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

The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 04:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

(Also subcategories: Category:TFR network affiliates to Category:TeleFutura network affiliates, Category:TFR network shows to Category:TeleFutura network shows.)

Although I'm willing to concede that I may be wrong (which is why I didn't just list this as a speedy), as far as I know this television network is normally referred to by the full word TeleFutura and rarely if ever by the acronym TFR. I propose renaming, although I'm also willing to withdraw the nomination if someone can confirm to me that "TFR" is actually a normal and standard way to refer to this network. Bearcat 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 21:13, 24 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. Syrthiss 04:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Consistency. R adiant _>|< 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment not all of those codes are in the US. I think 204 is in Canada and 268 in the Carib. I'm not objecting to your objective, but it may mean creating a few more cats. If I'm not correct here then I support the move. Vegaswikian 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There's already a separate category for Area codes in Canada; any area code here that isn't in the United States can simply be moved to its appropriate cat. 204 is in Canada, but it doesn't even have an article at this point. Bearcat 23:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I think I moved out any remaining codes that are not in the US. With that Rename. Vegaswikian 00:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep the current cat but add the new cat as a subcat. The North American Numbering Plan includes several countries using the same international code and different area codes; each should have a national subcat of this cat. Joestynes 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Canada and the Caribbean each already have their own distinct categories (although the Caribbean one is badly named and is up for renaming). I'm not sure whether a North American supercat between them and Category:Area codes is really necessary. Bearcat 09:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I think that problem can be solved by including List of North American area codes in each of those categories. I think that is a better solution since it has all of the codes listed in one place, something you can not do with a cat. Vegaswikian 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom; this introduces an unnecessary level of categorization. siafu 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:North American Numbering Plan. Anyway it includes area codes for U.S. insular areas in the Pacific; using the telecom system name avoids faulty congruence with geography.- choster 07:27, 25 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. Syrthiss 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Consistency. R adiant _>|< 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 22:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:17, 24 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. Syrthiss 04:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Consistency. R adiant _>|< 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 22:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:18, 24 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 to aviators and redirect to transportation occupations. Syrthiss 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Both categories currently consist of military pilots, solo pilots, adventurers, etcetera...there's no distinction made, and it would be difficult to ever make one. Since Aviators is a more complete category (including subcats, etc), I suggest we keep it, and move all the "Pilots" over. Sherurcij ^{( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• merge into category:Aviators Carina22 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• merge entries into Category:Aviators and redirect the category itself to Category:Transportation occupations, since not all pilots are airplane pilots. - Silence 16:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom, and redirect per Silence; harbor pilots are also Maritime pilots. siafu 21:20, 24 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. Syrthiss 04:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

U.S. to standard United States and change category name to match what is used in the other services. Vegaswikian 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:21, 24 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 Kept, with delayed reverse merge per Jan 26. Syrthiss 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

duplicate of Category:Irish Defence Forces, which is the name of the main article (the only one in the CFD category) Joestynes 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete Joestynes 11:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reverse Merge okay, I understand Joshbaumgartner's logic; since the overlap is total, everything in Category:Irish Defence Forces should be reassigned to Category:Military of the Republic of Ireland and the former cat then deleted. I don't know how to mark Category:Irish Defence Forces and redirect discussion here; is there any need to do so? Joestynes 09:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Done. Alai 10:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep as 'Irish Defence Forces' is a proper noun for a specific organization and as such should be a sub-cat of 'Military of the Republic of Ireland'. If there are not enough articles to warrant both categories, the merge should be in reverse of the nomination. Military of country is a consistent category name throughout countries, and should not be replaced by proper noun names of military organizations, as these may not be as easily recognized by researchers. Josh 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep as per JB. There's a naming convention for "Military of <country>" categories, and this is the one that complies with it. Alai 09:22, 26 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. Syrthiss 04:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty. I don't know whether it was ever in use, but there are other categories for the relevant articles. Bhoeble 18:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete, overcat. R adiant _>|< 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 21:21, 24 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. Syrthiss 04:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Obviously, every band on Wikipedia does not need its own category. Nomination withdrawn: I didn't realize recording artists were organized as described below; I agree we should Keep. — simpatico ^hi 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. R adiant _>|< 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) struck per the below. R adiant _>|< 11:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I was under the impression that every album is categorised by its artist? Category:Albums by artist should be a complete collection of every such article. — sjorford (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I was in fact under the impression that this was not necessary for artists who released only one or two albums. I'm not sure if there has been discussion substantiating either of our impressions? R adiant _>|< 16:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • WP albums seem to have it as a standard: "Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future).". Makes sense to me, as all articles ought to be categorised by something, and the recording artist is the most obvious and important feature of an album. — sjorford (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Harmless and sensible enough category. Furthermore, the band is listed as being still active so the list may well grow in the future (I know WP is not a crystal ball, I say keep regardless of this last point). -- kingboyk 19:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Removing this category would mess up the parent Category:Albums by artist. -- Samuel Wantman 00:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Defend small but useful and accurate categories. CalJW 22:39, 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 no consensus, keep. Syrthiss 04:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Carly 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Note: This was placed in speedy. I'm moving it here because I don't believe it qualifies for a speedy rename. -- Kbdank71 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. None of these people in the cat have any connection with the original and best known use of the word Nickelodeon. I assume the reference is to performers in shows on the Nickelodeon Channel of recent years, and this should be in the cat name, otherwise it is a misuse of the term and a good way to confuse everyone. 12.73.194.187 20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• I would dispute as to which use of the word is now "best known". I suspect it's very much generational. But that aside, if there's *any* chance of confusion, the name should be clarified. Simplest option would be Category:Nickelodeon channel child actors, so I suggest this as an alternative, but am open to other possibilities. - TexasAndroid 20:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"Generational", as you use the term here, is a POV. Most adults hopefully are informed beyond the narrow limits of their kidspeak; those who aren't should certainly not have their limitations reinforced by Wikipedia. "Nickelodeon", standing alone, has across generations referred to a late 19th-early 20th century moving image device, which cost a nickel to operate. Subsequent uses of the term have all been rooted in this original, and thereby best-known, meaning. 12.73.195.92 02:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• • I would say change to Category:Actors on Nickelodeon Channel, not all actors on Nickelodeon channel are children.   ALKIVAR ™ 00:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Article is a child of Category:American child actors. It likely should also be recategorized if it's not going to be made specific to child actors. - TexasAndroid 15:56, 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 no consensus, keep. Syrthiss 04:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

To be consistent with other sports award categories. ThreeAnswers 20:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Note: This was placed in speedy. I'm moving it here because I don't believe it qualifies for a speedy rename. -- Kbdank71 15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. For the record, Stanley Cup Champions is more prevalent. -- Kbdank71 15:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• How can you be sure? It's not difficult to find 'Stanley Cup winner' for individuals including on Wikipedia.-- ThreeAnswers 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support. List of Stanley Cup champions is a list of the teams that have won the Cup. One or the other will have to be changed to avoid confusion, and it seems better to me to change the newer page rather than the older. Even if kept, the 'c' in Champions ought to be lowercased.-- ThreeAnswers 19:45, 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. Syrthiss 04:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This seems to be being used indiscriminately for any one young(ish)that takes someone's fancy. The Wikipedia article Child prodigy suggests that the term be use for people up to the age of about 11 who have achieved something notable. The first few names I clicked on this list were various ages from 11 to early twenties. Some of them had articles which showed that they went on to have great careers, but of their early years there is often a nondescript sentences on the lines of 's/he was looked on as a prodigy' without specifying what was so amazing. To speak two languages by the age of 5, specified for one listed person, is in fact a commonplace achievement. As the category is being used so widely as to be meaningless, and as there is no mechanism to police it so that it contains 'real' prodigies as defined by WP, it should be deleted.- Smerus 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete- Smerus 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep but define the category as people who were notable for their accomplishments before age 12. basically, the standard ought to be that they would still deserve an article if they had died at age 12. keep the name though, it's simple.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derex ( talk • contribs) 2006-01-19 12:30:37
• Keep per Derex. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, peacock term, not objectively defined. R adiant _>|< 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'm sure a lot of parents think their children are child prodigies Delete. Arniep 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:People who have been thought of as child prodigies might work? SP-KP 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep create criteria as possible or needed. The prodigies are fairly notable and early achievers.-- Jondel 23:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too much subjectivity required in deciding who is a child prodigy and who isn't. -- kingboyk 20:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and listify so citations can be provided. "Child prodigy" is a noteworthy term that has been applied to countless people very famously, so we should be able to create a high-quality, nice-sized listing of those people. However, a list is better than a category because we can cite sources for each entry provided, and ensure that it doesn't get flooded with (unlike categories, lists have histories that allow us to simply revert any junk entries that get added). - Silence 16:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If we make a list, shouldn't we then delete the category instead of keeping it? siafu 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Not necessarily, but in this case, sure; I was just trying to emphasize that if we don't listify it, I'd prefer if we kept it for now so no information is lost; I probably should have used "or". - Silence 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete; List of child prodigies has existed since 10/12/05. siafu 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the update!

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 king jimbo has spoken; it stays -- Kbdank71 14:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Note from Jimbo: This category is desperately needed to deal with a growing problem. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is an attempt to deal with the problem, but in order for that policy to be effective, we need a convenient way for people who are interested in this topic to systematically go through vetting these articles. I am flexible on the title and structure of the category, of course, but I believe that CfD is not appropriate.-- Jimbo Wales 15:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Second Note from Jimbo: Let me be clear about this. This category is desperately needed and is not optional. I am willing to impose it from top down if necessary. I am flexible as to the title and structure of this category, but CfD is not appropriate.-- Jimbo Wales 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Third Note from Jimbo: This AfD is closed. Take it to the talk page Category_talk:Living people.

(adding back the comments/ wangi 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)) (adding back the comments again. Please stop removing them and posting them on the category's talk page, where they form an enormous block of clutter. CfD debates belong in CfD archives.— SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete L-O-L. Michael Jackson, Mustafa Sandal and Brian Curtin, who knew? -- CDN99 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Danny and Jimbo have created this category for the purpose of a project to improve and monitor biographies of living persons. Further information is to be provided on the mailing list; I will update the discussion with a link when I have it. Demi ^T/ _C 15:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • An announcement has been made. Demi ^T/ _C 15:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. This category will, if updated accordingly, contain tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of articles. Who will ever have the time to go through them? No vote. JIP | Talk 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: What about implementing a Special page that lists all articles with a birth date category, but not a death date category? This would effectively be the same as a "Living People" category (after fixing articles that mistakenly omit a death category). Carbonite | Talk 15:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  There really isn't a simple way to accomplish what you've requested. It would basically require some HUGE set operations (union of all years born - union of all years dead) and thus couldn't be made available via a special page. I can however perform this query offline, which will be good to tell people what to tag. -- Gmaxwell 16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps you could create a bot which finds articles which fulfill these criteria and adds them to Category:Living people. You can have it collect articles with a year of birth category for years higher than, say, 1890, and no year of death category. Somehow I think that using Category:Living people will be more maintainable in the long run but we can use the information we already have to jumpstart it. - Haukur 16:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  I'm already on it, I'm halfway done, see here (caution 3mb list).. The problem is that all 64,000 must be checked by hand, because there are quite a few who look alive in their analysis because we don't know their year of death. If there weren't quite so many I'd make a semi-automated bot show me all the first paragraphs and let me say yes/no.. In any case, even if all these were added this would not be our largest category by a pretty reasonable margin. -- Gmaxwell 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  Wow! That was fast. And the page crashed my browser :) Now we just have to find out what we do with it. - Haukur 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep unless something better is suggested. There are a number of people whose year of birth is known but year of death unknown so I'm not quite sold on Carbonite's idea :) There are also a number of living people whose year of birth is not public information. - Haukur 15:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If the year of death is unknown, let's create a "Year of death unknown" category. We could also have a "Year of birth unknown" category. The Special page would basically just select all articles where the person was born but hasn't died. This is a fairly simple SELECT query and the results could be cached to reduce server load. The majority of biographies are already tagged with birth and death categories, so it makes more sense to use the information we already have than to create a whole new category. Carbonite | Talk 15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Because of the great many articles involved the query is actually fairly time consuming (although it is simple as you say). It took 4 minutes to generate. You're right about the need for the unknown deaths ... Gonna fix some of them? -- Gmaxwell 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is an administrative category such as cleanup or unsourced images, and a *very* useful one at that. JIP, this category will be used by recent changes tools to flag edits to these articles for review and by edit filtering bots. So even if the category becomes huge, it will still remain useful. -- Gmaxwell 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Conditional delete: I like Carbonite's second idea about a special page, this seems unmaintainable in its current format. Don't delete until proof-of-concept exists for the auto-categorization scheme, though. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete—Yet another patch created for the sole purpose of obscuring the truth: that bureaucratic manipulation of a supposedly open editing system doesn't work. This category was created to hide the fact that the few people controlling content at Wikipedia can't keep up with the workload. By shifting our attention to living people, the premise is that dead people won't care as much if their biography is incorrect. This patchwork of obfuscation is coming apart at the seams. Wikipedia will work when everyone has equal power to police each other. Editors come in here assuming good faith that their contributions will be judged on content, not Wikipedia politics and hierarchy. Category patches like "Living people" just delay the inevitable outcome of lying to these editors. * Peace Inside 16:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  It's not just that dead people "don't care as much". It's also that living people are much more likely to have enemies and trolls inserting libel into their articles. - Haukur 16:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"Enemies and trolls" make up a small percentage of the total Wikipedia membership and have a relatively small voice when editors have equal power to police each other. Against the few content controllers in the current system, however, "enemies and trolls" are overwhelming. Also, I'm sure most people would agree that Wikipedia bureaucracy creates "enemies and trolls." * Peace Inside 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Very practical solution to an evolving problem. Useful for verifying categories and facts of BLP.-- FloNight 16:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speey Keep. Requested by Jimbo. If someone doesn't like the idea, think of another one and implement that as well. Both can work together. — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2006-01-19 17:01
• Delete, per Carbonite's reasoning above. If this a requirement then come up with a smart solution using the database and year born / year died dates. Speedy keep because Jimbo says so - oh please... Thanks/ wangi 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  Or even better: Wikipedia:Persondata. Thanks/ wangi 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete It's just useless category clutter - useless because no one is going to monitor the contents effectively. If it becomes fully populated there will only be a known sensitive article on every other page or so, so they won't be easy to spot in a sea of unfamiliar names, unless you know which articles you are looking for, in which case you can use the search box. No-one has any significant knowledge about more than a fraction of the living people with articles, so clicking on names at random won't be very productive. I don't want to see a link that is such a waste of space on tens of thousands of articles (and it will be hundreds of thousands before long). If we want a useful tool for the stated purpose it should be called something like category:Previously vandalised biographies of living people. CalJW 17:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete this seems like a real kludge, and its adoption for short-term convenience encourages long-term sloppiness and clutter. the main purpose of categories ought to be to provide further links for readers interested in a general topic. this category is useless in that regard. on the other hand, it is useful to wikipedia editors -- as a type of database entry. perhaps a more elegant & useful solution would be to allow "invisible" database tags on articles. i suppose it's just a matter of aesthetics, but seeing "living people" at the bottom of the page just looks stupid to me -- so do birth/death cats though. why not just keep a list (or lists) of these ... that's about as easy as adding a category tag. Derex 17:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  See Wikipedia:Persondata for those "invisible database tags on articles"... Ta/ wangi 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Perfect! adding that template should be no harder than adding a "living persons" category. it's also more generically useful. then, living persons is trivial per carbonite. double-delete this silly category. Derex 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This would only be useful for offline analysis, not for flagging recent changes.. for example. -- Gmaxwell 18:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I just saw this on Dubya's article and I thought it was some little kid's prank. I've read all the stuff, and it still seems like some kind of prank. It just has to go. Golfcam 17:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Much too broad and silly. -- MisterHand 17:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, one of silliest categories I've seen. Pavel Vozenilek 19:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. To interprete Pavel's words in my way, "This category is a shit". - Darwinek 19:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, this is a silly idea that won't even accomplish what it's intended to do, it'll just create a big pointless category. I have no clue why Jimbo is involving himself. To deal with vandalism, get more RC patrollers. R adiant _>|< 19:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I reverted the deletion of these comments by Jimbo Wales, thanks/ wangi 20:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I'm very warry that this will turn out to be a Bad Idea, but am willing to give it a chance if Jimbo thinks it should be given a chance. - TexasAndroid 20:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Jimbo, Jimbo. Older you are getting, more like führer you act. - Darwinek 20:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete We should not defer to Jimbo when he has a bad idea. This vote is our opportunity to correct his mistake. We should start a vote of no confidence if he doesn't relent. His role as a founder doesn't make him perpetual dictator. Wikipedia is a registered foundation and there must be laws which allow people to be removed if they are not acting in the interests of the foundation. Choalbaton 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Yeah and btw. imagine for example all thousands of living young sportspeople or actors under this category. This is really silly category, like "Right-handed people". - Darwinek 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with the others - this is a terrible idea! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 20:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete There may be a problem that needs to be addressed, but there is zero chance this will address it effectively. Instead of telling us you are willing to be flexible, how about demonstrating that you are willing to be flexible by actually engaging with the objections and alternatives raised? This is idea is such an obvious dud and will be a massive waste of your time as well as other peoples' time. There could be a million articles in this category in a few years time. It just isn't going to identity sensitive articles in a useful way. Carina22 20:42, 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. Syrthiss 04:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I apologize to everyone for not tagging the pages appropriately. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 17:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect - Superfluous category, I am aware it is part of the Standard Occupational Classification System, but it adds nothing, and a redirect would work instead. John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge/redirect the same articles are in both categories, and I think "healthcare occupations" is the more appropriate name -- CDN99 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to the shorter version. Golfcam 18:23, 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 as current, Chiro by nat is a subcat of Chiropractors. Syrthiss 04:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• • Comment - I apologize to everyone for not tagging the pages appropriately. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 17:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge or Reverse Merge- Superfluous category. John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge There aren't any chiropractor specialties, so I don't imagine there will be any other subcategories for chiropractors. Maybe the merge should be the other way around?-- CDN99 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I thought the reverse might be a good idea, but this fits with other professions by nationality. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 14:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The "top level" of the hierarchy should clearly be called Category:Chiropractors. Perhaps the proposer has put these back to front in error? Category:Chiropractors by nationality may be superfluous, but it appears to be standard practice to add such a subcat above the individual nationality subcats. Valiantis 15:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - One of them is superfluous. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge The top category should always be named after the occupation alone. Where there are no other subcategories, put the top category into category:Occupations by nationality. CalJW 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge clearly Chiropractors is the top level David Ruben ^Talk 05:01, 25 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 Split to Traditional medicine and Traditional Chinese medicine. Syrthiss 04:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I apologize to everyone for not tagging the pages appropriately. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 17:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Is Oriental distinctive enough to merit a subcat, considering every single article under traditional is oriental?. John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge -- CDN99 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The orient is one part of the world. Category:Traditional medicine needs populating. Golfcam 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The orient may be one part of the world, that does not mean that Oriental medicine requires an entire category, especially since the individual articles are already classified as Chinese, Ayuverdic, etcetera. This just adds a needless layer to categorization tree. There aren't enough Traditional medicine articles to justify further subcategorization by region as well as by nation or specific tradition. Keep in mind, there are no Category:Occidental medicine, Category:Northern medicine, Category:Southern medicine, or Category:Central medicine, under Category:Traditional medicine.-- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 19:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article Oriental medicine redirects to Traditional Chinese medicine which is in the Category:Traditional Chinese medicine. This category is completely superfluous. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 02:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Split between Category:Traditional medicine and Category:Traditional Chinese medicine, half the articles fit in TCM leaving about 5 which will go fine in the farily small Traditional medicine. -- Salix alba ( talk) 16:45, 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 merge. Syrthiss 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I apologize to everyone for not tagging the pages appropriately. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 17:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Only 3 articles in the category, the named article, the originator, and an alternate form. John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Agree^^-- CDN99 14:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose There are 38 articles which could be added to this category (one for each recipe). I suspect this cat could grow somewhat. Clear distinction between the two. -- Salix alba ( talk) 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge-- nixie 03:36, 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 merge. Syrthiss 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I apologize to everyone for not tagging the pages appropriately. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge The distinction is lost on me. And the category has one article nosode. John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Only created two weeks ago, but it seems to have been orphaned. Nothing to put in it anyway. -- CDN99 14:47, 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. Syrthiss 03:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I apologize to everyone for not tagging the pages appropriately. -- John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge The distinction is lost on me. John^DO| ^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 12:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Couldn't have said it better. -- CDN99 14:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as the others said. Golfcam 18:12, 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. Syrthiss 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This category has been bothering me for months. It's the "odd one out" in the subcategories of Category:Cities and towns in Finland. Jakobstad is way too small to deserve its own category at this point. The category has a total of three articles, one for the city itself and two for historical people associated with it. To see how minor this city is compared to the others with their own categories, see List of Finnish municipalities by population and the other Finnish city categories. Currently the next smallest city with its own category is Kajaani (see Category:Kajaani), which also has very few articles. Kajaani is at place 21 - Jakobstad is at place 54. That's a bigger difference in placings than between Kajaani and the biggest city, Helsinki. According to the list, Kajaani has 35842 people, Jakobstad has 19457. That means Kajaani is 1.84 times as big as Jakobstad, and still is a reasonably small city in Finland. Keep in mind that of the other cities with their own categories, Kajaani is the smallest, and even then it has such a huge difference compared to Jakobstad. I recommend this category be deleted. JIP | Talk 11:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Rankings aren't important, but the non-existence of articles for categorisation is. Biographies are marginal items in a city category anyway. CalJW 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • By the same argument, Category:Kajaani and Category:Lahti, which I created, should also be deleted, as well as Category:Porvoo, which was created by someone else. I have no problem with that. There are still at least four or five Finnish categories with a reasonable number of articles. JIP | Talk 17:54, 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 rename. Syrthiss 03:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to the same format as the other 53 categories in Category:Education by city. Choalbaton 07:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename Golfcam 18:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - • Dussst • ^{T | C} 14:37, 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 rename. Syrthiss 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to match its eleven siblings in Category:Transportation in the United States by city. Choalbaton 07:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename Golfcam 18:13, 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. Syrthiss 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Wikipedia don't have articles for negative numbers, and the only existing one, -19 is being deleted. -- Egil 06:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, but note there are also articles for −0 (number), -1 (number), and -40 (number) that are not being deleted (though they're not members of this cat either). In the future someone can make a subcategory for negatives in Category:Integers. × Meegs 07:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Why not do it today? Yes, the current cat would need to be cleaned up, but that's not hard. Vegaswikian 07:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Well, it doesn't qualify for speedy renaming, but we could change the nomination into a rename. Or, if you want to make a [[Category:Negative integers]] from scratch, go for it. There are only three members (excluding -9 and -19), and doesn't seem to be much growth, though. × Meegs 08:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• We don't need a subcategory for negative integers. A negative integer is still an integer (and technically, -0 isn't even negative :) ). Put them in Categoty:Integers. R adiant _>|< 09:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Technically -0 is negative in computing terms as it has its sign bit set (but its a negative float not an integer). -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I've changed the sort keys for the three existing − articles, so they sort immediately after their + counterparts in Category:Integers. — sjorford (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete based on solution by sjorford. Vegaswikian 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Also Delete based on solution by sjorford. -- kingboyk 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Category:Integers is now well organised enough. However I can think of a lot more numbers which are worthy of a place here −273.15 absolute zero temperature (not an integer). -2 is quite special in algebraic number theory. -32786 smallest number represented as a float. -π. Other articles worth going in the cat include Inverse (mathematics) Sign function, IEEE floating-point standard, Absolute value, Plus and minus signs.

End the favoring of positive numbers today! -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not necessary. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As Salix alba said, there are other articles which should go in here. The category text looked like it was trying to be a list, and was generally confusing - I've changed the formatting, so it looks less like the generated "Articles in" section at the bottom. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 02:47, 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 merge. Syrthiss 03:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Like the item below, this one has been renamed to a non-standard form and redirected. No attempt has been made to perform the useful task of actually dividing the races by grade. Merge into Category:United States horse races to return things to how they were before. Choalbaton 04:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge as proposed. The names is wrong anyway. Golfcam 18:16, 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 and delete. Syrthiss 03:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This has been unilaterally changed from the standard form by the use of a redirect. Merge back into pre-existing Category:American horse trainers. Choalbaton 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge Someone's ignoring the rules. If you want to change a category name, you have to come here and ask. Golfcam 18:17, 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. Syrthiss 03:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Overlaps heavily with Category:The Colbert Report and possibly Category:The Daily Show. Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Category:Articles by person, typically only exceptionally notable people have their own category. -- Interiot 03:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. All the things in the category are linked from Steven Colbert. -- waffle iron 03:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; he's just not THAT important. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - full disclosure, I'm the creator of the category. But, this category is not inconsistent with previously accepted categories by person. For example, there is a Category:H. Rider Haggard, with only four entries, and a Category:William Harrison Ainsworth with only two articles. Category:World of Stephen Colbert covers far more content on Wikipedia, and Colbert is far more well known, has received far more press attention, and has offered direct social and political criticism of arguably far more relevance to today's world, than H. Rider Haggard or William Harrison Ainsworth. Colbert is similar in oevre, if not in medium, to P. G. Wodehouse, who has his own category, linking to about the same number of articles as Category:World of Stephen Colbert. As for overlap with the Category:The Colbert Report, there are a great deal of Colbert-related articles that simply don't have to do with The Colbert Report (and that have previously been removed from Category:The Colbert Report). There's a good case for renaming Category:World of Stephen Colbert to Category:Stephen Colbert. But if this category is against policy, Category:William Harrison Ainsworth and Category:H. Rider Haggard are all the more so, and have been around longer - deletion of Category:World of Stephen Colbert would at the least be unjustified until those two categories are deleted first. - Reaverdrop 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - Stephen Colbert is a very important man on the forefront of the American political spectrum and deserves this category, at the very least, as a small testament to his vast greatness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubber cat ( talk • contribs)
• Delete - I changed my mind, delete it. More importantly, get rid of this this worthless crap. -- Rubber cat 02:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Yeah, TfD it soon. -- waffle iron 03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• The World of Steven Colbert? Did Colbert (or at least his alter-ego on The Colbert Report) create this category? My god, talk about puffed-up. Rename to Category:Steven Colbert at the least or Delete outright. -- Calton | Talk 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Kill the template as well. - Sean Curtin 00:57, 24 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. Syrthiss 03:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Another irregular buildings and structures category. Rename as per convention for subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures by city. Choalbaton 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename Not enough voters on this page. 17 hours and I'm the first. Golfcam 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Syracuse, New York. - choster 15:35, 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 rename. Syrthiss 03:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

People from Place style. JonHarder 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. Choalbaton 01:27, 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 rename all. Syrthiss 03:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

All subcats within listed category need to be renamed-- nixie 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:People of New South Wales to Category:People from New South Wales
• Category:People of the Northern Territory to Category:People from the Northern Territory
• Category:People of the Australian Capital Territory to Category:People from the Australian Capital Territory
• Category:People of Queensland to Category:People from Queensland
• Category:People of South Australia to Category:People from South Australia
• Category:People of Tasmania to Category:People from Tasmania
• Category:People of Victoria to Category:People from Victoria
• Category:People of Western Australia to Category:People from Western Australia
• No vote Golfcam 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Valiantis 19:56, 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 14:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Misspelling of Iranologists. JonHarder 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you sure? Perhaps it's about gits who practice Iranology. JIP | Talk 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as unused typo. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:58, 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 rename. Syrthiss 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply

To match the format used by the other subcats of Category:United States tourism by state. Vegaswikian 00:17, 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.