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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge The names of Australian Rules clubs have been Americanised. ReeseM 23:41, 12 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 18:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Not all music critics are journalists. This is a problematic area. Music critics overlaps with Category:Musicologists and I am thinking of creating Category:Music writers. Perhaps both of the categories mentioned in the heading could be merged into that? Calsicol 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - I agree this is problematic. As a music writer and critic (but not music journalist, except occasionally) myself, Category:Music writers sounds good to me. - Smerus 10:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I would not oppose using Category:Music writers as a compromise. - TexasAndroid 14:18, 19 January 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 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge. No argument. siafu 17:54, 18 January 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 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge to match standard in Category:Vehicles by brand. siafu 17:55, 18 January 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 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge The names of Australian Rules clubs have been Americanised - though not with an consistency, even on the Hawks own site. ReeseM 23:44, 12 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge. No argument. siafu 17:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Osomec 23:40, 19 January 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 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Move/delete. Display technology is better fitting name. Pavel Vozenilek 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge. No argument. siafu 17:56, 18 January 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 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Taking categories from the Article Merge system and tossing them up here for proper handling. - TexasAndroid 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge The names of Australian Rules clubs have been Americanised. Not consistently, but these names seem to be the preference nowadays. ReeseM 23:45, 12 January 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 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:WWE Diva Search contestants -- Kbdank71 18:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Currently lists contestants for WWE's Raw Diva Search, however, the name can be easily mistaken for Category:Professional wrestlers. RFC needed. kelvSYC 21:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:WWE Diva Search contestants, since that's what the category contains. And put it into Category:World Wrestling Entertainment - Bobet 19:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Bobet. siafu 17:56, 18 January 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 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 18:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Meaningless categorization; all articles are in the Alternative medicine category in any case CDN99 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support. Based on the duplication. I do believe that Category:Self-care could be valid with the right articles since the two are really quite different. Vegaswikian 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, though I agree with Vegaswikian that there could be a self-care category in the future. siafu 17:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge - agreed. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Though the meaning might not yet be well represented in Wikipedia, it is a meaningful unique categorization that is not synonymous with alternative medicine. Self-care is a widely accepted component of mainstream medicine, and is almost a standard feature in treatment of chronic manageable diseases. Early editors' difficulties in appreciating the meaning could make it difficult to unmerge the concepts later, to the disadvantage of people seeking information about self-care for chronic diseases but who might not care to wade through a list of alternative therapies for those diseases. Some forms of alternative medicine could be a category of self care, but they are not synonymous concepts. It seems the term Self-Care as I recall was most widely used in Tom Furgeson's magazine, sold to Island Publishing in 1989, [1] [2] [3]and I don't know where it is now. Myself, I like the word, but common usage is the standard. Self-care is still a concept used by many official health agencies, [4] but it is not about alternative medicine. A skin-care company owns the DNS listing. I'm not offering to fix the category, and it's late in the voting so I'll let it go. Can I vote keep conditionally only if my vote tipped the scale? ProveReader 05:21, 21 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicative. Someone put a Merge template on them both back in November, but nothing further happened. So tossing them up here to try to resolve it for good. The direction I've indicated above is my impression of the better merge direction, but I could be persuaded that a reverse merge is the more proper direction. One way or another, we need to come out of this with only one category, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Very strong oppose These are absolutely not the same thing and it is essential that both are preserved. Have a look at the contents. Calsicol 23:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• very strong oppose indeed. These are indeed completely different categories !! -- LimoWreck 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose they are totally different cats. Not all coats of arms are national coats of arms (indeed, as a percentage, only a tiny, tiny, tiny number are national arms).-- Mais oui! 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Would those opposing please take a look at the contents, then. If they are different things, then the contents are a total mess. 90% of the "by nation" subcats of "National coats" say just "Coat of arms of XXX". The remainder are a clutter of Royal Coats and Emblems, and a few Crests or Federal coats. Meanwhile Category:Coats of arms by nation is full of "Fooian coats of arms". If they are not to merge, then they need a thourough cleaning/sorting. And I definitely do not have the expertise to so such. - TexasAndroid 05:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The point remains that the Coat of Arms of The Drapers Company is NOT a "National Coat of Arms". AnonMoos 14:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Fully understood. I get the idea though that the majority of the entries actually belong under the non-National heading, which would fit your example. The question is which categories should stay under the national cat? As it is, I see little difference in most of the categories under the two. So what should move, and what should stay, to get the two categories correctly sorted? - TexasAndroid 07:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose What TexasAndroid refers to as subcategories are actually articles. Bhoeble 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

One of these days I need to look at things more closely. Still does not negate my comments that the contents of these categories need a thourough sorting job by someone who knows what they are doing. That's really all I'm arguing for. I'm not actively trying to fight the current non-merge votes, as the arguments against make sense. But still, the contents of the one mostly (not all but mostly) appear to really belong in the other. - TexasAndroid 05:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• If I grasp what is at hand Oppose.

National coat of arms should cover only the heraldic emblems representing sovereign countries themselves, not the blazons of families or institutions in those countries. Coat of arms by nation should be a listing of all the emblems found in x nation. Maybe a renaming for clarity is in order? -- Svartalf 06:02, 23 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate categories. I beleive the proper way to refer to it is with the "the". - TexasAndroid 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename. It should be under "speedy renames" on the top of this page. - Darwinek 09:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, I'm not certain this is a speedy situation. A quick glance at the criteria, and I don't see any of them that this strictly meets. IMHO there's no hurry, so I've got no problem with it waiting out the week. OTOH, if a mod decided to close this out for Speedy, I would understand. - TexasAndroid 12:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename, duplicate entries, with the target having the better name. - Bobet 16:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge. No argument. siafu 17:58, 18 January 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 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 please be bold, create the subcats, recat the articles, then renom these for deletion -- Kbdank71 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Split to Category:British royal favourites and Category:English royal favourites; Category:British princes and Category:English princes; Category:British princesses and Category:English princesses; in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions: "When historical and political complexities (such as mergers and splits) create articles that belong to two countries, do not create a "Foo of X and Y". Instead, list articles in both "Foo of X" and "Foo of Y". For example, "Foo of Russia" and "Foo of the Soviet Union", not "Foo of Russia and the Soviet Union".. Mais oui! 18:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Split-- Mais oui! 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Another inflexible convention which deserves to be ignored sometimes. There are not separate lines of British and English monarchs so separate categories are artificial and are likely to lead to inconsistent categorisation. CalJW 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You say "There are not separate lines of British and English monarchs". That is not true:
    • List of monarchs of England
    • List of monarchs of Scotland
    • List of rulers of Wales
    • List of monarchs in the British Isles

It is perfectly straightforward, and useful, to split these categories, as they will then fit perfectly into: Category:English royalty and Category:British royalty (see also Category:Scottish royalty).-- Mais oui! 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The English line flows into the British line (as does the Scottish for that matter). You created Category:English royalty yourself in one of your many moves to create unnecessary subdivisions of categories which are better dealt with at an all-UK level. Things were fine before you intervened imo. CalJW 23:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Split as per nom. The English line pretty much came to a halt with Elizabeth I. Thereafter the Kings of Scotland became Kings of England too on account of Tudor blood on the maternal side. Combining English and British in the way these cats currently do implies the opposite. As the monarchs of England and Scotland are, from the time of James I & VI, descended from both royal lines, we require separate categories for English royalty, Scottish royalty and British royalty. The only dilemma is whether to list those royals who were Kings (etc.) of Scotland and England prior to the creation of Great Britain in the British categories or in both the English and the Scottish categories. Valiantis 01:34, 13 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The category basically duplicates List of People in Taganrog and includes every guy who ever passed through the town of Taganrog, from Peter the Great to Giuseppe Garibaldi. Let's imagine how many articles would be in the Category:List of People in Paris? An alternative is to rename into Category:Natives of Taganrog, which would not include Pushkin, the tsars, and other superfluous entries. -- Ghirla | talk 16:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• O.K. Let's change the name to Category:Natives of Taganrog -- ISasha

• We already have the article List of people in Taganrog and I think it is enough already. The idea to have Category:Natives of Taganrog probably a part of a supercategory Category:Russian people by place of birth a part of Category:People by place of birth may have sense, although a lot of work. Thus, Rename or Delete abakharev 10:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The new category suggestion can be done or not, but it would bear little resemblance to the current one. siafu 18:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete to clear it. Start again if wished. Bhoeble 23:39, 22 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

At present, this category is fully redundant. Its parent category, Category:Defunct shopping malls, is completely empty except for this category as a subcategory of Category:Defunct shopping malls. I recommend deleting this category, and moving its contents into Category:Defunct shopping malls. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Please look at things from both angles. Category:Defunct shopping malls is not a subcat of Category:United States. The proposal will damage the facility of the category system as a navigation tool. It will be populated in time. CalJW 20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The assumption is that no other country will have defunct shopping malls. I don't expect that to be the case. Planning ahead in this case does not appear to do any harm. Vegaswikian 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, per CalJW. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per CalJW. Herostratus 07:59, 21 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This is slightly ridiculous: you could the entirety of Category:Cuisine into this category. And what would stop us from make a cat Australian ethnic cuisines? All of the "American ethnic" cuisines belong to other countries anyway! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment If it needed to be poppulated, a number of the entries in Category:American cuisine by region would also fit well in this cat. Category:Tex-Mex cuisine, for instance, was the first thing I thought of when seeing the category name. Tex-Mex is ethnic as well as regional, so it would not be a bad fit for either or both categories. - TexasAndroid 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: what is meant by "ethnic" here? I notice that the category does not contain Cuisine of the United States, a list containing such American classics as the hamburger; as far as I can tell, this is just as "ethnic" as anything else. siafu 18:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You're right. The word ethnic is being used to mean either non-white or non-WASP which is inaccurate (and potentially offensive). I should have spotted that. Changing my vote to Merge up to Category:American cuisine. Valiantis 01:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Category:American cuisine per siafu and Valiantis. — simpatico ^hi 00:00, 20 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I have merged all the articles that used to belong to this category to CompTIA. The remaining template in this category is up for TFD. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-12 12:10 Z.

• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom — simpatico ^hi 23:13, 19 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I have merged all the articles that used to belong to this category to Cisco Career Certifications. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-12 12:08 Z.

• Delete now, redundant. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete — simpatico ^hi 23:57, 19 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I have merged all the articles that used to be in this category (and then some) to Microsoft Certified Professional. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-12 11:18 Z.

• Delete now, redundant. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete — simpatico ^hi 23:54, 19 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Trivia unrelated to the reasons these people are notable. Delete for the same reason we don't have "Category:Read-headed writers", or "Category:Journalists who outlived their spouses". Mark ¹ 09:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Benami 11:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No educational value in seeing (hypothetical) list of such names. Pavel Vozenilek 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - Smerus 10:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep This has all the hallmarks of gratuitous deletionism SP-KP 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Joe 17:28, 23 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This does not appear to be a useful nor encyclopedic category. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Benami
• Delete per nom. Calsicol 13:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Osomec 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedied as patent nonsense - I realize this may push the borders of that CSD a little, but does anyone care? ~~ N ( t/ c) 16:37, 12 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Two countries both claim to be China, the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. This is a more NPOV name, in the same form as Category:Newspapers of the Republic of China, that doesn't support the PRC's claims to be sole legitimate China. Also, the name Chinese newspapers is ambiguous, since Chinese-language newspapers like the World Journal are published outside of China. After renaming, the category would be a subset of Category:Chinese-language newspapers instead of vice versa. -- Yuje 09:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 13:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Vote reconfirmed Bhoeble 23:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. CalJW 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Huaiwei 09:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The category was created for newspapers in mainland China. Rename it as category:newspapers in mainland China, with category:newspapers in the People's Republic of China as its parent category. Category:Chinese newspapers would then be useful for newspapers that were only published before the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China were founded. — Insta ntnood 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If there is a need for a category of papers published before the Chinese civil war, Category:Newspapers in China would probably be a far better category name.-- Huaiwei 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Both are fine. — Insta ntnood 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'm fine with the rename. And Instantnood is pulling games. He's the only one insisting it is only for mainland China, and he's the one that added that limitation, not the creator as he states. SchmuckyTheCat 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: No article on Hong Kong newspapers was categorised into this category in the five months after this category was created (August 7, 2004), and before the Hong Kong category was created (January 7, 2005) (e.g. [5] [6] [7] [8]). — Insta ntnood 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. More fighting over the naming of Chinese entities is not needed. siafu 18:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Labelling is not a helpful way to deal with the trouble. — Insta ntnood 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Define "labelling". Siafu is right in saying these fights do occur. Denying their existance suggests reluctance in moving forward and finding solutions to end the impasse.-- Huaiwei 13:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Notice to sysops: This nomination should not be processed until it's made sure that everyone who has cast a vote knows about the meanings and background of these terminologies. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 21:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • We're credentialling now? Shall they do interviews? Do I need to show proof of studies? siafu 13:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Everyone should be fully responsible for what she/he's voted for. — Insta ntnood 17:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Everyone is fully responsible for their vote; anonymous votes are not counted. That has nothing to do with your ridiculous suggestion that we should be quizzing editors on their knowledge and familiarity before allowing them to express an opinion. siafu 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Wikipedia is not a democracy. Neither is it a mobocracy. It's illogical for it to bear of the outcome resulted from the aggregation of the decisions by not-well-enough informed users. — Insta ntnood 18:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • "Not well enough informed"? Will you be withdrawing your vote, then? Or are you just expecting the votes of those who diagree to be removed? siafu 19:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Do you think everyone who has cast a vote knows about the arguments presented in the discussions among these issues on Wikipedia, and the edit history of this category? That's not actually very demanding for heavily debated issues. I myself would avoid deciding on contentious issues when I'm not familiar enough with the background. — Insta ntnood 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
              • While the point raised by instantnood about wikipedia not being a democracy, and that care has to be taken when handling "ignorant voters" is a genuine problem with the concensus gathering process in wikipedia, I note his pointing out of this problem in this particular instance. I do not think it was sheer coincidence for him to point it out only when the voting pattern is going against his viewpoints.-- Huaiwei 10:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
              • If you believe that there is someone who is voting from ignorance, than the solution would be to present a more informative argument. Censoring out votes based on this vague and arbitrary declaration of "well-enough-informed" is ridiculous and counter to the spirit of wikipedia. As it is, the criteria you've presented could just as well be used to remove your vote as anyone else's. You are also quite aware that I am familiar with this long-standing bickering you and two other editors have been having with each other over China-related issues-- perhaps the sysops should take care to make themselves aware of that as well? I'm sorry if I sound short about, but it has been well over a year now, and there has been no change at all in the arguments and tactics being presented. siafu 20:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There is no need to throw in a stumbling block en-route to finding a solution for long-standing disputes. Dismissing votes by claiming voters are ignorant in various degrees is attaching differential values to every vote.-- Huaiwei 13:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Pkchan 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: As mentioned above, the nominated category was created for newspapers published in mainland China. In the renaming nomination, change to the scope of the category was not proposed and should not be performed simultaneously. The nomination here on CfD is only for renaming. Whether its scope has to be changed, or the whole thing has to be restructured, should be separately addressed, or at least, explicitly suggested. From what has been discussed here, there has never been any sign that changing of its scope or restructuring was proposed. — Insta ntnood 17:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • And is there any valid and pressing reason why a "change to the scope of the category should not be performed simultaneously"?-- Huaiwei 18:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Since there's no proposal ever tabled to change the scope of the nominated category, the scope, IMHO, should not be changed even if it's renamed. — Insta ntnood 16:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Calton | Talk 00:53, 23 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Is empty, and would never fill beyond a few entries. Category:Asteraceae would be best divided into tribes first, anyway. Stemonitis 09:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Benami
• Delete per nom. Crunch 19:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as empty. There's currently only one possible member, but the list of species at Arnica indicates that there could potentially be enough articles to warrant this category. siafu 18:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The list of species on the Arnica page is enough, we don't need a category yet (if ever; seems unlikely someone would create enough Arnica species pages in the next few years to warrant an entire category). — simpatico ^hi 23:50, 19 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

More ludicrious sex based categories, of doubtful usefulness, delete.-- nixie 08:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Benami

• Keep Men's voices and women's voices are different. Bhoeble 13:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. From the official policy on category names - As a general recommendation for categories on people, have the category names as gender-neutral as possible (unless, of course, there is a distinct reason to otherwise; please mention that reason on the category page in that case). I see no distinct reason here. Valiantis 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's easier to hear the distinction than to see it, though it's also (usually) easy to see it if the article has a photo. Osomec 15:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Category:American singers was just sorted into these two categories, and they're still very large categories. Merging them back would make for an enormous category. - EurekaLott 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep About as clear an example of a profession where gender distinctions are relevant as you could find and EurekaLott makes a good point. CalJW 20:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In what way are gender distinctions particularly relevant to singing? Yes, female singers (generally) have higher voices and this issue is already covered far more relevantly and accurately by Category:American singers by range. A basic subcategorisation scheme for singers might be by genre or style of music, and indeed suitable subcats already exist in the Category:American singers by style hierarchy which appears to be well-used. "The category is big" is a poor basis to subdivide a category on gender lines when there are existing subcats that would divide the category in a way that is relevant to the topic inquestion - in this case music. It's germane that Dolly Parton is a country singer and Ella Fitzgerald is a jazz singer. That both possess two X-chromosomes, however, is a fairly trivial basis on which to group them in the same subcat. As it's trivial, there's no good reason for going against the official policy. Valiantis 01:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As someone who did a large portion of the populating here, I felt I should comment. First of all, as stated before, the American singers category was enormous before - and even in that state, it left out many articles. To merge them would create a behemoth. Sorting them by style is problematic since many singers cannot be placed in one, two, or even three categories. It often seems that there are as many genres as there are singers. Secondly, males' and females' voices vary not only in pitch, but in timbre and quality as well. It's an aesthetic difference, but a difference nevertheless. Thirdly, to a layperson, labeling a singer by gender is much more descriptive and useful than labeling them by range or fach. You'd be surprised at how many people couldn't tell you the range or gender of, say, an alto. (It's also notable that the main Category:Female singers and Category:Male singers have lasted for over a year. Speaking of behemoths... Crystallina 08:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Sorting by gender creates a maximum of two very large categories (which will continue to grow and cannot be meaningfully subcategorised) from one enormous category - there are simply not more genders one can come up with (though I suppose one might have a third - "intersex singers"!). As there are so many American singers, no-one should be in the parent cat in any case, but they can be put into more manageable cats by genre. If a singer has worked in more than one genre, there is no reason not to list them in more than one genre cat - this hierarchy is also readily expandable (more genres can be added) and subcategorisable (more precise delineations within a genre can be added) which allows for growth. To look at it from another angle: - if you were writing an article on Roy Acuff (to take the first man in the category) would you begin your introduction Roy Acuff is an American country singer or Roy Acuff is an American male singer ?. Valiantis 14:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, to justify a gender-based category such as this you would need to be able to write a head article on exactly how and why female singing is a distinct phenomenon from the plain old non-gender-specific kind. Are a female singer's vocal cords in a different part of her body than a male singer's are? Do women tend to sing a distinctly and identifiably different type of material than men do? Have women historically faced some special discrimination that made it significantly harder for them to pursue a career in music? Those are the kinds of questions that need to be answerable in the affirmative to justify this (we don't, for example, have gendered categories for people in the acting biz, where gender has no more or less relevance to the topic than it does here) — the arguments presented here so far justify categorizing singers by their vocal range, not by their sex organs. Put me down on the delete side. Bearcat 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

To the first point: The vocal cords of males and females differ mainly due to pitch differences. Males, in general, have lower voices as a direct result of their longer and thicker vocal cords. This difference is generally striking compared to body size; different (reputable) sources have placed it anywhere from a 20 to 50% difference. Yes, I am able to provide multiple sources. The physiological differences are plainly audible in tone. Barring said anomalies, a male singing a given note will sound clearly different from a female singing the same note.

To the second: It depends on the genre. A great deal of this can be classified as "stereotypical", but it's still noticeable. In addition, some songs are written for the male voice; some for the female. This is nothing but a consequence of their typical ranges. Transpositions can change this in some cases, but not all - especially for songs with a wide range.

To the third question, the answer is "Not as much now, but historically yes." A very specific example: in ancient times, female roles would be sung by castrati - male singers - to substitute for females. According to the article, this persisted until the early 1900s when the practice was outlawed. Add that to the pervasive historical mentality about the "woman's sphere" and the answer is, of course women faced discrimination that made it harder to pursue a music career, or any career for that matter.

A few more points: Vocal range is often extremely difficult to discern, especially in popular singing. The vast majority of songs written are not "rangy"; in certain genres it is almost impossible to tell one's range. Add this to the fact that many singers never discover or display their full range, and it's a rather arbitrary system. Not everybody will fall into an easy label. (There was a bit of a dispute a few months ago, I remember, about applying the vocal classifications generally reserved for classical music to pop music.)

Finally, as I said before, a layperson will get more out of the labels "female singer" or "male singer" than, say, "contralto" or "tenor". Not everybody who looks up singers is going to know these terms. Crystallina 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The same layperson can also almost always tell a singer's gender just by their given name; they don't necessarily need a category to clarify it for them. And my question wasn't whether there was any difference between male and female vocal cords; it was whether there was a difference so physiologically dramatic that it inherently constitutes an encyclopedic criterion for stating that male and female singing are distinctly different phenomena. That requirement isn't met by a difference as minor as thickness or length of vocal cords that otherwise serve the same purpose in the same physiological manner. Bearcat 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep it is normal and widely used method of categorization. Awards are given in such categories, and singers are routinely referred to as male or female vocalists. I may applaud efforts to defeat sexism, but Wiki's role is to reflect reality, not alter it. Joshbaumgartner 16:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I can see the validity in keeping this article. Merging the two categories (male and female) would prove to be a very large task and result in an enormous, bulky page. Also, it is helpful for people perhaps searching for a vocalist that they might not be able to recall the vocalists name. I actually used this category (American female singers) yesterday when I was searching for various singers. ExRat 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Male and female voices are different. -- Jonathan Bowen 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - If this unjustifiable breach of policy must be kept, can the cats at least be renamed in accordance with normal English usage - i.e. Category:Female American singers and Category:Male American singers? In addition to their more egregious failings the current names just sound wrong. Valiantis 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Male and female voices are qutie distinct, sing different parts, and are divided clearly in opera and classical music, and are clearly distinguishable in modern music. The difference in this case, i.e. the distinct reason sought by Valiantis, is more akin to the difference between Category:Guitarists and Category:Bass guitarists than that between a hypothetical Category:Female bus drivers and Category:Male bus drivers. Certainly, however, the categories should be Renamed, and speedily, to be grammatical. siafu 18:12, 18 January 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 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate category for merging. Quaque ( talk •  contribs) 08:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge as proposed. Bhoeble 13:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: This needs to merged in the other direction. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "nationality x" which says to use "American magazine companies". — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Doesn't that cover the magazines themselves and not the companies? Vegaswikian 08:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as proposed. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Companies : <company type> by country categories are named ... of country.. -- Vclaw 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge. No argument. siafu 18:14, 18 January 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 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:Defunct agencies of the United States government -- Kbdank71 17:17, 23 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Remove abbreviation to help non British people see what this is. Rename. Honbicot 02:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename as per nom. Osomec 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename: per nom. — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Chairmen of The Football Association. The official title of this body is "The Football Association", with the definite article capitalized. — Dale Arnett 09:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Rename to what? The version with the definite article capitalized, or not capitalized? Remember that the official name is The Football Association. — Dale Arnett 21:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • You can always interpret "no argument" to mean "per nom" if you find it confusing. Lower-case "the". siafu 13:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Chairmen of the Football Association - the "The" is not normally capitalised in running sentences. — sjorford (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Not even when the definite article is SUPPOSED to be capitalized?? The official name of this body is The Football Association, not Football Association. — Dale Arnett 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Not even. The official name of the country I live in is The United States of America, and yet "the" is not capitalized in-line. siafu 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename with capitalised definite article: used by The FA as such; see [9]. -- Pkchan 06:23, 21 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Remove abbreviation to help non British people see what this is. Rename. Honbicot 02:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename as per nom. Osomec 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename: per nom. — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Presidents of The Football Association, for reason cited in the "Chairmen" discussion. — Dale Arnett 09:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Rename to what? The version with the definite article capitalized, or not capitalized? (see comment in "Chairmen" above) — Dale Arnett 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • See above. siafu 13:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Presidents of the Football Association - the "The" is not normally capitalised in running sentences. — sjorford (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename with capitalised definite article: used by The FA as such; see [10]. -- Pkchan 06:23, 21 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

As with the men's version listed below, this is the normal usage. Calsicol 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename as per nom. Osomec 15:30, 12 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 17:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

To follow the naming structure for most articles in Category:American television. Vegaswikian 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The existing name is clearer. The category is for all sports television in the United States, not for television connected with American sports. Calsicol 02:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The name of the country is the United States, not America. ¨ Egil 08:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: Tough one but I agree that it's hard to tell which noun the "American" adjective is for. — Wknight94 ( talk) 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep for reasons of ambiguity. siafu 18:21, 18 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

We just deleted Category:Historically inaccurate films, and now this is created right afterwards. Adam Bishop 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - This is a perfectly valid category. These films are notable for their historical inaccuracies. Nearly all of these films have a section of the article devoted to the historical inaccuracies or factual errors. If this isn't the right name for the category then something else is. Jooler 00:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete definitely . Golfcam 00:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why?
    • How about because it's already been done once so recreation is tantamount to vandalism? There should be no need for the rest of us to spend our time going through the arguments again just because you have decided you have a right to ignore a community decision. Calsicol 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • No. The excuse for deleting it was that all films that are not documentaries can be described as historically inaccurate. But I have qualified it with the word notable. As I pointed out nearly all of these film articles have large sections detailing the factual errors. These films deserve a category, if this is not it what is?! Jooler 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • completely agree that this may be relevant, however, a category may not be the ideal way to do this. Every movie had many characteristics, this one seems to be a bit difficult. How about creating a list containing such movies, and maybe include some NPOV comments ? -- LimoWreck 23:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This kind of information needs to be sourced, and you can not source category pages MechBrowman 01:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The source is in each ofthe articles! - look at King Arthur (film) or Braveheart. Jooler 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete. Calsicol 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete This is a blatant attempt to circumvent the Delete decision just closed. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_3#Category:Historically_inaccurate_films-- Mais oui! 03:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This category is a direct response to that dicussion, adressing the problem highlighted by that discussion. These films are notable for their historical inaccuracy whether you like it or not and so deserve a catergory. Now answer my question, if this is not the right category, what is? Jooler
• Speedy delete.-- ThreeAnswers 03:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Answer my question. Jooler
• Speedy Delete. - Darwinek 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Look, these are all works of fiction. There's nothing notable about fictional works not being documentaries. Benami 11:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Lapsed Pacifist 13:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as recreation and per Benami. Adding the word "notable" changes nothing - all categories should only contain notable items so the term is redundant. Bhoeble 14:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Using Jooler's logic above, I could be favorable to this category. Yes, there are some movies with egregious historical inaccuracies, and that might warrant a category, such as Birth of a Nation and A Beautiful Mind. But when I look at the movies listed in the category, it just seems to be a re-creation of the deleted category. A movie such as King Arthur seems like a fictional film with slight historical accuracies, rather than the other way around. But the bulk of the movies listed have rather minor historical inaccuracies which can be interpreted as artistic license; if we were to list every movie with anachronisms, for instance, we would have to put up half of the IMDB. So while I am sympathetic to deletion, I would like to read what guidelines Jooler proposes. I read through the header comments on the category page, and they are quite vague and confusing, so if we keep the category, we should write a clearer definition. -- Runnerupnj 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as recreation and per Benami. Mark ¹ 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete A category which needs a lengthy set of criteria is a dud. The criteria won't be reproduced at the bottom of article placed in the category, so the potential to mislead is wide open. Osomec 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Retain There's a number of films that depict real historic or other factual events in misleading ways. No problem with dramatic licence, but the danger is always that the film gets accepted as fact. U571 was a good example. The opportunity to record these is of public interest. Maybe it's more of an issue in Europe. Because it's awkward to manage doesn't mean it's invalid. Give it a try, Friends: say six months. And be reasonable - I doubt anyone would include Snow White or Star Wars. We could let Jools act as "category editor" and let him prove his point Folks at 137 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete Wikipedia does not have category editors. The idea of giving anyone special status in relation to any aspect of wikipedia runs counter to wikipedia's ethos. CalJW 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, this is not a recreation. - ulayiti (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep/Completely oppose There need be a category for movies claiming historical basis, and accumulating inaccuracies, whether they are intentional or not. Begging pardon, but this seems a perfectly valid category (and I even find it useful), and I don't see what in Wikipedia statutes would mandate its deletion. -- Svartalf 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete on almost every imaginable ground - and drive a stake though its heart (as in all those inaccurate Dracula films). - Smerus 10:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Try making a list. siafu 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why a list as opposed to a category?... this may be a noob question, but it's better told than implied. -- Svartalf 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The category makes it a statement of fact; there's no room for explanation. That's what makes it POV and ambiguous. With a list, which is an actual article, you can annotate it and explain each entry's historical inaccuracy (and potentially the notability of such). siafu 13:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Yes and no... I notice that many of the films in the category have their own section (in the main or talk page) explaining where they are wrong. Only the stubbiest fail to do so, and that could be dealt with. Practically, as a way of cross linking, a category is as good as a list, and it's already there with no need to recompile. -- Svartalf 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as recreation. R adiant _>|< 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep If this category is deleted, and I wanted to find out about films which are notable for historical inaccuracy, where would I go to look this information up? SP-KP 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Conditional Delete. A list should be made (per siafu) and a link to the list should be added to the "See Also" sections of the listed films. IMO, the list should only include films that have relatively large, sourced sections on their historical inaccuracies on their main pages. There's a difference being grossly misleading and having slight historical inaccuracies due to artistic license. — simpatico ^hi 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete - but it hasn't been, so what's the point of the policy against recreation? Osomec 23:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• DELETE. Too subjective ... all historical films have some innaccuracies, so at what point does it become notable? -- Dogbreathcanada 00:12, 22 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Winnipeggers is the preferred spelling, Winnipeg media, and Canadian media use the spelling Winnipeggers, see dicussion. Qutezuce 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support the proposed changed. Brcreel 02:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support change to Category:Winnipeggers.-- Dakota ~ ε 08:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support change to Category:Winnipeggers. jdobbin 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• I can potentially support the proposed change, but would note that there are other active CFD debates which may establish the appropriate convention to be "People from Winnipeg" instead of the demonym. I'd suggest that those results be taken into account. But since the existing category would have to change either way, I'll support a rename to either Category:Winnipeggers or Category:People from Winnipeg depending on the convention that's established for city categories. Bearcat 19:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Conditional Support per Bearcat. — simpatico ^hi 23:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Conditional Support per Bearcat. -- Dogbreathcanada 00:10, 22 January 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I feel sure that "championships" is much the commonest usage. It certainly is in Wikipedia. Calsicol 00:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename Golfcam 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Query and comment Should the Ryder Cup be included? I would say it's a tournament. It seems to me that tournament is a more inclusive description. Folks at 137 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Folks at 137's comment shows the need to be precise. The major championships are a fixed group. This is not a category for "important golf tournaments". (And if it was it would need to be deleted as "point of view"). Osomec 20:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Osomec. Men's major golf championships is indeed finite and clearly defined, though the list could include events that were once defined as major championships and are no longer defined as such. The Ryder Cup, by the way, was never in that group. Crunch 19:33, 14 January 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.