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:Democratic peace theory -- Kbdank71 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This really should be a speedy, but that has been objected to, on the grounds that the related article Democratic peace theory is and has been controversial. The article is, but its name is not in dispute; and the cat, which is quite new, really ought to follow it and standard cat conventions. Septentrionalis 21:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:democratic peace would be acceptable. Septentrionalis 01:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• oppose the category is for articles about the topic of Democratic Peace Theory an established academic field. The existing name should reflects that. (I opposed the speedy). -- Salix alba ( talk) 00:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support, "democratic peace theory" is not a proper noun, as the article clearly indicates. R adiant _>|< 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note its not just a case change, its also theory -> theories. -- Salix alba ( talk) 02:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Categories are usually plural, and so it should be here. Septentrionalis 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose User:Pmanderson (or Septentrionalis as he also calls himself) is a POV warrior that wages a campaign against the DPT. Unfortunately he has turned an extremely well-referenced series of articles into the current incoherent state. These renamings and deletions of his is just part of the campaign. Ultramarine 06:24, 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 15:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

An adjective is an odd title for a category when we have a perfectly good name to use for it. Note that Category:Jesuits, the common name, is already in use for members of the order. Necrothesp 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as suggested. Choalbaton 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as suggested. -- Vizcarra 22:58, 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 15:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Was a speedy to change U.S. to United States. Objections raised so bringing it here. Vegaswikian 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support, but what about instead: Category:United States state supreme court judges like Category:United States state court systems, which you've suggested below? For that matter, is there (and/or should there be) a standard for references to states of the United States? Such as "Category:United States state foos" or "Category:State foos in the United States"? — Markles 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:State supreme court judges in the United States. Conventions are set by subject area rather than by country so it is not not appropriate to try to put all U.S. state categories into the same form. CalJW 22:28, 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 to category:American politicians by state -- Kbdank71 15:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Was a speedy to change U.S. to United States. Objections raised so bringing it here. Vegaswikian 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Should be "American politicians by state". - Darwinek 12:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as per Darwinek. Rename category:American politicians by state. CalJW 14:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Isn't the "American" vs. "United States" debate settled? Or am I thinking of something else? — Markles 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, but it was settled in the other direction than you're apparently thinking of. R adiant _>|< 23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • can you give me a pointer to that debate & consensus (which i like)? Derex 21:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per CalJW. Vegaswikian 20:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• how about Category:Politicians of the United States by United States state 132.205.45.110 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)? reply
  • I'd say that is more confusing and would not support. Vegaswikian 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:American politicians by state as in Category:American politicians. Bhoeble 12:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:American politicians by state Lou I 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:American politicians by state. Official policy for occupations states nationality ... format to be used, and I believe American is the settled nationality adjective for the United States. Josh 23:19, 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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Standard lower-case. Standard naming convention. Mais oui! 18:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename I created this category. I realised it should be Category:Green political parties in the United Kingdom after creating it. -- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 18:59, 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 -- Kbdank71 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Only contained two items, and is basically overlapping with mycology anyway. Stemonitis 14:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• I have no idea why this useful category was unnecessarily emptied. It is a subcategory of category:mycology and of physiology. — Dunc| ☺ 14:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I was a little hasty there, but it was almost empty anyway, and any article that was in it could easily be put in both Category:Mycology (where they already are, incidentally) and Category:Physiology, achieving the same effect, but without the small, superfluous category. -- Stemonitis 14:36, 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 delete -- Kbdank71 14:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This category contained a single entry ( List of mycological journals), and since that list only includes two items, the category seems doomed to smallness. Stemonitis 14:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Empty. Bhoeble 12:16, 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 merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Duplicate. Merge CalJW 14:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge Sad neglected nomination. Wikipedia needs more voters. Golfcam 05:18, 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 rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

These categories are named in American English, and are quite wrong in Commonwealth English, where post secondary institutions are never referred to as schools. They need new names which will be clear to everyone.

• Category:Schools by establishment year --> Educational institutions by year of establishment
• Category:Schools established in the 3rd century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 3rd century
• Category:Schools established in the 6th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 6th century
• Category:Schools established in the 7th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 7th century
• Category:Schools established in the 8th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 8th century
• Category:Schools established in the 9th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 9th century
• Category:Schools established in the 10th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 10th century
• Category:Schools established in the 11th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 11th century
• Category:Schools established in the 12th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 12th century
• Category:Schools established in the 13th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 13th century
• Category:Schools established in the 14th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 14th century
• Category:Schools established in the 15th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 15th century
• Category:Schools established in the 16th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 16th century
• Category:Schools established in the 17th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 17th century
• Category:Schools established in the 18th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 18th century
• Category:Schools established in the 19th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 19th century
• Category:Schools established in the 20th century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 20th century
• Category:Schools established in the 21st century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 21st century
• Category:Schools established in 1900 --> Category:Educational institutions established in 1900
• Category:Schools established in the 1800s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1800s
• Category:Schools established in the 1810s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1810s
• Category:Schools established in the 1820s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1820s
• Category:Schools established in the 1830s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1830s
• Category:Schools established in the 1840s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1840s
• Category:Schools established in the 1850s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1850s
• Category:Schools established in the 1860s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1860s
• Category:Schools established in the 1870s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1870s
• Category:Schools established in the 1880s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1880s
• Category:Schools established in the 1890s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1890s
• Category:Schools established in 2000 --> Category:Educational institutions established in 2000
• Category:Schools established in the 1900s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1900s
• Category:Schools established in the 1910s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1910s
• Category:Schools established in the 1920s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1920s
• Category:Schools established in the 1930s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1930s
• Category:Schools established in the 1940s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1940s
• Category:Schools established in the 1950s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1950s
• Category:Schools established in the 1960s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1960s
• Category:Schools established in the 1970s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1970s
• Category:Schools established in the 1980s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1980s
• Category:Schools established in the 1990s --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 1990s
• Category:Schools established in the 21st century --> Category:Educational institutions established in the 21st century
• Rename all CalJW 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all as per nom Osomec 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom -- Jjjsixsix ^{( talk)}/_{( contribs)} @ 05:49, 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 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Should be "Wikipedia rejected proposals". R adiant _>|< 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename Category:Wikipedia rejected policy proposals. Osomec 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Most rejected proposals were never policy proposals, but rather proposals for guidelines or process. R adiant _>|< 15:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals. CalJW 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals per Radiant's reasoning. There's no need to subdivide this category into policy/guideline/process subcategories. Barno 02:19, 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 -- Kbdank71 14:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Another redundant and hardly-used categorization of Wikipedia pages. R adiant _>|< 11:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nominator. Osomec 15:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Agree with nom. Delete. Barno 02:21, 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 -- Kbdank71 14:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, silly. R adiant _>|< 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete pointless. CalJW 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per CalJW. Ø tVaughn05 ^talk _contribs 12:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Just how do you expect us spleen-challenged to canvas against the actions of the nefarious {{user anti-spleenless}} userbox cabal? just kidding -- James S. 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all of these. Not in use in article space so it doesn't matter whether they're silly. What next? Delete silly userpages? Hey... I've had an idea... James James 08:51, 30 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 14:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

All subcats are on CFD, delete. R adiant _>|< 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete pointless. CalJW 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, this is much easier. -- Jjjsixsix ^{( talk)}/_{( contribs)} @ 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, virtually every subcat is on list for deletion also. Subcats gave me a laugh, though. Zork 00:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep all. These aren't in article space, so I can't really see the problem. I'm an admirer of yours, Radiant; this kind of thing seems unlike you. James James 08:53, 30 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 14:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Not encyclopedic, covers too many characters to be even remotely useful. -- MisterHand 08:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. CalJW 08:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the above. R adiant _>|< 11:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete cannot be maintained Jtrost 14:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No problem. Golfcam 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- what criteria are we using for listing on this form? - rernst 23:58, 27 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 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to match siblings in Category:Buildings and structures in New York City. Choalbaton 06:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename as per nom. Osomec 15:06, 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 both cats are redlinks at time of closing, no action taken. Syrthiss 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

To change the U.S. to United States. Also, all of the subcats for this category have the same form and should also be changed. Don't know if they all need a template of if it can be done from this one nomination. Vegaswikian 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all (but I think you should tag them all). Choalbaton 06:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all. NatusRoma 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all. (tagging them all per Choalbaton). — Markles 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This is third vote in six months. Seceral attempts at discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress have created little interest or support for any specific resolution to related categories, lists, and questions. Its just a target for category warriors. Meanwhile, those of us working to get at least a stub in Wiki for all these people just get distracted. Let's get the pieces first, then sort out the category schemes. Lou I 16:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Question: Are we renaming the subcategories Category:United States Representatives from foo or Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from foo? My vote is for the latter. NatusRoma 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Category:U.S. Representatives from foo to Category:United States Representatives from foo was the proposal since it was to simply change the U.S. to United States. They are all tagged now. There were a few other cats in there that were similar and were also tagged. I believe the only wording change was adding a 'the' in front of 'District of Columbia' Vegaswikian 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • No. The accurate name of the subcategories would be "Members of the United States House of Representatives from Foo." "U.S. Representatives from Foo" is incorrect because they are not representatives of the United States.— Markles 19:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The rename for the District of Columbia should make it clear that these members are Delegates, not Representatives. NatusRoma 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It shouldn't matter for DC, Guam, Samoa, etc. because those delegates are still "Members of the United States House of Representatives" even though they are not "Representatives." — Markles 19:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Name is too long. Also, U.S. almost universally means the United States, so enlongating all of these makes no sense. I personally feel that Category:U.S. Congressional Representatives from State would be the best alternative. -- tomf688^{{ talk}} 15:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Too long, too much busy work; please write an encyclopedia instead of trying to make category names orthoginal, thanks. -- James S. 08:43, 30 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 13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Recently created and Category:Geography of Hawaii already exists. JonHarder 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete / merge if populated. Sumahoy 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Category created as Hawaiiana human geography alternative to integrate and then eliminate articles with {{ Hawaii-geo-stub}}

This also helps ensure consistency with main article's Hawaiian Islands title.   ^{Bob_Burkhart  Lenexa  Kansas}
RJBurkhart 12:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename, naming convention is "Geography of <countryname>". R adiant _>|< 13:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge. Categories should be consistent. CalJW 14:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• KEEP as a cateory for the Hawaiian Island / Emperor Seamount chain, subcat Category:Geography of Hawaii into it. 132.205.45.110 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as Category:Geography of Hawaii already exists, and is consistent with the geography categories of other states of the US -- Malepheasant 08:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as Malepheasant said. Rmhermen 20:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into category:Geography of Hawaii. Bhoeble 12:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category:Georgraphy of Hawaii. Josh 23:23, 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 delete with large fire from orbit. Syrthiss 13:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1) For the sake of balance if Category:Wikipedians with tiny penises has been nominated. 2) On account of its ungrammatical construction - should be "well-endowed". 3) Issues relating to verifiability. Valiantis 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Brings wikipedia into disrepute. Sumahoy 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not relevant. Choalbaton 06:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. CalJW 08:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom, BJAODN because it's funny as hell. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 10:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, although I'm almost amused by the self-absorption it takes to believe that anybody on Wikipedia should care how big or small any other Wikipedian's whangdangle happens to be. Bearcat 01:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• For shame. I most streniferously object to the pejorative use of the word whangdangle. (smack) Er, Delete as a potentially divisive and WP:POV. What next? Categorising by nose size too? ++ Lar: t/ c 15:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep who cares? SchmuckyTheCat 17:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • my thoughts exactly. Delete rernst 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• The verifiability problem can be fixed by posting GFDL-compliant pictures, but I don't know if that is a good idea. BJAODN. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 00:35, 28 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 13:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Overcategorisation. See my comments re: Category:English Egyptologists below. The Scottishness or Englishness of an Egyptologist is not central to his or her work, so the standard scheme of subcategorising by nationality defined by country should apply. Valiantis 04:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have played a role in getting inappropriate subject area English categories deleted, but it is not inappropriate to subdivide people between the different parts of the UK. Unlike many subject area categories for England this does not misrepresent the way things are organised in the real world, it simply makes an extra click necessary to reach the articles. That is a price worth paying as I would expect all the articles about Scottish people to be in Category:Scottish people. CalJW 08:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge (and I'm Scottish) There is nothing wrong with subdividing large categories into the respective part of the UK, however there is little point in creating what will always be a small category. Further, while someone might be interested in finding 'Scottish sprinters' ot 'Scottish inventors', I cannot really imagine anyone being interested in finding out which Egyptologists were specifically Scottish (and if they were a quick look at the few articles in the British category would soon tell them). -- Doc ^ask? 13:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The beauty of these cats is that they are a wonderful cross-referencing tool: eg. this one is also a subcat of Category:Scottish archaeologists. When we destroy a cat we also destroy lots of little routes by which researchers can find articles. Also, the cat may be small, but can Doc really tell us how many notable Scottish Egyptologists there have been? Remember, Wikipedia is in its infancy.-- Mais oui! 14:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nationality of these individuals was one of the their most important attributes when they were born and that didn't change when they took up Egyptology. Osomec 15:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I accept the rationales of most of the posters, though I don't necessarily agree with them. I would query Osomec's point, however. No-one is suggesting that Egyptologists should not be categorised by nationality. However, the legal nationality of all concerned is British. There is no legal Scottish or English nationality; no-one is a citizen of Scotland or England. Valiantis 04:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • You are treating nation and state as synonyms. They are not synonymous.-- Mais oui! 13:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • No, I'm not. I'm not disputing that there is such a thing as a cultural Scottish or English nationality. I am raising an issue about the standards we use for categorising by nationality and in this the standard is that the nationality matches an independent state. The legal nationality of people who are citizens of the UK is British. If we allow categories by cultural nationality where culture is not germane (as it isn't in the case of Egyptologists) we are opening the way to a huge escalation of POV disputes. I would similarly nominate for deletion putative cats such as "Catalonian Egyptologists", "Breton Egyptologists", "Sorbian Egyptologists", "Kurdish Egyptologists" etc. These are clearly cultural identities, and some may describe them as nationalities, but there is no independent state called Catalonia, Brittany, Sorbia or Kurdistan. As exceptions to this general rule, I would suggest user cats and cats that relate to directly to culture. So I have no issues with Category:Scottish writers or Category:Catalonian writers as the culture in which such writers operate is determined by their Scottishness or "Catalonian-ness". The cultures in which Egyptologists work are those of Ancient Egypt and those of international science. In such cats, categorisation by nationality is merely a useful tool to subdivide cats by occupation. It shouldn't be used to push POV on the existence of any nationality other than a definable legal one. Valiantis 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• • • • • If you took that argument to its logical conclusion then we would have to remove Shakespeare, Newton, Raleigh, Elizabeth I, Owen Glendyr, Robert I, William Wallace and thousands of other biographical articles from :Category:British people; and Beethoven and Brahms from :Category:German people; and Da Vinci and Dante from :Category:Italian people. None of those people were ever citizens of those states.-- Mais oui! 23:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep No different from dozens of other Scottish/Welsh/English categories. Bhoeble 12:19, 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 delete with fire from orbit. Syrthiss 13:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedian categorization has become entirely too silly. (Not to mention that the proper name would presumably be "Wikipedians with a tiny penis"). — Kirill Lok s hin 03:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Delete with much laughter. Justin Eiler 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Also laughing. I have considered the possibility that the cat may be for Wikipedians with more than one tiny penis, but even so, want it gone. Runs the risk of users adding it to other users' pages during heated edit wars! Valiantis 04:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Brings wikipedia into disrepute. Sumahoy 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not relevant. Choalbaton 06:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete What a waste of time user categorisation is. CalJW 08:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom, BJAODN because it's funny as hell. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 10:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, although I'm almost amused by the self-absorption it takes to believe that anybody on Wikipedia should care how big or small any other Wikipedian's whangdangle happens to be. Bearcat 01:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete with laughter. No need at all. -- Jjjsixsix ^{( talk)}/_{( contribs)} @ 05:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• For shame. I most obstrepetously object to the pejorative use of the word whangdangle. (smack) Er, Delete as a potentially divisive and WP:POV, PLUS a category that's not very used. (tempted to put a reference in here to WP:DICK but that might not be the best idea) ++ Lar: t/ c 15:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• BJAODN, as it is hilarious, but has no real use. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 00:34, 28 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.