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

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Computer and video game fan fiction ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Transferred from PROD as PROD does not and should not do categories – 132.205.93.88 01:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Not notable, doesn't need a category. — 14:51, 25 July 2006 user:RobJ1981

• Delete 132.205.93.88 01:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Is any fan fiction notable? ReeseM 04:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Empty and cannot forsee any use for it. -- Fang Aili ^talk 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; rename will probably go through, but to what is unknown; recommend renominate as rename -- Kbdank71 20:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Immigrants by nationality
• Category:Canadian immigrants to America
• Category:Scottish immigrants to America
• Category:Italian immigrants to America
• Category:English immigrants to America
• Category:Chinese immigrants to America
• Category:Chinese immigrants to Australia
• Category:American immigrants to Australia
• Category:Scottish immigrants to England
• Category:Scottish immigrants to Canada
• Category:American immigrants to Canada
• Category:Argentine immigrants to Canada
• Category:English immigrants to Canada
• Category:Immigrants to Australia
• Category:Immigrants to Canada
• Category:Immigrants to America
• Category:Immigrants to England

A recently created series of categories all redundant with Category:People by ethnic or national origin and subcats. Delete-- Peta 00:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete all per nom. -- musicpvm 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Question+thought: is this a better naming scheme than the other set? It is clear that this only applies to a single generation. We definitely do not require both sets, anyway. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 10:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete only after the articles in the categories have been correctly re-categorized. Example: 'American immigrants to Australia' becomes 'American Australians' or 'American expatriates in Australia' (whatever the case may be for the article in question) Thanks Hmains 05:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep and redo nomination as mergers or keep as subset of ethnicity origins pages Mayumashu 06:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; rename to Category:Plants and pollinators -- Kbdank71 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Plants and Pollinators ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Delete, I suspect the use of this category is only used by its creator. The name is sufficiently vague that it could include all plants and all pollinators. Something like that described on the category page is achieved with more clarity in a list. Peta 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• If kept, rename to Category:Plants and pollinators. Perhaps someone botanical(ly-minded) should contact User:Pollinator, the category's creator...?   David Kernow

I'll be glad to fix that when the vote's over - A senior moment, I think... Pollinator 02:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Peta. Way too ambiguous. -- Fang Aili ^talk 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Plant-pollinator relationships are one of the poorest treated areas. Not much is known about a plant, until its pollinators are also understood. The category marks plant pages that do include some information on their pollinators; hopefully it will encourage similar additions on other pages. Some might think it an obscure topic, but pollinator decline and other pollination issues have much more impact on ecology than many of the more glamorous endangered vertibrates that now get the most attention. And yes, the topic is broad, broad enough so that it can be subdivided as it grows, possibly into pollination syndromes. Pollinator 05:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, at least until a majority of plant articles have pollination info by which time the category may become irrelevant. I have a major interest in insects, especially their interaction with plants and I agree with Pollinator that this is an underrepresented subject that needs all the exposure it can get. Richard Barlow 08:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per above. I'd agree technically it ought to be lower-case as David Kernow says, but I'm not certain it is worth the hassle of editing every page for renaming - MPF 08:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• No problem; if the category is kept verbatim as a result of this discussion, I'll nominate it for a speedy rename. Regards, David Kernow 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The problem is that while it's easy and obvious to have a category called "pollinators", and assign pages for pollinators to that category, there does need to be a corresponding way to indicate which plant pages contain information on what pollinates them. I'd also agree technically it either ought to be lower-case as David Kernow says, but there is a definitely utility to this category, and for people other than just its creator. The only actual problem I see with either the "pollinators" category or the "plants and pollinators" category as they stand is making certain that the listed pages actually contain data indicating what is being pollinated and by which organism; many do NOT (e.g. Passiflora lutea, which lists butterflies whose caterpillars eat the plant, but the adults of which do not pollinate it). That does not, in and of itself, justify deleting the category. Dyanega 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Dance/Club music artists to Category:Dance musicians (The first is incorrectly named, and it doesn't make sense to have both. The second follows the naming convention used by other musician categories.)
• Category:Danish dance/club music artists to Category:Danish dance musicians (consistent with all the other categories of Category:Dance musicians by nationality)
• Category:British dance/club music artists to Category:British dance musicians
• Category:English dance/club music artists to Category:English dance musicians
• Category:German dance/club music artists to Category:German dance musicians
• Category:Swedish dance/club music artists to Category:Swedish dance musicians

-- musicpvm 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge all per nom. Landolitan 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. -- Fang Aili ^talk 20:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge all per nom. Casper Claiborne 13:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

As per medicine, "Medicine is the branch of health science and the sector of public life concerned with maintaining or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis and treatment of disease and injury." I argue that aging by itself is neither a disease nor an injury, and is a normal, healthy biological process. "Anti-Aging medicine" is therefore not a neutral term, as medicine is for the treatment of injury or disease as above, and aging is neither. I am proposing a renaming of this category to " Category:Anti-aging" to institute a neutral point of view. Kurieeto 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Fang Aili ^talk 20:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE -- Drini 22:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Preteen Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Delete, This category is a really, really bad idea. It may not necessarily violate the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 in the United States, but it is still a rather convenient list for unscrupulous individuals to potentially find and exploit minors. I know we probably can't stop people from revealing all sorts of information on their user pages, but we can at least delete this category. -- Jtalledo (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It seems that 5th graders now declare their sexual orientiation in their profiles. Can someone reinvent childhood please? Piccadilly 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• comment from looking at these users pages, it really does seem that "Wikipedia is a social club" and everyone has user-box-itis. 132.205.93.88 01:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete not joking about the user-box-itis - I'm now sick of them! Viridae ^Talk 04:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Landolitan 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete with some urgency as per nomination. It may be time to delete all userboxes, because they are becoming ridiculous (and yes, I plead guilty to having my own silly userboxes). -- BrownHairedGirl 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• For all those folk wishing to have userboxes et al, suggest Wikimedia is asked to create a parallel wiki for them. David Kernow 17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Category:Child Wikipedians & Category:Teenage Wikipedians have the same issue as well. -- JLaTondre 00:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Presidents of the Indian National Congress ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Congress Presidents ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, This category was recently renamed [1] after a very short discussion. It was originally nominated 'to avoid confusion with the President of India', which is a very unlikely event. The term 'Congress President' has an eighty-year history, during which practically none of the incumbents have been known as anything else; and, indeed, the replacement title is misleading as the Congress President is not infact the President of the INC but the President of its central committee, the All India Congress Committee. This needs to be changed back as soon as possible. Hornplease 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Assuming Hornplease's information is correct, rename to Category:Presidents of the All India Congress Committee with note on category page explaining that this title normally shortened to "Congress President", otherwise keep. I'd say "Congress Presidents" as the basis for a category name is too vague; doesn't it presuppose the user already knows to what congress it is referring...?  Regards, David Kernow 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Agree User:David Kernow's proposal, otherwise oppose - 'Congress Presidents' is too vague. Mtiedemann 18:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose reverting to original name. Reluctant support for David Kernow's alternative. Osomec 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose reverting to previous name. As the nominator for that change (actually to avoid ambiguity with this party's Presidents of India, which already seemed to have happened) I'd be happy to consider a new category name that's an improvement. But the main article Indian National Congress already says "The President of the Indian National Congress is in effect the party's national leader, head of the organization, head of the Working Committee and all chief Congress committees, chief spokesman and the Congress choice to become the Prime Minister of India." So the current name is not obviously inaccurate; and it is clear. I feel that basing the category name instead on "All India Congress Committee" might not be any more accurate for all points of history from 1885; and, more definitely, it doesn't have any advantages for readers.-- Mereda 19:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Or are we talking about two different categories??-- Mereda 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment I now see that the official Congress website and the Congress Sandesh actually say "Past Presidents of Indian National Congress" [2] But I wouldn't want to quibble here about the definite article :) -- Mereda 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep the current name. The Congress President article states "The President of the All India Congress Committee, and therefore of the Congress Party as a whole, is known as the Congress President" so Category:Presidents of the Indian National Congress is fine. Congress Presidents may be what they are best known as, but the name is too ambiguous. -- musicpvm 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Drini 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Verkehrsverbund ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Transport associations in Germany ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename. The main article uses the term "transport association", and some of the names of the associations do not include the word "Verkehrsverbund". Merchbow 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Osomec 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Kayaker 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:British Colonial Flags ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:British overseas territory flag images ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename. I was going to put this up for speedy because of the incorrect capitalisation, but there is a cat redirect at what seemed to me a more appropriate name. I perceive ambiguity in the purpose of the category as currently named. British Colonies redirects to Evolution of the British Empire. If no support for renaming as proposed, at least rename it to Category:British Colonial flag images. RobertG ♬ talk 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Images of flags of British overseas territories – or delete/move to Commons...?  Regards, David Kernow 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Drini 22:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:CPLP member states ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Community of Portuguese Language Countries member states ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, simply expanding the abbreviation (I didn't know what CPLP stands for). Note to closing admin: if the rename goes ahead please remember to point the existing redirect at Category:Portuguese speaking countries to the new category name. RobertG ♬ talk 16:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Landolitan 16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to "People in health professions". -- Drini 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The inclusion of the word "the" in the current title has connotations to me that there is a list or limits towards what "the" health professions are. This category needs flexibility in the types of health-related occupations people can have to be included in it, so I'd like the word "the" removed. Kurieeto 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:People in healthcare professions or Category:People in health professions. If no consensus, at least remove the "the" per nom. David Kernow 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC), converted to vote 02:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe that would be a more narrow scope than what is currently in place, which would not be preferable in my view. As per healthcare, "Health care or healthcare is the prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of mental and physical well-being through the services offered by the medical, nursing, and allied health professions [1]. The organised provision of such services may constitute a health care system". Therefore, narrowing the scope of this category from health to healthcare will exclude those not in the medical, nursing, and allied health professions, such as Category:Veterinarians and Category:Health economists. I would prefer no change to a more narrow re-scoping. Kurieeto 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Understood; have converted my suggestion above to a vote for either or at least the removal of the "the". Yours, David 02:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:People in healthcare professions per David Kernow. Osomec 18:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:People in health professions; Oppose a rename to Category:People in the healthcare professions as has been suggested in voting; If no consensus, support the removal of "the" from the current title as per proposal. Kurieeto 14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Drini 18:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

It was agreed some time ago that all the transport categories for European countries should use "transport" in line with usage by the EU and European governments. The main category for Spain is Category:Transport in Spain and we have Category:Transport in Madrid, category:Transport in Catalonia and Category:Transport in Barcelona, but there are some recently created regional categories which do not follow this precedent. Several of these categories are non-compliant with basic category naming practices, including the intermediate parent category, Category:Transport of Spain by autonomous community (which does use "transport") and are therefore also in need of renaming for other reasons.

• Category:Transport of Spain by autonomous community to Category:Transport in Spain by autonomous community
• Category:Transportation in Spain by city to Category:Transport in Spain by city
• Category:Transportation in Andalusia to Category:Transport in Andalusia
• Category:Transportation in Asturias to Category:Transport in Asturias
• Category:Transportation in Balearic Islands to Category:Transport in the Balearic Islands
• Category:Transportation in Canary Islands to Category:Transport in the Canary Islands
• Category:Transportation in the Basque Country to Category:Transport in the Basque Country (autonomous community)
• Category:Transportation in Community of Madrid to Category:Transport in the Community of Madrid
• Category:Transportation in Extremadura to Category:Transport in Extremadura
• Category:Transportation in Galicia to Category:Transport in Galicia
• Category:Transportation in Region of Murcia to Category:Transport in the Region of Murcia
• Category:Transportation in the Valencian community to Category:Transport in the Land of Valencia (this is the most common term used for subcategories for this reason, but they are inconsistent and need to be standardised. However that is a different discussion.)
• Rename all Merchbow 16:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all except Basque Country which should be renamed to Category:Transport in the Basque Country (autonomous community) to make clear which definition of the Basque Country is meant - in this case the autonomous community. Mtiedemann 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I've amended that one. The related categories are not consistently named, but again that is a separate issue. Merchbow 16:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. Osomec 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. ReeseM 04:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. - Darwinek 17:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:German military personnel ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:German military people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge. Redundant category. All articles can be safely grouped into one of them. Andrés C. 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge to Category:German military personnel as I believe this is the usual nomenclature...?   David Kernow 18:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No it isn't. "People" is prevalent by 26 to 16, counting the parent Category:Military people by nation and excluding the stub category. "People" is preferable as it allows, for example, military historians to be included. Osomec 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps military historians ought not to be included (unless they served in the military) as I'd say this was a civilian occupation...?  Regards, David 02:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Osomec 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom and Osomec Piccadilly 21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, as long as "people" doesn't include just regular historians, but rather people actually associated with the military itself (as is suggested by the title). -- ScreaminEagle 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Drini 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Ajax ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Ajax (programming) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, in line with the main article Ajax (programming). As you can see from Ajax, there are one or two other possible meanings. Note to closing admin: if the rename goes ahead, please remember to change the cat redirect Category:AJAX (corresponding to the article AJAX redirect) to point to the new name. RobertG ♬ talk 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename for disambiguation. I've heard of three uses of the term, and this isn't one of them. ReeseM 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. I for one would have assumed that a category called "Ajax" would be for Ajax (mythology) and Ajax the Lesser — although I'd then wonder why anyone would want to put the Aiantes in a category. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was relisted here because Category:Turkish Americans wasn't tagged for deletion -- Kbdank71 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Turkish-Americans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Delete, This category was intended to be the new Category:Turkish Americans by someone without any discussion. It has no activity and it's absolutely pointless to have a "dupe" of a working category. MonsterOfTheLake 15:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge into this. The form with the hyphen is preferable. Osomec 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There are several without the hyphen, which function fairly well. It's easier to keep the current set-up. MonsterOfTheLake 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• No, this is an emerging standard. Foo-Barians or Bar Fooians to mean people of Bar who are of Foo ethnic background. This avoids confusion particularly between American and Commonwealth grammar. Anything that does't match should be converted. Reverse merge.-- Dhartung | Talk 11:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge -- William Allen Simpson 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was duplicate nomination. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21 - EurekaLott 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename, I think the category should be renamed because the new name is shorter and more precise. Crashintome4196 15:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Why is this encylopedic? Isn't this type of information for Wikitravel? If renamed, it should be Category:Rapid transit system that operate 24/7 otherwise they would only need to operate long hours one day a week. Another issue is that a service can qualify with greatly reduced operations or not all lines running 24 hours. To clarify that fact would be difficult in a category. I also believe we should avoid category names that start with a number, Vegaswikian 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- Drini 18:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Improperly named. Diseases are not capitalised on Wikipedia. Please rename. JFW |  T@lk 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• These qualify for speedy renaming Cloachland 13:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename both per Cloachland. David Kernow 18:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep as metacat -- Drini 18:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:People with disabilities ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Delete, Irrelevant category. No need to categorize people according to physical disabilities. Indeed, it may cause prejudice or social discrimination. Most of the concerned individuals do not "self-identify" (as proponents of identity politics always say) as, say, oneyed jack for Jean-Marie Le Pen (I came here because someone wanted to include Le Pen in the Category:People with an ocular prosthetic, also listed for deletion. Are we going to make a category for impotent people? Some of those whom created this category might learn a thing or two at Eugenics. Tazmaniacs 13:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note that it seems the category has already been deleted before, as it was created with the comment "per Cfd". Tazmaniacs 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

No, it has never been deleted. It was created in October 2005 to replace Category:Disabled People after this CFD discussion. × Meegs 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep only as a meta-category. No articles should ever go in here, but this is a good way to collect all of the different disability categories together. Despite Tazmaniacs' beliefs, I think that it would be irresponsible of Wikipedia, as neutral chroniclers, to have an article about Stevie Wonder that didn't list him as blind, about FDR that didn't list him as crippled by polio, or even about Heather Mills McCartney that didn't list her as an amputee. -- M @ r ē ino 13:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. You've only proved my point. The thing to do is to list relevant disabilities in the articles, not to categorize disabled people, which might be seen as a form of social discrimination. Tazmaniacs 10:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not pejorative. See [3]. Intangible 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep – as Mareino said, this is a useful parent for Category:Blind people, Category:Deaf people and others, most of which I think are important and appropriate categories. As suggested, it might be best to keep individuals subcategorized and out of the top category. × Meegs 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

All right Meegs, I hear your argument, and although I disagree with the necessity to classify people according to disabilities, I am willing to accord you that the Category:Blind people is not on the same scale that the Category:People with an ocular prosthetic, which is really ridiculous. Following your reasonment, only certain categories (Blind, Deaf & Mute, if I get it well) are worthwhile, while the others aren't. Would you then vote in the next section concerning Ocular Prosthesis? Tazmaniacs 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm on the fence about that one, but still thinking it over. If that one is kept, although it's awkward, Category:People with disabilities is probably still the best "people" category to keep it in, at least for right now. × Meegs 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep useful grouping category. ReeseM 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep only as a meta-category, subject to all the caveats expressed above about applicability of the sub-cats. -- BrownHairedGirl 13:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In addition to all that's been mentioned above, I'd point out that if you have a disability, it's nice to know you're not alone.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 07:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per ReeseM. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™/ ?! 04:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:People with an ocular prosthetic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Delete, Irrelevant categories. No reason to categorize people according to physical disabilities. Tazmaniacs 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 13:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's part of our responsibility to chronicle neutrally, and not to sugar-coat or censor that which might make some readers uncomfortable. -- M @ r ē ino 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's no less trivial for that. Sumahoy 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
    • There is nothing "neutral" about categorizing people. This has nothing to do with "censorship" or even "political correctedness", just simple, day-to-day, wisdom. There is no need for such category, it is silly & I'm sure that most people with an ocular prosthesis would find it stupid to class them in such a category. It is silly to claim this is "encyclopedical knowledge". Rather, it is worthless trivia which the concerned people might consider offensive. Some people like using Wikipedia as a game or leisure: they are entitled to it, but one's liberty stops where another man's liberty begins. And one of these basic grounds of liberty is the right not to be categorized in silly categories which marks them apart from the rest of the population (commonly called: discrimination). Tazmaniacs 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not pejorative. Intangible 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

But irrelevant. Tazmaniacs 10:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is a non-defining characteristic. A list in the relevant article will be sufficient. Osomec 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Mareino.-- Mike Selinker 12:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Has no encyclopedic value. Olborne 06:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Family saga novels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Delete, Empty and double namespace. Geopgeop 12:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Musta been a typo while creating Category:Family saga novels. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete — Ashley Y 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete per above. David Kernow 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete - a typo. Picaroon9288| ta co 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete cat and subcats per verifiability issues -- Drini 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Sportspeople by religion ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Delete. While including people's religion might make sense for persons who publicly advocate its beliefs, there's no link whatsoever between the sportspeople and religion. It also violated people's right to hold their beliefs private. This category suffers from Verifiability and maintenance. It has only two categories Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople and Category:Lutheran sportspeople, both fairly sparse. Duja 11:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Useless & unmaintainable in the long run. Mir Harven 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Horrible. - Darwinek 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. See also the category for disabled people listed above. Tazmaniacs 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A largely irrelevant interjunction. Cloachland 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete And ditto for Category:Mathematicians by religion. Bellbird 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete for all reasons above and others too. Osomec 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete for all reasons above except privacy concern. Postdlf 20:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Kayaker 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was renamed -- Drini 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Omahans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:People from Omaha, Nebraska ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename, and leave a {{ category redirect}}, to bring in line with the previous consensus to rename US demonym categories. This is the only one left, and must have been missed. RobertG ♬ talk 09:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. - Darwinek 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Osomec 19:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Mereda 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Can we make this a convention and just speedy them in the future? My vote would be yes. Vegaswikian 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- musicpvm 20:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per nom. David Kernow 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 19:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:UK conservative activists (extra-parliamentary) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:British conservatives ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge, This category requires two subjective judgements of editors: firstly, that the subject is politically a conservative and, secondly, that they are an activist. Some subjects have been active in the Conservative Party and can go straight into Category:UK Conservative Party politicians, and at least one was a parliamentarian. Some are of dubious notability. All in all I think this adds a confusing layer to Category:British politicians. Mtiedemann 08:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Duja 11:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Hellenocentrism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Rename to Hellenocentrism
• Oppose. Hellenocentrism, except when being used as a term of art to mean Ellinokentrismos, really means the chauvinist belief that Hellenistic culture is superior, similar to the terms Eurocentrism, Afrocentrism, etc. Epsilonism seems to be an obscure cult. -- M @ r ē ino 13:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Mareino. Deletion is also a possibility if the category is unlikely to expand. ReeseM 04:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Great Old Ones ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Delete, this is a Cthulhu Mythos concept that is quite fuzzy--which entities could be described as "Great Old Ones" is not specified in most stories and requires OR. Articles in this subcategory have been moved to main category, Category:Cthulhu Mythos deities. Nareek 03:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fancruft. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Comment: I wouldn't call this fancruft, but I can't think of a better term... -- Firsfron of Ronchester 06:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Duja 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:People from Cape Girardeau County, Missouri ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

• Delete, People from Cape Girardeau County, Missouri seems awfully narrow to be a useful category. Should there be a category for people from every county in the U.S.? In the world? Tenebrae 02:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There should be a "People" section on the Cape Girardeau County, Missouri page that has this list. Nareek 04:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Have you looked at the list? There's 30 names in that category already, some of them very famous and significant figures! This list would be way too long to add to the County's article page. We have "People from" categories for hundreds of geographic areas that are roughly as confined as Cape Girardeau. I see no unbiased reason to single out this county. -- M @ r ē ino 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll withdraw my vote. I will say for the record that there's exactly one person on that list that I would describe as "very" famous. Nareek 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, fine, I'll admit that a lot of these people are only really "famous" to people who are political buffs. But still, this little county has earned its own people category. -- M @ r ē ino 03:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The category was created for the purpose of keeping the Category:People from Missouri list down to a usuable length, just one page. So far as I could tell, Cape Girardeau County was the largest county in the state which had not yet also had its residents put in a more specific category. As noted, there are over thirty names on this list, many of which are now off the larger state list. Rather than ask whether there should be a list of people from every county, maybe we should consider whether there is any real purpose in having a list of names which is too bulky and disorganized to be of any use whatsoever, like the Category:People from Texas already is. Of course, as the creator of the category, I could be biased. Badbilltucker 14:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Listify. There are far too many localized categories, and connections of varying degree of significance all get mushed together to become nothing more than trivia and clutter. I suggest something akin to what I started at List of people associated with Albany County, New York, which explains what the individual's connection to the county was. Postdlf 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. We have "People from <insert random city>" categories. I don't see this as being very different. -- Usgnus 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A google search indicates a good number of similar categories (e.g. Category:People from Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia, Category:People from Rensselaer County, New York), some with even fewer members and smaller county populations. Kayaker 23:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Drini 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Jurassic Park games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

transfer from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories – 132.205.44.134 01:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Not that notable, really doesn't need a category — 05:15, 24 July 2006 user:RobJ1981

• Keep, I don't see any reason to delete it. The category contains 12 articles, and they all fit the description of "Jurassic Park games". Several similar categories also exist. See the subcategories of Category:Computer and video games based on licensed properties. -- musicpvm 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It seems decently populated, and since JP games are still being made, there will probably be future growth in this category. -- Firsfron of Ronchester 06:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It has 12 articles. Sumahoy 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It has over 10 articles and will eventually grow. Clay4president 02:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:HGTV series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)}

transfer from PROD as PROD does not and should not handle categories – 132.205.44.134 01:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

There is a HGTV shows category, so this category doesn't need to exist. — 19:12, 24 July 2006 user:RobJ1981

• Delete as dupicate of Category:HGTV shows. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as duplicate category (or, if an argument can be made that "series" is a better phrasing, then "Shows" should go; either way, in the end, there can be only one).-- Firsfron of Ronchester 06:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect one to the other. David Kernow 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per David Kernow Osomec 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete/Redirect. Kayaker 23:39, 25 July 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.