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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn -- William Allen Simpson 23:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends characters. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Is there really a category called Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends characters. There shouldn't even be a Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. -- HResearcher 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- HResearcher 05:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per ProveIt. -- HResearcher 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as is; I created Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends characters because I'm familiar with the TV program & not the books, and I didn't consider the ramifications for those partial to the books. My bad. There's some overlap, so perhaps a dedicated editor (me?) could determine which characters have appeared only on Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends and sort accordingly. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Update I am proceeding to re-sort and have posted clarification on each category's page. May we de-nominate this one now? Thanks - ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Withdrawn If an expert is willing to sort it all out, then by all means go for it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 07:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Spinoff Cartoons to Category:Animated television series spinoffs reply

• Rename, clearer description, and fixes incorrect capitalization. Marginalia 23:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - support Marginalia's suggestion. Michael Dorosh 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Cswrye 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 07:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Mountains of Poland. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per ProveIt. -- HResearcher 05:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Good idea User:Adderbak
• Merge per nom. -- Cswrye 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 00:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Michael 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• No brainer - merge.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  13:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (again) the wub "?!" 07:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

As I recall, we recently decided to remove Albums by sales and it's children. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment See: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_15#Category:Albums_by_sales_and_subcategories -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as recreated content. BoojiBoy 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep is there a Category:Gold records? Delete Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends instead. Gold and platinum albums are a highly notable category in the real world. Wikipedia should categorize them, but not necessary Albums by sales. -- HResearcher 05:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. Platinum means something different in EVERY country. And this is just category clutter. -- musicpvm 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I like the idea of this category, but since it has too many different meanings, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. -- Cswrye 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Usage varies, and wikipedia should focus on quality not popularity. Osomec 14:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete, we just deleted these. Recury 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. the wub "?!" 08:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:People from Shanghai. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Shanghainese is not a nationality. -- HResearcher 05:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Shanghainese is the traditional English demonym for Shanghai.- choster 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Shanghainese is also a language that is not fully mutually intelligible with any other language. -- M @ r ē ino 15:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge. -- Darwinek 15:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge for consistency. It was already renamed from a demonym form to a "People from" form last month, but Contributor168 ( talk · contribs) moved all articles to this new category without any discussion. -- musicpvm 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect per above and Mereda below. David Kernow 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC), updated 06:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per above and redirect the old name since redirecting "Shanghainese" as a demonym would confuse with the language.-- Mereda 09:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect as per all of the above into new category People from Shanghai, which is consistent with standard wikipedia usage. Badbilltucker 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The term "Shanghainese people" does not say anything about nationality, and the Category includes people whose residency is not Shanghai, so the residency rule on naming Categories is not applicable here. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect. Passer-by 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 08:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Wikipedians that are not Jimbo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) reply

A pretty nonsense category, currently only in a TFDed template, currently has only a single member now entirely unlinked from anywhere not deletion related (hmmm... does that mean Jimbo's plan to clone himself and replace the entire earth population has finally suceeded?). Thus Delete Charon X/ talk 23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, otherwise move to "Wikipedians who are not Jimbo." -- zenohockey 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per Zenohockey -- Mike Christie 02:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What do you mean? Zenohockey didn't give a reason for deletion. -- M @ r ē ino 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete just because I say say because I am not Jimbo. -- HResearcher 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete a nonsense category Wikipedian27 14:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Rename per Zenohockey's rename. WP:GUS does not call for the deletion of "Wikipedian" categories. -- M @ r ē ino 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment I fail to see how WP:GUS factors in here. I just put this category up because, honestly, I think its pretty nonsense (and now entirely unused).

• Delete, It should not be renamed as it is nonsense. -- musicpvm 18:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Nonsense category. -- Cswrye 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - ridiculous. Michael 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete absurd. Olborne 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 08:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Doctor of Veterinary Medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) reply

• Delete. Category:Veterinary medicine exists, and I can't imagine why we need to categorize "the various degrees bestowed on veterinarians". Mention of the various degrees should be noted in Veterinarian or Veterinary medicine if it isn't already. AED 23:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep its a valid profession and subcategory for Category:Doctors. -- HResearcher 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Category:Doctors is a redirect. -- Mais oui! 08:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect per nom. -- Cswrye 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was userfied -- Kbdank71 13:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Seems to be an article wrongly created as a category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment/Question can this be moved and renamed as an article? ThuranX 02:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Userfy. It could be moved and renamed as an article, but I don't know where. Suggest sending to User:DragonFlare/Harry Potter role-play games. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Andromeda (TV series), to match Andromeda (TV series). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn. - EurekaLott 02:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Fictional tortoises ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) reply

• Delete, category has little use and is unlikely to ever be populated with more than the current nine articles. Steel 20:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn -- Steel 10:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - have a look at Category:English popes and Category:Polish popes, which easily survived CFD. Being small and/or finite is not a legitimate reason to delete a category. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that this cat is either small nor finite-- Mais oui! 20:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is my understanding that we can "Nominate categories here that ... are ... small without potential for growth", since that is at the top of this page. I'd be grateful if you could point me to something which states otherwise. -- Steel 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Prededent. I have been following CFD every day for many months. We take a very dim view of nominations to delete small cats purely because they are small. Those instructions ought to be changed to reflect the realities of this page. Apart from anything else, you have not told us where these articles ought to be re-categorised. Surely not Category:Fictional turtles?!? There is a fundamental difference you know. -- Mais oui! 21:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Ok, this is the first thing (ever) I've nominated for deletion and I don't appreciate your attitude to someone who is less familliar with this process than you. If the guidelines at the top say small categories with little potential for growth can be deleted, then you cannot bite people who nominate such articles. -- Steel 21:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. A useful subcategory of category:Fictional animals and category:Tortoises. Nine articles is plenty large for a category.-- Mike Selinker 00:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Mike Slinker and Mais oui! -- HResearcher 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but give Steel a smiley face for making his first nomination out of good faith, and keeping a cool head when it got shot down so quickly. -- M @ r ē ino 15:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but I also commend Steel for a good faith nomination. -- Cswrye 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 08:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Category:X footballers to Category:X players reply

• Rename [all], "PFC (Professional football club)... footballers" is a tautology. Dstoykov 20:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. People using or discovering these kinds of categories probably already know they refer to football (soccer). David Kernow 06:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: see Category:Footballers in Spain by club. Apparently, there's many other teams that use "footballers", and that's not just major sports clubs that also have basketball, handball, etc. teams like Real Madrid. There's no problem with renaming, but is it necessary? If we really have to rename, then we have to rename all, not just the Bulgarian teams. Todor → Bozhinov 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • TodorBozhinov, it's not the word footballers, it's the tautology. Real Madrid footballers is fine, CSKA Sofia footballers would be fine too, as well as PFC CSKA Sofia players. Tautology is an element of poor language style and must be avoided. Yes, there are more category names with this problem, but maybe it's up to the comunity around each of them to decide? -- Dstoykov 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, the tautology doesn't bother me at all but most of the other categories use "players." Recury 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Football (soccer) referees by country to Category:Football (soccer) referees by nationality reply

This is a Category:Occupations by nationality sub-category with contents such as Category:Scottish football referees. The scopes of its contents are limited by nationalities, not countries, and so it should be renamed. Kurieeto 18:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom or per Darwinek below. David Kernow 01:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC), expanded 06:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment How about this one Cat:Football (soccer) players by country. - Darwinek 16:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. The players category (and some others under Category:Sportspeople by nationality may need to be renamed as well). Recury 19:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Military people by nation to Category:Military people by nationality or Category:Military people by country

The category for proposed for renaming, Category:Military people by nation, is a direct sub-cat of Category:Occupations by nationality. 99% of the other sub-cats of Category:Occupations by nationality end with "by nationality", so I think this one should too. However I also note that the current description of this category Category:Military people by nation, is "This category classifies military personnel by the associated country." This implies that what limits the scope of its contents are countries, not nationalities. So the second option is made available as well. -- Kurieeto 17:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to country.-- Mike Selinker 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Military personnel by country per my comments on the proposal below. Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Military personnel by country per Kirill and discussion on proposal below. David Kernow 01:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per above. -- HResearcher 05:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Military people by nationality to match all the other subcategories of

Category:Occupations by nationality. Renaming to Category:Military people by country would achieve no naming consistency and only invite another renaming exercise soon enough. Thanks Hmains 18:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• • Post-closing heads-up: I just made a nomination today that makes this one less clear.— Mike Selinker 01:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 08:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Per the German military personnel CfD, I’m proposing changing all these to match the agreed-upon direction, and the other subcategories of category:Military people by nation.

• Category:Algerian military personnel to category:Algerian military people
• Category:Military people of Argentina to category:Argentine military people
• Category:Austrian military personnel to category:Austrian military people
• Category:British military personnel to category:British military people
• Category:Danish military personnel to category:Danish military people
• Category:Egyptian military personnel to category:Egyptian military people
• Category:French military personnel to category:French military people
• Category:Indian military personnel to category:Indian military people
• Category:Irish military personnel to category:Irish military people
• Category:Norwegian military personnel to category:Norwegian military people
• Category:Pakistani military personnel to category:Pakistani military people
• Category:South African military personnel to category:South African military people
• Category:Spanish military personnel to category:Spanish military people
• Category:Sri Lankan military personnel to category:Sri Lankan military people
• Category:Ugandan military personnel to category:Ugandan military people

I buy the logic that this change allows people like military historians to be included.-- Mike Selinker 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strongly oppose this. Including military historians here is precisely what we don't want to do; there is absolutely no concievable reason to list a country's soldiers in a single category with historians who merely happen to have been born in a particular country; nor to label historians as "military" people when they're usually not members of the armed forces. (It would have been nice to let WP:MILHIST know that you were proposing such a massive change here, no? We extensively debated the issue some time ago, and came to the conclusion that the best names for these categories would take the form "Military personnel of Foo".) Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Then how come you didn't act on that decision, or do anything about the German military personnel debate that took place here? I'm totally fine with switching everything to Military people of X, but let's get them all on the same page.-- Mike Selinker 00:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • We didn't act on that decision because we got pulled off on more urgent matters at the time (which, in retrospect, was a big mistake); as far as the German debate, (a) we weren't informed of it, and (b) even if we had been aware of it, it was explicitly framed as a simple merging of duplicate categories rather than as a general decision of naming. I entirely agree with you about keeping things on the same page, though; it's just that I would very much prefer if that page were the most appropriate of the possible choices. If we can come to a consensus to go ahead with "Military personnel of X" for these categories, I think it would be trivial to list the remaining ones for (speedy?) renaming afterwards; alternately, we could add them all to this nomination directly. Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Cool. OK, let's give this a day to see if people agree with your approach (I'm fine with it). And then if people support the reverse direction, I'll switch all the tags. Meanwhile, please let folks know at MILHIST that this is up for debate..-- Mike Selinker 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Thanks! I've done so; let's see how things go from here. Kirill Lokshin 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep on military historian (etc) grounds per Kirill, WikiProject Military history and here. David Kernow 01:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Kirill Lokshin and Mike Slinker. -- HResearcher 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Consensus was for "Military people of X", not "Military personnel of X" Andrés C. 14:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Jut to be clear about it, the MILHIST people are saying that if they had noticed the German debate, there would not have been consensus. -- Mike Selinker 14:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • But I'm from WP:MILHIST, and I did post an announcement there [1] about the German debate the same moment I proposed the merging. Besides, Kirill committed a little mistake. Consensus was for the use of people, not personnel. Andrés C. 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. personnel is not only more specific and less vague than people, but it sounds more professional as well. The only advantage I can see of using people is, it's easier to spell, especially for non-native English users.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose also. It is entirely mystifying to me why historians who have nothing to do with the military or warfare other than they enjoy studying them would be put in the same category as the military personnel who were the ones actually involved in warfare itself. They are two completely different groups of people and cramming them together into one category as if they are the same is ridiculous. It also begs the question of who exactly qualifies as non-military "military people." Who qualifies as an historian? How many articles on warfare topics does a person have to publish before he's considered a "military person"? And from my personal standpoint, who cares if an historian wrote a book about warfare? Does that make him 100% correct, especially if he's drawing his own conclusions? How does that possibly put him in the same category as the warfighters he wrote about? Doing something and writing about someone doing something are entirely different things. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges. -- ScreaminEagle 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The current naming is more professional, but more importantly I agree that military historians should not be in the same category as military personnel. Mike Christie 16:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. As a military historian (wannabe) and being ex-army myself, I see a clear distinction between the two in myself let alone in others. What i study or write about is very different from what i experienced and did. Keep 'personnel' as well, as it does indeed sound a great deal more professional. Tristan benedict 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 08:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• A previous CfD on this category was overturned by a DRV consensus as improper. The matter is submitted for new consideration; all closers are kindly asked to allow the debate to run for a full span, and to close the debate with dispassionate comments. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: category has no use whatsoever and had until the first CfD started only one member (a friend of his or her joined during the CfD). Like many other Wikipedian categories, this one is better off deleted. Fram 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, although maybe it should be moved to Category:Wikipedians who are gangsters, as that would be a more accurate name. The category was intended to include Wikipedians who are gang or mafia/mob members, thus the article is indeed useful, especially because it describes an area of expertise, as well as a characteristic of the user. This is hardly any different from a category such as Category:Wikipedians who play backgammon. If the category name needs to be changed to reflect this, then by all means, change it. Currently there is only one member, however this is minor and can be easily rectified if neccessary. syphonbyte _{( t| c)} 00:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Syphonbyte (currently the main supporter of this category) was recently blocked by Cyde for adding himself into this very category, even after the DRV consensus has been reached and the previous CfD overturned. If this is an attempt to terrorize the voter population into voting delete, I'm afraid it wont work. -- The Raven 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep/Rename I agree with syphon, a valid categorization. And if the name is inaccurate or provides for fuzzy categorization, then it need only be changed. -- The Raven 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete Wikipedia vanity category. -- HResearcher 06:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I got things mixed up, I admit it, so I'm fixing my own mistake and reopening the CfD. -- Drini 22:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Some Wikipedians are, in fact, "hot" just as some Wikipedians are "gangster"; if the former category is legitimate, certaintly so then is the latter.- PhoenixPinion 23:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment For efficiency purposes, perhaps Wikipedia ought to have some sort of double jeapardy principles; perhaps an issue that has been raised within a certain timespan should not be permitted to be immediately re-raised.
    • The previous comment was added by PhoenixPinion as well. Reply: you mean this CfD? It was the conclusion of the Deletion Review that the previous CfD was closed too early and should be redone. It is normal that this is done immediately, not that we wait a while (for what)? Fram 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep If the "hot wikipedians" article is legitimate then this one is too. -- Charlesxavier 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  I believe that pages for deletion should be looked at individually, and this reasoning would mean that we could take any unencyclopedic category and keep it as other categories that could be interpreted as similar are kept. I would propose that we put the hot wikipedians category up for deletion as well for the reasons I gave down below. Cowman109 ^Talk 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: as has been noted on the first CfD, users syphonbyte, PhoenixPinion, Charlesxavier, The Raven, and some others, are a closely related group who have defended articles in unison in the past. Phoenixpinion, Charlesxavier and The Raven didn't make any serious contribution to Wikipedia in the month preceding the previous CfD (Phoenixpinion made one, to be precise), but suddenly all three edited again when a category from their friend was up for deletion. This comes awfully close to WP:MEAT. Fram 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment You are of course, entitled to your own opinion. From what I see of WP:MEAT you claim me and some other accounts are 'multiple individuals [that] create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion.'. I'm afraid thats not even close, since I (and I'm sure most of the others) have at least one year, if not multiple years of detailed history of contributions. It should come to you as no surprise that we share the same opinions in perfectly rational situations (as perfectly rational people would do, no?), but differ wildly on others. As for not contributing in the last month I'm afraid thats quite irrelevant. I made some contributions recently too, thanks for overlooking those =) -- The Raven 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Reply: which contributions did you make then in the last month? Nothing serious, as I said... [2] More precisely, you have made edits to seven mainspace articles (excluding deleted ones, of course), and to only one since March 6th. Phoenixpinion has made this year edits to two non-deleted articles before the CfD started initially, and two since. [3] Charlesxaviers first edit is only in June of this year, just in time to join the previous group effort at saving articles. He then edited 7 articles in three days, and then nothing anymore. [4] The only regular contributor of your group is syphonbyte. As for WP:MEAT, the next paragraph is the relevant one: "Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia." You, PhoenixPinion, and Charlesxavier are "users with known views and bias" brought in here to "strengthen one side of the debate". Since you don't fit the very strict definition of a meatpuppet, I considered it "awfully close to WP:MEAT", otherwise I would just have called it a blatant case of WP:MEAT. Note as well that the next line of WP:MEAT mentions "newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background": I think you three can be reasonably said to have limited Wikipedia background. Fram 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment My apologies. At the time of my writing that I did extensively re-write an article that I considered notable. It was recently deleted, in (yet another) improper consencus *sigh*. Although you are partially right, it has been a while since I've written an article about a topic from scratch. Please keep in mind that I have been around for quite some time, although not necessarily active (particularly during summer months) -- The Raven
      • Reply: apologies accepted, but why do you edit with different usernames? [5]. Fram 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Not to mention that most of them edit under anonymous IPs most of the time. syphonbyte _{( t| c)} 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Reply: a good reason not to edit anonymously... Fram 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • As I recall 'hot wikipedians' was deleted. Vegaswikian 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Fram. Mike Christie 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete, as this category has no business being in an encyclopedia. The category 'hot wikipedians' (which I can't seem to find) should also be put up for CFD for as by its very nature it could lead to embarassment should someone else add someone else, not to mention both of them are simply silly (and last I checked, don't improve the encyclopedia in any way). Cowman109 ^Talk 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. While I believe that the community is capable of deciding on an individual basis that a category such as this is (as I believe) significantly more troublesome and unhelpful than the general run of trivial/useless/humerous categories, if not, the proper course would be to delete "crazy", "hot" et. al., not allow them to be used as precedents. - David Oberst 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I thought this was clearly a delete before. How did it get relisted? Bastique▼ ^parler _voir 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: the previous CfD was closed prematurely, hence the relist. Fram 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• This category has caused me to be blocked twice (total 34 hours) now and The Raven to be blocked once (24 hours) by Cyde, the closing admin from the previous CfD. Obviously I feel that these blocks are totally against policy, and Raven feels that they are intended to sway people's decisions on this category. It has certainly swayed my decision; I say delete for the good of mankind (and myself), for the simple reason that I'd rather be rid of it and stop being blocked for adding it to my user page when it's still on CfD. If I were more of an ass, then I'd probably request a DRV again after this came out to be a delete based on the grounds that the two main proponents were unable to debate for a good amount of time based on the fact that they were blocked by an admin involved in this very dispute (which violates blocking policy, obviously), however as I stated, I'd rather not be blocked yet again, although this edit could very well get me blocked for "edit warring" or something of that nature, as Cyde hasn't really specified exactly why he's been blocking me. syphonbyte _{( t| c)} 07:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete - This is most likely a joke category, and even if it's not, it has no value to the encyclopedia. We don't need a category that advertises editors as criminals. -- Cswrye 04:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 08:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Culdee Fell Railway ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Another "too detailed" category from The Railway Series. -=#  Amos E Wolfe  ^talk #=- 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Amos E Wolfe. -- HResearcher 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Anti-Semites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, WP:POINT creation, duplicates Category:Anti-Semitic people. William Allen Simpson 15:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom LaszloWalrus 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I created this category and so won’t vote either way, but here’s why I think it’s necessary:

1. The criteria for inclusion on the preexisting category are much too vague. Criteria for inclusion on the new category are stricter, more specific, and (most importantly) actually enforceable. Compare: Category:Anti-Semitic people, Category:Anti-Semites.
2. The name “Anti-Semitic people,” as opposed to “Anti-Semites,” is so circumlocutious as to invite offense (in its indirection) and ridicule. It’s also imprecise.

On account of the latter, I’d actually suggest merging Category:Anti-Semitic people into Category:Anti-Semites, carefully double-checking to make sure the articles belong. By no means was this a WP:POINT creation—I’m not sure how you got that impression, William, but I’m sorry you did (no hard feelings, though). :-)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support [Reverse-]Merge I'd support the merge. A brief glance at the page supports the idea that it is stricter in it's assessments, although I actually think it's TOO strict, as even Hitler didn't make the cut. I think that if it's merged, some good discussion could lead to a better review ofthe qualifications for category inclusion. (So that people like Hitler and Mel Gibson can make the cut.) ThuranX 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hitler’s on the record “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews” (first criterion), so he would indeed make the cut. The same would apply to Mel, as long as the criteria for inclusion remain clearly stated on the category description, and as long as Mel’s article has the factual references to support his presence thereupon. I’m not sure if that’s enough to insulate us from a defamation suit, but it’s certainly a safer bet than our preexisting Category:Anti-Semitic people (which lends no protection at all).  —Banzai! (talk) @ 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support [Reverse-]Merge but I'd rather Delete this and Anti-Semitic people after turning them into a cited and annotated list. -- Samuel Wantman 06:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Question: Is there any kind of policy on lists vs. categories? I remember reading somewhere a very clear description of which was appropriate where, but I can’t seem to find it anymore.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 23:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Never mind, found it.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Reverse-merge per —Banzai!-- M @ r ē ino 15:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both The existence of these categories expose a major failure in Wikipedia's systems, as Jewish users appear to be the only group well organised enough to preserve biased "anti" categories. Osomec 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both. Wikipedia needs some kind of firm precedent or policy against categorizing people on the basis of opinions. Opinions are changable and often passing. Likewise we need a firm policy against categorizing people with derogatory labels given them by others. This category fails on both counts. KleenupKrew 00:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Categories for the subject of newspaper by sub-national entity currently use the naming convention "published in X" (Ex: Category:Newspapers published in Ontario, Category:Newspapers published in Oregon, etc.). I believe this wording should be extended upwards to all sub-cats of Category:Newspapers by country. Currently the by-country categories go unintuitively by the name "Nationality X", despite their criteria for inclusion being based entirely on the location of publication, not the nationality of owners or anything else. As evidence of this, the description in Category:Russian newspapers is "Newspapers published in Russia.", and the description in Category:Danish newspapers is "Newspapers published in Denmark." For reasons of clarity, precision, and consistency, we should simply put the inclusion criteria into the category titles, to remove any ambiguities. The following renamings are proposed:

• Category:Afghan newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Afghanistan
• Category:American newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the United States
• Category:Argentine newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Argentina
• Category:Armenian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Armenia
• Category:Australian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Australia
• Category:Austrian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Austria
• Category:Bangladeshi newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Bangladesh
• Category:Barbadian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Barbados
• Category:Belarusian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Belarus
• Category:Belgian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Belgium
• Category:Bhutanese newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Bhutan
• Category:Botswana newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Botswana
• Category:Brazilian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Brazil
• Category:British newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the United Kingdom
• Category:Bulgarian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Bulgaria
• Category:Canadian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Canada
• Category:Chilean newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Chile
• Category:Colombian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Colombia
• Category:Costa Rican newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Costa Rica
• Category:Croatian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Croatia
• Category:Cypriot newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Cyprus
• Category:Czech newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the Czech Republic
• Category:Danish newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Denmark
• Category:Dominican newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Dominica
• Category:Dominican Republic newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the Dominican Republic
• Category:Dutch newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the Netherlands
• Category:Egyptian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Egypt
• Category:Estonian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Estonia
• Category:Ethiopian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Ethiopia
• Category:Fijian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Fiji
• Category:Finnish newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Finland
• Category:French newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in France
• Category:German newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Germany
• Category:Greek newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Greece
• Category:Guyanese newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Guyana
• Category:Hong Kong newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Hong Kong
• Category:Hungarian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Hungary
• Category:Icelandic newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Iceland
• Category:Indian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in India
• Category:Indonesian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Indonesia
• Category:Iranian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Iran
• Category:Iraqi newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Iraq
• Category:Irish newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Ireland
• Category:Israeli newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Israel
• Category:Italian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Italy
• Category:Japanese newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Japan
• Category:Jordanian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Jordan
• Category:Kazakh newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Kazakhstan
• Category:Kenyan newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Kenya
• Category:Kuwaiti newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Kuwait
• Category:Laotian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Laos
• Category:Latvian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Latvia
• Category:Lebanese newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Lebanon
• Category:Lithuanian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Lithuania
• Category:Macau newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Macau
• Category:Macedonian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the Republic of Macedonia
• Category:Malaysian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Malaysia
• Category:Maldivian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the Maldives
• Category:Maltese newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Malta
• Category:Mexican newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Mexico
• Category:Moldovan newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Moldovia
• Category:Montenegrin newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Montenegro
• Category:Moroccan newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Morroco
• Category:Nambian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Namibia
• Category:Nepali newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Nepal
• Category:New Zealand newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in New Zealand
• Category:Newspapers in the People's Republic of China to Category:Newspapers published in the People's Republic of China
• Category:Newspapers of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Newspapers published in Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Category:Newspapers of Mauritius to Category:Newspapers published in Mauritius
• Category:Newspapers of the Republic of China to Category:Newspapers published in the Republic of China
• Category:Nicaraguan newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Nicaragua
• Category:Nigerian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Niger
• Category:North Korean newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in North Korea
• Category:Northern Irish newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Northern Ireland
• Category:Norwegian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Norway
• Category:Pakistani newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Pakistan
• Category:Papuan newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Papua New Guinea
• Category:Peruvian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Peru
• Category:Philippine newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the Philippines
• Category:Polish newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Poland
• Category:Portuguese newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Portugal
• Category:Puerto Rican newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Puerto Rico
• Category:Romanian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Romania
• Category:Russian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Russia
• Category:Scottish newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Scotland
• Category:Serbian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Serbia
• Category:Slovak newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Slovakia
• Category:South African newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in South Africa
• Category:South Korean newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in South Korea
• Category:Soviet newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the Soviet Union
• Category:Spanish newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Spain
• Category:Sri Lankan newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Sri Lanka
• Category:Surinamese newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Suriname
• Category:Swedish newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Sweden
• Category:Swiss newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Switzerland
• Category:Taiwanese newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Taiwan
• Category:Tajikistan newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Tajikstan
• Category:Thai newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Thailand
• Category:Trinidad and Tobago newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Trinidad and Tobago
• Category:Turkish newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Turkey
• Category:Ukrainian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Ukraine
• Category:United Arab Emirates newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in the United Arab Emirates
• Category:Vatican City newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Vatican City
• Category:Vietnamese newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Vietnam
• Category:Yemeni newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Yemen
• Category:Zambian newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Zambia
• Category:Zimbabwean newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Zimbabwe

-- Kurieeto 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per above, to avoid demonyms, and more importantly to avoid possibly inaccurate assumptions about which language certain newspapers are written in. — freak( talk) 15:05, Aug. 6, 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- William Allen Simpson 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Support as above Saga City 16:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom, with sense of déjà vu. David Kernow 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Mais oui! 21:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename; however, Category:Newspapers published in Macedonia should be Category:Newspaper published in the Republic of Macedonia. The name Macedonia is ambiguous because it also denotes the multi-country Region of Macedonia. For example, the newspaper Makedonia published in Thessaloniki is also a newspaper published in Macedonia and would have to be included in this category because Thessaloniki is in Macedonia (Greece). This would defy the purpose of this renaming operation. See also the subcategories of Category:Republic of Macedonia. This is a very sensitive political question that has to be addressed according to the consensus reached at Republic of Macedonia.   Andreas   ^(T) 00:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I've corrected the nomination as suggested. Kurieeto 00:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment the above exchange shows exactly why this series of renaming is needed. It is much clearer to put the full decription of a country as a proper noun or phrase rather than by the use of adjectives. Saga City 13:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per Freakofnurture. Mike Christie 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong oppose; clarity is much better served by current version and there is no problem with precision. -- Malyctenar 09:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Please see the Macedonian example two comments above. Could you please explain how the proposed new names are less clear than the old ones? I don't see how this can be so, given that these categories are Category:Newspapers by country categories, and are limited by those borders. Therefore, as by country categories, should they not have the names of those countries in their titles? Kurieeto 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename Absolutely. This makes infinitely more sense, and is in line with other categories. Bastique▼ ^parler _voir 18:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Osomec 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The same principle applies to catetories XX media, XX magazines, XX television and maybe others.   Andreas   ^(T) 14:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Magazines yes, but not much broader categories like media and television, which contain a far wider range of articles. Osomec 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:People of Hong Kong descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Hong Kong is not an ethnicity nor a nationality. Other than this, I'm unaware of any categorization of people by the city or town where ancestors were born. William Allen Simpson 14:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Proposal does not take into account that Hong Kong was a British Colony for 100+ years and, in any case, a 'city state' is not just a 'city or town'. Colonies are treated as 'countries' in WP for purposes of 'national descent'. And HongKongers are certainly distinct (as any HongKonger will tell you, they are from HongKong, not China or somewhere else). This might change in the next 100 years, but not now. Thanks Hmains 19:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge with Category:Hong Kong people. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Hmains. Passer-by 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 13:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete or rename to Category:Non-nude models. Spellcheck badly needed. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Well, you learn something you don't want to learn every day, I guess. In any event, it needs a better name because it appears to be a real-life category of models (so it should stay) but is dramatically confusing (is anyone who hasn't posed nude one of these?). Maybe category:Models in non-nude pornography, to match the non-nude pornography article?-- Mike Selinker 14:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support for proposed name. I added a ref to the non-nude porn article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Seems to have real contents. Mike Christie 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 08:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Hong Kong people to Category:People from Hong Kong

• Rename, Hong Kong is a residence, not a nationality. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Residence. William Allen Simpson 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per above, although "People born in..." and "People associated with..." categories an alternative approach for these kinds of categories (see other recent proposals). David Kernow 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC), +comment 06:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Hong Kong is patently not like other cities. The Hong Kong subcategories are in all the main by-country categories. Osomec 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • They shouldn't be, and you should stop putting them there...

    -- William Allen Simpson 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per Osomec. Cloachland 18:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The term "Hong Kong people" says nothing about nationality. And the category includes people whose residency is not Hong Kong, so this is not a residency issue either. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep this and its subcategories for reasons given above. Stop trying to destroy; build instead. Thanks Hmains 02:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Hong Kong's situation is unique, as you'll see across Wikipedia (such as in lists). If statistics for Hong Kong are often given separately, there is no reason not to list its people separately. - newkai t- c 19:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Icy moons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• I do not believe this is a useful category, as we are not categorizing moons by composition 70.51.9.213 05:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

NOTE: This was previously part of a mass nomination for renames by user:Lady Aleena which failed.

I am renominating as an individual category to get a proper read on this particular category, as the last nomination was a delete suggestion embedded in a mass rename. 70.51.9.213 05:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unpopopulated and unlikely to change any time soon. the wub "?!" 10:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's not unpopulated (2 articles). Categorizing moons by the presence of ice is actually a sensible thing to do, not only for exobiology but also for geology and planetary astronomy. -- M @ r ē ino 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment virtually every moon is an icy moon, except the Moon, Phobos, Deimos, and Io. 132.205.93.195 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. Seems trivial. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. KleenupKrew 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Query (in lieu of studying the articles in the category): Does "icy" here mean "containing or carrying solidified water"...?   David Kernow 16:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. Where do you put the dividing line between icy and non-icy moons? If we take the Galilean moons as an example, we have a progression from Io (silicates) through Europa (mainly silicates with a relatively thin icy layer) and Ganymede (about 50/50 ice and silicates) to Callisto (mainly ices with some silicates mixed in). Is there some kind of standard where we can draw the line? Chaos syndrome 16:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep all. the wub "?!" 08:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Category:Automata to Category:Automatons
2. Category:Automata theory to Category:Automaton theory
3. Category:Cellular automata to Category:Cellular automatons
4. Category:Cacti to Category:Cactuses
5. Category:Cacti of Mexico to Category:Cactuses of Mexico
6. Category:Mesoamerican codices to Category:Mesoamerican codexes
7. Category:Dominatrices to Category:Dominatrixes
8. Category:Fictional dominatrices to Category:Fictional dominatrixes
9. Category:Nebulae to Category:Nebulas (and most of its subcategories)
10. Category:Railway termini in London to Category:Railway terminuses in London

• This is the English Wikipedia and we should use English plurals whenever possible. — Keenan Pepper 04:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Strong Oppose -- This is just plain silly. The preferred plural for cactus is cacti and the only plural for codex is codices according to Dictionary.com. The rest follow the same pattern. Pardon me, Mr Pepper, but you are flat-out wrong. Madman 05:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Well then apparently I'm "flat-out" wrong no matter what I say. Rome, birthplace of Latin, has forums, but London has railway termini. The OED backs me up on all these except codexes, but honestly, what fraction of English speakers can spell the singular of codices? — Keenan Pepper 05:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The OED does not back you up on automatons (it prefers automata), nor on terminuses (it only allows termini). I'm mystified how you came to the contrary conclusion. — Blotwell 22:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

My New Shorter OED says terminuses, and it says variant forms are listed in alphabetical order, so I'm mystified how you came to the conclusion that it "prefers" one form. — Keenan Pepper 02:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm (I should have said) using www.oed.com. I believe that this is more up-to-date (i.e. gives OUP's most current opinion) but I'm open to disproof. By "variant forms are in alphabetical order" I understand that this applies among multiple non-preferred forms, the preferred form being the headword. Notice for example that colour, color is listed thus, under the alphabetically-inferior spelling colour: if that isn't a preferred form I'd like to know what it is. — Blotwell 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• (I've taken the liberty of numbering the above categories) Support 1, 2, 3, 7, 8; oppose 4, 5; neutral on the rest. My vote on number two has nothing to do with language; usually when the theory of something is in question, it's phrased as "[singular noun] theory" (e.g., string theory). The rest are just my subjective interpretation of how common/foreign-seeming (in all senses) the Latin plural is to modern anglophones. I think my opposition to cacti > cactus is best founded, truthfully; Google gives nearly 12 times as many results for "cacti" than for "cactuses." The pedantic way some people form plurals that, by all prescriptive standards, should be formed with "-s," is rather common—see the second entry on this page for a brief discussion—and it must originate from the legitimate plurals of such words as "cactus."

On the other hand, the words "automaton" and "dominatrix" are, I believe, seen so much more often in the singular than the plural that to form the latter classically is only to perpetuate a tradition for the sake of the few who have seen the thusly-formed word enough to readily process it as such. -- zenohockey 05:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. There is no way "cactuses" is correct. Beyond that, the other ones seem reasonable, and I definitely prefer Nebulas.-- Mike Selinker 05:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

What do you mean "correct"? Cactuses is a correct application of the rule that words ending in s take -es instead of -s. It's incorrect Latin, but we're writing in English. — Keenan Pepper 06:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

You know, "correct" as in "correct English." Here's Merriam-Webster: "plural cac·ti \-t, -()t\ or cactuses \-_tsz\ :". Here's dictionary.com: "pl. cac·ti (-t) or cac·tus·es". Here's Cambridge: "plural cacti or cactuses". Here's Encarta: "(plural cac·ti or cac·tus·es or cac·tus)". In all cases, cacti is the first listed, and thus preferred. See also Cactus#Etymology.-- Mike Selinker 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm quite familiar with the etymology, thank you. Are you familiar with the difference between prescription and description? — Keenan Pepper 08:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Mike Selinker said nothing about etymology, so why the sharp retort? He was merely quoting the dictionary. BTW, I'm thinking that, according to your prescription, we should change all the verbs in Wikipedia to be regular verbs: "I be" You be", "He bes", "We be". Madman 14:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Would you advise that we also allow contractions in articles and allow common spelling mistakes? Perhaps we should start using "ain't" as well. This project is meant to be educational. Isn't that the reason we have style guides and fix spelling errors? -- Samuel Wantman 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Keenan, if I didn't know the difference between prescription and description, my dad would be pretty disappointed. What you seem to be missing is that I'm supporting you on everything but "cacti" for descriptive reasons. "Dominatrixes" seems to me to be the most common usage in real life, as does "cacti."-- Mike Selinker 14:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, good, that was just a misunderstanding then (although I don't see what your dad has to do with anything...). — Keenan Pepper 02:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep all, except possibly "Railway termini". My impression is that these plurals are commonplace in the fields of artificial life, Latin American studies, BDSM and astronomy. "Cacti" may be used by botanists and "Cactuses" by your local garden supermarket, but I'd say go with the former as this is an encyclopedia rather than a magazine column. Regards, David Kernow 08:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all Cacti cats, it's well known term. No objection to creating Cactuses redirects. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I would be fine if we used Latin plurals consistently, but we don't. Maybe I'm obsessive, but I see pairs like cacti and isthmuses and I think one of them has to change (I don't care which). Does no one see the irony of termini of London and forums of Rome? — Keenan Pepper 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP is not the place to push English spelling reform, whose pitfalls you should read about if you haven't already. — Blotwell 22:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'm afraid I don't see the irony. English is complicated. We live with that and move on.-- Mike Selinker 00:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • You really don't? Okay, let me spell it out for you: London was the center of the British Empire, which spread the use of English, yet the category for London uses the Latin plural. Rome was the center of the Roman Empire, which spread the use of Latin, yet the category for Rome uses the English plural. It's backwards. — Keenan Pepper 02:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all for inappropriate multiple listing. Any of these changes which can be justified by reference to dictionaries or usage should be relisted individually. — Blotwell 22:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • And perhaps which changes are justifiable should be discussed somewhere else first. We have plenty of spelling-flame fororum already, such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling), without cluttering up CFD. — Blotwell 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all current names. These are the English plurals. Surely all mans womans and childs here know that not all English words simply slap an s on the end to for the plural. There are probably even beings of other specieses and genuses that realise it, like oxes and amoebas. It's common enough knowledge that English isn't consistent and revels in its nonconformity - it's one of the basises of the language. You can find this sort of information in many places - the appendixes of books, in the synopsises of thesises, and even scrawled as graffitos on walls. It's also clear from the way these plurals are used by the mass mediums. Speak the some colleges alumnuses, or anyone wearing official insigniums and they too will agree. People from all stratums of society know it, in fact. English is all over the place. Plot the datums on a pair of axises and you'll see that. Just because you'd like plurals to be black and white, one thing or the other, doesn't mean that the English that is used here should go through one of those metaporphosises that lead to a change of criterions for its use. English isn't one of these patoises that will change on a whim. Grutness... wha? 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all per Blotwell, it's just going to end up a no consensus mess this way. Relist them singly if you really think it's necessary, but I think most are fine. -- nae' blis 16:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as a WP:POINT issue. Nebulae is correct, try to find nebulas in astronomy. Automata is ocrrect, look in math and computer science. 132.205.93.195 18:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all renames The rename would use incorrect (or uncommonly accepted) plurals. George J. Bendo 18:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Nebulas www.dictionary.com [6] = nebulae or nebula, as is encarta [7]. I checked out the Merriam-Webster and OneLook dictionary. They concur with Nebulae as either the first listed form or the only form. Nebula should stay Nebulae. -- Exodio 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all except 2 (for which I have no opinion). I don't think I've even personally seen all of the proposed names before in serious writing (terminuses?). Ardric47 04:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose changing Nebulae to Nebulas. The former is the proper expression and has a long history in astronomy. No opinion on the others. — RJH ( talk) 23:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strongly oppose all, except no opinion on 2. In most of these cases, the Latin plural form is more commonly used than the English one. Chaos syndrome 13:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose all, we must maintain accuracy, the plurals as they stand are correct English. The only exception I would make is that London Termini should be London Terminals. Buy a rail ticket to London and that will be what it says on the ticket. Mallanox 02:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Female poker players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered." All poker players are currently categorized by nationality. There isn't a need for a parallel female's only category, and especially for subcategorizion of the females by nationality. 2005 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete per nom. Essexmutant 01:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep How is a category for female poker players any different than Category:Women composers for just one example? And who suggested subcategorizing by sex and nationality? Otto4711 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • What's the benefit though? There is minimal (if any) categorization value here, particularly as poker is a game that women can compete at on the same level as men. Essexmutant 02:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The same exact benefit as any other categorization of poker players, quick and easy reference. Russians can compete at poker on the same level as Koreans or Costa Ricans or Americans but those categorizations, which, considering the number of players with changes in citizenship/residence, are more arbitary than categorizing by sex, are not being challenged. Otto4711 02:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Why are you ignoring the Wikipolicy "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered"? Essexmutant 02:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I'm not ignoring anything. If you'll note, it wasn't linked by the first person to mention it. I also note that the policy doesn't prohibit creating sex-specific categories and it remains my opinion after reading the policy that "female poker players," given their historic under-representation in poker, the fact that the WSOP and WPT maintain ladies'-only events etc. are of sufficient encyclopedic interest to justify the category. Otto4711 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Such a reason would never be relevant to everyone in it, as there are numerous female poker players who refuse to play such events as they see it as setting the scales back against them. Would a "Pensioners who play poker" category be valid just because there's a Senior's event at the World Series be relevant? No. Essexmutant 03:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • National categorization criteria does not have Wikipolicy against it. Gender categorization does. Essexmutant 03:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • In addition to the ladies' only events, I also mentioned the historical under-representation of women in poker. And while I wouldn't bother making a "pensioners who play poker" category there are categories for people born in certain decades, entertainers who died in their 80s, and any number of other age-based categories. And you do understand that the wikipolicy is not a ban, right? If there's legitimate encyclopedic value in a sex-based category, it's fine. There's as much if not more encyclopedic value in a categorization of female players as there is in categorizing players based on being Japanese or Canadian. Otto4711 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Forget about nationalities. The CFD was raised because of the Wikipolicy. If you want to debate the nationalities used to split Category:Poker players then that's a separate discussion, although it is clearly stated at the following link that categorizing by nationality is permitted ("Subcategories by country are permitted.") Have a look at Special subcategories. Here it says that if you want to categorize by gender then you must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid. If you want to prove that the category is valid, I invite you to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article for Women in Poker prior to using this category. In addition, I suggest you cite numerous examples within that article of places that identify the relevance of women in poker. As for whether there's a ban on gender-related categories or not, it is an agreed policy to not use gender-related categories unless you can prove the value of the category by the above means. So if you choose to break the policy then you are, as I said above, ignoring it. Essexmutant 04:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • First off, I was unaware of the policy before I created the category. Secondly, I understand that categorization by nationality is permitted. At no time did I suggest that it wasn't; it was offered as an example of another form of categorization within poker that rather negates your claim that being able to compete on equal footing is a reason not to have the category. Third, is there some reason you feel the need to try to paint this in the worst possible light? "Break the policy" and "ignoring the policy" are both extremely confrontational ways of putting it. Not to mention being pretty patently false. It is not against the rules of Wikipedia to categorize by sex. There are categories for, among undoubtedly many others, women in physics, women in chemistry, women aviators, women composers and so on, so the idea that creating a women in poker category is some egregious breach is just untrue. As for writing an article on women in poker, I have no doubt that given time to do some basic research I could. Note that the policy doesn't require that such an article be written, only that such an article is possible. Are you suggesting that an article on women in poker is not possible? Finally, since you've made the same comment twice, your allegation that women players refuse to play ladies-only events in any significant number (I've only heard one, Annie Duke, state it outright) is irrelevant. Otto4711 04:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The irrelevant comment is that there is a WSOP Women's event. What difference does that make? And that is not a rhetorical question. The statement makes no sense unless you suggesting that only woman who play in these events would be included, thus Linda Johnson and Annie Duke and any other woman who plays poker but avoids these segregated events not be included? Let's stick to the point here instead. Gender categorization should be avoided when possible. It is possible, and in fact is easy, so the category has no reason to exist. Poker players have a way to categorize them now that is helpful, if imperfect. Female poker players is of very little value, except perhaps looking at players with gender nuetral names like "Jan" or "Terry". The bottom line is you have to justify why an exception should be made to the standard guidelines. I don't see a reason. Such a category is not useless, but female poker players (especially working professional or working tournament players) are not rare in any way. (And for the record, parallel categorization to the nationality characterization would be fine, but "female" is just not very much of a breakdown.) Contrast this gender subcategorization with the existing Hendon Mob or possible Team Full Tilt or Team Pokerstars categories. Those would be parallel groupings that would have some value on their own (and since those aren't really needed I suggest a gender one surely isn't needed). 2005 07:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Xuyen Pham, Lucy Rokach, Tiffany Williamson and others have all avoided these tournaments. Feel free to research it. Essexmutant 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• • I've already expanded on my mention of the ladies-only events. Not sure why you would suggest omitting those women who won't play them since there was no such implication in my statement. The point still remains that in the profession/sport of poker, women have historically been under-represented. As with many other professions in which women have been under-represented, including the aforementioned aviation, physics, chemistry, composing and the dozens of other "women in" and "female" categories, I started the category. Do you object to all of those categories? Otto4711 14:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • If you are arguing for the purpose of the category based solely on the existance of women's only events (and I am not claiming you are) then the reasoning would be flawed as many female players see such events as a complete joke. As for under-representation of women in poker, I maintain as above that I object to this category until there is a substantial and encyclopedic head article on the subject of Women in Poker. Until then it is breaking an agreed Wikipolicy. My opinion on the other categories you mention, whether positive or negative, is not relevant to my right to object to this category. Essexmutant 14:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Well, no, no matter how many times you claim it's breaking the policy, it's not. The policy does not state that the head article must be written before the category can be created. Otto4711 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • If you feel there's a value in the category, then I'm surprised you're not jumping at the chance to write an article on it. Essexmutant 14:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Ah, the "I double dog dare you" line of argument. I don't have to personally write the article for the category to be valid. That an article can be written is sufficient to establish the validity of the category. Otto4711 15:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
      • That's ridiculous. What is not clear to me is what the context of such a head article would be without resorting to original research. Essexmutant 19:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Are you serious? I could probably write a halfway decent article now just by reading through the Card Player magazines stacked next to my desk. That you can't see how such an article might be written is meaningless. Otto4711 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
          • It's not meaningless. As the person who is trying to justify the category, the onus is very much on you to prove that an article can be written on the subject. If there's an article with potential, please go ahead and write it. Essexmutant 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

"That an article can be written is sufficient to establish the validity of the category." It certainly is not. I can write an article about my sock drawer. That doesn't mean there should be a category for that. Also, the fact that female poker players is interesting does not mean there should be a category. The question here is following policy and whether there is sufficient reason to make an exception to general policies. 2005 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

So, are you deliberately misreading my words, are they honestly not understanding or are you just funning me at this point? On the off chance that you actually don't understand, let me rephrase it in just a single sentence. Under the plain text words of the policy if a substantive and encyclopedic head article can be written about a topic then by definition the category is valid. As for an article about women in poker being offensive, that's easily the most ridiculous thing I've read in days. An article about the history of women poker players is offensive? An article that touches on the historical attitudes of male players toward women or about the relatively recent emergence of strong female players is offensive? That's nuts. Sorry, but that's just nuts. There are dozens of categories and hundreds of articles about women in various sports, women in various professions, women in different historical periods, etc. Are they all offensive? And as far as the question of policy, as I've said over and over and over again, the policy does not in any way prohibit the category. A category on women poker players is every bit as valid as a category on women biologists, women in tennis, women in the American Revolution, women rulers or any of the other dozens of similar categories. Unless you're prepared to state right here and now that every single category that classifies professionals or sportspeople or historical figures by sex is a violation of the policy and nominate them all for deletion, your argument here is clearly unsupportable. Otto4711 03:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• • • Yeah, actually, your inability to understand how an article could be written has very little, that is to say, no, bearing on things. "It is not clear to me" is in no way the same as "it can't be done." An article could easily consist of sections on the "old-timers" attitudes towards women players, the media attention Cyndy Violette got for winning her stud tournament, the increase in the number of women entering major tournaments, the emergence of a number of major women players, current attitudes toward women players, and your favorite, the supposed controversy around women-only events. See now how it might work? But again, the policy doesn't require that an article exist before creating the category, only that one could be legitimately written. Otto4711 21:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Bob Pajich, Card Player Magazine 19c(15c), August 2006, pgs 53-54. "Astute fans of [Poker Superstars III] will notice two distinct groups of people didn't make it out of the first round. First, none of the four women (Harman, Mimi Tran, Cyndy Violette, and Jennifer Tilly) made it into the second round..." I just happened across this today in the most recent Card Player, it demonstrates that women as a group are often discussed in media. If I actually looked for more, I think we all agree that we could find more. It is not just women's only events. It's not just that this is a random way to categorize people. This is a category of people which is often discussed in the media, rightly or wrongly, and to leave it out of wikipedia would be despite the way they are categorized in popular culture. Furthermore, the use of the policy here is ironic, since every argument presented here would apply equally well against Category:Female heads of state a category specifically mentioned by the policy as being legitimate. It seems to me the stance of proponents of this CfD contravenes the policy more than the opponents. -best, kevin kzollman][ talk 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The cited policy specifically mentions cases where there is encyclopedic benefit for the categorization (e.g. female heads of state). In poker publications, women are often discussed as a group. The World Series of Poker has a women's only event. I think this category is sufficiently encyclopedic. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 03:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - many women refuse to play the Women's only event at the WSOP. Essexmutant 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I'm afraid I don't understand what this has to do with the encyclopedic relevance of the category. This is not a debate about whether poker players should be categorized on the basis of gender in the world outside of wikipedia. This is a debate about whether or not the encyclopedia should classify them that way, given how the world classifies them. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. In a group where the presence of lots of women is far from the norm, such categorization makes sense. In terms of sports, it makes no sense to categorize female swimmers (half the athletes), but it does make sense to categorize female baseball players (way less than half the athletes). Poker players are far closer to baseball players than swimmers in this regard.-- Mike Selinker 06:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree that this category should be deleted. Not only is that in keeping with the policy, but I don't see the usefulness of the category from an encyclopedic perspective. Rray 04:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 08:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:IND Fulton Line stations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Category is empty (the correct category is IND Fulton Street Line stations). Marc Shepherd 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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