could grow). -- Angr/ _{tɔk tə mi} 06:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The Romans laboured with the concept of zero: Roman_numeral#Zero. "The lack of a zero digit prevented Roman numerals from developing into a positional notation, and led to their gradual replacement by Arabic numerals". Keep... as how much system resource can this simple consistency take? ... almost zero? The evening zephur is caused by the gentle rustling of leaves before they sleep. ⊄ Sumburgh 08:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC) ⊅ reply
• Keep: As pointed out above, why get into this argument with all the languages? In fact, it might be easier just to delete the "Native" group of categories and make the fourth class refer to those who are totally fluent, whether native or not. To be honest, that's where I think the debate should be--about the separate existence of the fourth category and the native category for all languages. We shouldn't just go around attacking individual languages. It's bound to cause bitterness and resentment. Kevin M Marshall 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I agree and would support this course of action. -- Flex 17:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keeep: As pointed out by the person above, I think the 'native' category should be replaced by one which denotes proficiency, not that the person speaks it as a mother tongue. I know that an overwhelming number of people speak English better than those who speak it as their mother tongue. ~ Eiríkr Rauði 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Harmless. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I put myself down as "native speaker" since I have been reading and writing in Latin for over 10 years of my life. It's a language I use everyday in my work as a research student, and which I can read with as much fluency as English - I might venture with more fluency than some of the Native English speakers write on here <joke> Hackloon 16:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep-- Quadalpha 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The relevant question to ask here is what constitutes a native speaker of a particular language. Some would say that the only requirement is for a person to have begun learning the language as a young child. This is possible even in the year 2005; I have known two people who were taught Classical Latin as youngsters. Both of them were Polish Catholics, and children of scholars, so there were reasons for doing so in their way of thinking. Some would add a qualification that a person should also be raised amongst more than a few fellow speakers, with the implication being beyond the bounds of one's immediate family. This is a bit of a problem since the only well known 'community' of Latin speakers and users is Vatican City and Roman Catholic seminaries- if there are others, I am unaware of them. Some would even go so far as to say that to speak a language natively, there must be some sort of continuity in native speakers in order to be able to assert a valid argument for being a "native" speaker, giving the term a context beyond simple usage of the language. I hold with the first classification. Therefore, I vote "keep".
• Keep: I suppose that someone who is can read, write, and translate, knows the language, which therefore keeps it alive. Christopher 18:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I've been speaking Latin for more than a decade now, from a young age through my years now as a grad student in classics. I would be hesitant to say that Latin is "dead," due to the fact that last summer I went to Italy for more than a month and met with a number of scholars who could not speak English, nor I their native languages. However, we were able to hold fairly exacting conversations in Latin on more than one occasion. If the only criteria the community can see is a lack of children speaking it to their parents, we are missing out on the opportunity to encourage a language which could make this transition into a large body of speakers with far less effort than many of the "living" languages with less than 10 speakers total today. Yonwe 18:02, 30 September 2005 (SMT)

  Keep in mind that Manx and Cornish were considered "dead" languages not that long ago. They now have growing communities of people who use those languages. Latin has a comparatively longer span of time between the last "native" speakers and the revival of education in the language in the West, but considering how much we have left of that language, both in literary output as well as instructions on how to use it, there is no decent reason to assert that Latin is a "dead" language- it is used today by many people around the world, and there *are* native speakers who live and breathe. P.MacUidhir 17:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• I was asked to comment here, so I will: If I remember correctly, the original use of the plain User xx template, which puts one in the xx-N category, was for those who'd admit to speaking with the proficiency of a native speaker, not necessarily one who was one. With the introduction of the xx-4 templates splitting native speakers from those comparable to natives, presumably those near-native speakers who were using Template:User la could migrate from that to Template:User la-4 (which doesn't yet exist). To the existence of persons raised as native Latin speakers I cannot testify one way or another, but should they exist there is no reason why this category should not stand empty and waiting for them. — Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 20:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The extinction status of the native latin speakers is arguing semantics which will never be settled. I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt that at least one person in this wide world has raised a child speaking Latin first as their native tongue who is currently alive, just to spite anti-native-latinists I intend to bring my children up that way when I have them. That or klingon. :P
• Keep: Why not? All the arguments for keeping have already been exhausted, and they all make a reasonable amount of sense. Eeno 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Retentate! CDThieme 02:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Latin is not dead but super rarely is it a native language I am guessing. ken 18:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo reply
• Comment: The pronunciation of Latin is not even known to modern scholars and anyone who claims to speak it "natively" would in fact be speaking a modernized language based on written latin (which does not necessarily reflect common spoken latin in any way) and may or may not sound anything like the actual language. Are we hoping to encourage this sort of nonsense here? siafu 13:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • As Wikipedia is a written resource, I'm unsure what the relevancy of how Latin is pronounced might be. The Chinese Wikipedia, for example, can be used by people whose spoken languages are mutually unintelligible but united by a common writing system. Valiantis 17:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Are you suggesting that one can be raised as a native speaker of a language without speaking it? The fact that a speaker of Cantonese and a speaker of Mandarin can communicate through written langauge (though these two dialects differ slightly grammatically as well) does not make either a speaker of the other's language, nor able to produce it. The situation with Latin does not resemble that of Chinese, anyway; there is only one form of latin grammar that is taught today anywhere, though several pronunciations. The statement is meant to illustrate the fact that a native speaker cannot arise without other speakers around, speaking, unless we're talking about the creation of new languages (creoles). siafu 05:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep we dont know if their will be a native speaker of latin in 10 or 100 years and as there are poeple using it we should keep it. PS to siafu their is no language that sounds the way it did 400 years ago. - Fabhcún 16:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Aluion 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Harmless. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. On the grounds that, as stated above, it is for those who write/read (or speak) with proficiency equivalent to a native. There is actually at least one truly native speaker of Latin, age 5. Had the pleasure of meeting her at the UKY Conventiculum Latinum. Existent80 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:05, 5 October 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 all. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

In the UK and much of the Commonwealth only medical practitioners with certain specialist qualifications in internal medicine are called "physicians" (see for example Member of the Royal College of Physicians). category:English doctors is already correct, but there are other categories where Wikipedia is classifying as "physicians" people who in some cases would be guilty of gross professional misconduct, and maybe even a criminal offence, if they held themselves out to be "physicians" in their professional lives. Thus category:British physicians, category:Scottish physicians, category:Welsh physicians, category:Indian physicians, category:New Zealand physicians, category:Irish physicians should all be amended to "Fooian doctors." Osomec 10:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

If you don't mind me asking, what on earth does "Fooian" mean?!?-- Mais oui! 12:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

From Foo :) Used as a "place-marker" meaning insert nationality here. Valiantis 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Weak Support. I have always been under the impression that physician is a generic term for a medical doctor who does not carry out surgery - hence doctors can broadly be divided into surgeons and physicians. Some of the current WP articles support this, others imply that physician is synonymous with medical doctor. Clearly there is a divergence of usage here between American and Commonwealth English (and possibly between the usage among medical professionals and "lay" people such as myself). Whatever the niceties of the terminology, a category:British physicians which has category:British surgeons as a subcat is clearly wrong. However, renaming just Commonwealth (or other British-English-using) countries' cats to "Fooian doctors" creates a possible problem of consistency within Category:Physicians by nationality. Would it not be preferable to rename all "physician" categories to "doctor" (or, if it must be, "medical doctor")? As far as I am aware the term "doctor" for a medical doctor is also common parlance in the US. Valiantis 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all Accuracy and sensitivity to local usage are important. This should surely be less controversial than renaming the "transport" categories misnamed "transportation" in American English, and no one has objected to that. Many of the articles will use the term physician because many distinguished doctors are physicians, especially historically, but these are the main categories for all doctors. CalJW 18:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all and have them noted as exemptions to any standard on their talk pages. Hiding talk 19:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per local English. siafu 23:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all as proposed for now, but I wonder if they should all be called "medical doctors" instead. But certainly "physicians" won't do. Carina22 16:37, 2 October 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 ?¿? 01:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to standard: category:Islands of Estonia CalJW 07:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Hiding talk 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 ?¿? 01:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to be consistent with other categories of this kind.-- nixie 06:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename CalJW 07:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Hiding talk 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Suspend pending resolution of the debate on the naming format for national subject categories. "Consistent with other categories" is to be determined by a standard Wikipedia policy that applies equally to all national subject categories, not by "what's the norm within this category tree, even if the exact opposite is the norm in that category tree over there". Comment withdrawn; it appears that the policy has been determined and it favours the proposed move here. I'll go with the rename. Bearcat 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 with exception, see closing note. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Here are some UK categories for expansion to "United Kingdom" as per standard policy.

• Category:Education in the UK by locality
• Category:Universities and colleges of the UK
• Category:Arts and entertainment in the UK by locality
• Category:Long-distance footpaths in the UK
• Category:UK intelligence agencies
• Category:Local government of the UK
• Category:Local government of the UK by locality
• Category:Public bodies and task forces of the UK government
• Category:UK constitution
• Category:UK political history
• Category:UK case law
• Category:UK court systems
• Category:Hospitals in the UK
• Category:Media of the UK by locality
• category:UK defence procurement
• category:UK Parliamentary constituencies
• category:UK Parliamentary constituencies (historic)
• Category:Neighbourhoods of the UK
• Category:Transport in the UK by locality

I appreciate that there might be other naming issues with one or two of them, but I think it would be best to leave those for another time to prevent this discussion becoming overinvolved. CalJW 05:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename.-- Mais oui! 17:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Hiding talk 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, abbreviations are unhelphul. Susvolans ⇔ 07:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment - see separate renaming request involving Category:Universities and colleges of the UK on Oct 1. -- Rick Block ( talk) 16:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested, but yes, some need better names, too. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Closing note Category:Universities and colleges of the UK is superceded by another current nom, and would be renamed against Naming Conventions. All other categories will be renamed as discussed. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:18, 7 October 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 ?¿? 01:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The phrase "track and field" is not used for the parent category Category:Athletics, the co-categories in the parent category, or any of the sub-categories of this category apart from the U.S. one. However for clarity, I don't think it should be dropped here. rename Category:Athletics (track and field) venues CalJW 03:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Hiding talk 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 Mergeinto Category:Weapons of Russia. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

These categories are clear duplicates, so at least one should definitely go, but per the discussion below on the use of the word modern I would recommend they both be merged into Category:Weapons of Russia. I would also recommend dropping modern from all the subcats. The only other Russia would be pre-1917, so I don't think Category:Modern thermobaric weapons of Russia really needs the qualifier. - SimonP 03:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge to remove usage of the word modern. It might be appropriate to make chronological divisions of weapons categories if they are very large, but they would need to be precise. However, subdivision by type must amount to a chronological subdivision in many cases. CalJW 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. IMO, division by era would work best when done independently of nationality; i.e., AK-74 should be in Category:Weapons of Russia (or the more specific subcat by type) and Category:Modern weapons, as a simplified example. siafu 23:52, 29 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 ?¿? 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to standard form: category:Science and technology in Argentina CalJW 02:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Hiding talk 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Slarre 21:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  Comment Do you really mean you want this deleted? It hasn't been nominated for deletion, and it is hard to see why it would be. It is a standard top-tier national category. CalJW 23:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 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 to Category:People convicted of drunk driving. ∞ Who ?¿? 09:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Absurd category. What encyclopedic purpose does it serve? Constant edit wars, especially many with George Bush. I have trouble finding any justification for this category. What's next, "Category:People who have been convicted of a crime"? Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Erm, yes category:Criminals does exist, and I believe that conviction is the main criteria for membership, though it is appropriate to allow a certain relaxation of that rule for people who were patently career criminals but escaped justice. Rename category:People convicted of drunk driving and remove those who don't qualify. CalJW 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as CalJW suggests. James F. (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  Disagree with this renaming, unless we'd rename Category:Murderers to Category:People convicted of committing murder for consistency. bogdan | ^Talk 07:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  That's fine for me, too. James F. (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename category:People convicted of drunk driving. The difference with murder is that this category will be used to malign people on the basis on minor rumours. Murder is much more serious. But we do have category:People wrongfully convicted to deal with some of the controversial cases. Osomec 10:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  If murder is more serious, shouldn't we be even more careful? I find I agree with bogdan. Consider also Category:Rapists, which could be confused via Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents. Hiding talk 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment All the crime categories are sensitive, but at present Ryan Norton has only nominated Category:Drunk drivers. Perhaps some of the others could be looked at too. CalJW 22:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:Criminals only for those whose drunk driving is sufficiently notable to them to merit it, and Delete. This is not a useful criterion for categorization, and potentially raises serious issues of verifiability and relevance. There are many, many millions of people, and many thousands of notable people with articles on wikipedia who would fit into this category; the effect would be similar to Category:Sexual harassers or Category:Perjurers, both crimes very likely worth mentioning in the article, but not primary subjects to categorize. siafu 23:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I think it is well established now that we need to user much sharper categories than "criminals". If we put everything in there, soon someone would slap a notice on it saying that it is too large and needed to be subdivided. CalJW 03:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Osomec -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per CalJW. Septentrionalis 03:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename, though "People found guilty of drunk driving" might be a better title than "People convicted of drunk driving", in case someone argues that a guilty plea (like Bush's) isn't the same as a conviction (the latter implying a trial). Whatever the name, the category should be restricted to people formally adjudicated to have committed drunk driving, in a decision not reversed or vacated on appeal. JamesMLane 10:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  Rename, and according to Plea a guilty plea still results in a conviction as the defendant must plead guilty in court and is thus convicted. Hiding talk 15:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  • That's certainly the case in the UK.
• Delete. I agree with the nominator. It serves no purpose in an encyclopedia. -- Kbdank71 16:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • A misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia, surely? It would look odd in a traditional encyclopaedia, but then so would much of Wikipedia's content. Remember what we're aiming for - "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". If someone is researching the subject of drink-driving, they have every right to access a list of prominent people who have been convicted of this offence; neither you nor I have the right to prevent them from seeing such a list SP-KP 00:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Septentrionalis. Bhoeble 19:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. - Sean Curtin 01:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Septentrionalis. There are lots of categories more trivial than this. Carina22 16:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This category is linked to names such as the singer Tiffany who has not been convicted of such an offense. CLEAN IT UP? It doesn't look like anyone is willing to do the requisite intensive research necessary.

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.