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 22:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

For consistency with other nationalities. TheGrappler 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename, per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp462090 ( talk • contribs)
• Rename in the interest of consistency.-- Marysunshine 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Valentinian ^(talk) 16:44, 10 May 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 22:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to match the other subcategories of category:American families. CalJW 23:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Doc 01:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:48, 8 May 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 for consistency, tho we may need to revisit this. Syrthiss 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Law in the Philippines to Category:Filipino law
• Category:Law of the Russian Federation to Category:Russian law
• Category:Law of Iceland to Category:Icelandic law
• Category:Law of Jamaica to Category:Jamaican law
• Category:Law of Thailand to Category:Thai law
• Category:Law of the United Arab Emirates to Category:United Arab Emirati law
• Category:Law of Cameroon to Category:Cameroonian law
• Category:Law of Papua New Guinea to Category:Papua law

I suggest rename for consistency but would rather convert the other 70 or so categories in Category:Law by country to this format! Law "in" the Philippines definitely needs to be changed though, and suggest that "Russian Federation" would be better as "Russia" so historical laws e.g. from the Imperial period can be included. TheGrappler 21:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Fooian law Sumahoy 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, per nom.-- ᎠᏢ 4 62090 ^Contribs 01:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Fooian law Bhoeble 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename for consistency. mattbr³⁰ 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Nationality adjectives don't belong in state-centric topics. Rename instead to the format Law in Fooland, so as to match the precedent of related categories like " Law enforcement in Fooland", " Crime in Fooland", " Human rights in Fooland" and " Capital punishment in Fooland" The Tom 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, per The Tom re: Nationality adjectives and state-centric topics. Additionally, the "of" choice is best for categories like Category:Laws of the People's Republic of China, as those laws come from, or are "of" the government. "In" is best for the widest scoped law category whose contents are not all derived from the government. Category:Law in the People's Republic of China would work for the above example. Kurieeto 15:30, 14 May 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 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:ABCL dialects to Category:ABCL programming language family
• Category:ALGOL dialects to Category:ABCL programming language family
• Category:APL dialects to Category:APL programming language family
• Category:Ada dialects to Category:Ada programming language family
• Category:BASIC dialects to Category:BASIC programming language family
• Category:C dialects to Category:C programming language family
• Category:C sharp dialects to Category:C sharp programming language family
• Category:C++ dialects to Category:C++ programming language family
• Category:FORTRAN dialects to Category:FORTRAN programming language family
• Category:FP dialects to Category:FP programming language family
• Category:Forth dialects to Category:Forth programming language family
• Category:Haskell dialects to Category:Haskell programming language family
• Category:Icon dialects to Category:Icon programming language family
• Category:Java dialects to Category:Java programming language family
• Category:JavaScript dialects to Category:JavaScript programming language family
• Category:LISP dialects to Category:Lisp programming language family
• Category:Logo dialects to Category:Logo programming language family
• Category:Modula dialects to Category:Modula programming language family
• Category:Oberon dialects to Category:Oberon programming language family
• Category:PL/I dialects to Category:PL/I programming language family
• Category:Pascal dialects to Category:Pascal programming language family
• Category:Perl dialects to Category:Perl programming language family
• Category:SETL dialects to Category:SETL programming language family
• Category:SNOBOL dialects to Category:SNOBOL programming language family
• Category:SR dialects to Category:SR programming language family
• Category:Smalltalk dialects to Category:Smalltalk programming language family
• Category:Tcl dialects to Category:Tcl programming language family
• Category:XBase languages to Category:XBase programming language family

Category:Programming language dialects was merged to Category:Programming language families per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 26#Category:Programming language dialects to Category:Programming language families. This has created some duplicate subcategories within Category:Programming language families as well as an inconsistent naming convention. Recomend that these all be merged / renamed to programming language family as that is more general and dialects is a more specific case. -- JLaTondre 20:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

rename all, per nom.-- ᎠᏢ 4 62090 ^Contribs 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Scranchuse 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. ReeseM 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The term Language family is taken from human languages and by syntactical similarity applied to programming languages. The mechanisms driving design of pr. languages are quite different from development of natural language and simplistic, closed group represented by tree categorisation provides mostly false information. The really useful technique would be section for every pr. language saying what influence it had on other languages. But this is work and slapping category is so much easier. Pavel Vozenilek 21:44, 10 May 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 with the caveats. Syrthiss 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Culture of Liechtenstein to Category:Liechtenstein culture ("Liechtenstein" is the adjective according to the CIA World Factbook)
• Category:Culture of North Korea to Category:North Korean culture
• Category:Culture of Jersey to Category:Jersey culture ("Jersey" is adjective according to the societe jersiaise)
• Category:Culture of Tatarstan to Category:Tatar culture
• Category:Culture of Iceland to Category:Icelandic culture
• Category:Culture of Serbia and Montenegro to Category:Serbian and Montenegrin culture
• Category:Culture of the Falkland Islands to Category:Falkland Islander culture (consistent with e.g. Category:Solomon Islander culture)
• Category:Culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Bosnian and Herzegovinian culture
• Category:Culture of Grenada to Grenadian culture

Rename all consistent with most of the rest of Category:Culture by nationality. The few that are left as "Culture of Fooland" rather than "Fooian culture" would be cases where there would otherwise by ambiguity e.g. "Congolese" or "Dominican" would be ambiguous. TheGrappler 00:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong Oppose on Culture of Trinidad and Tobago. Trinidadian and Tobagonian Culture is clumsy, unidiomatic and excludes national culture. I think this would apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. General Oppose on all the others - if anything, we should be renaming in the opposite direction. Guettarda 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all, per nom.-- ᎠᏢ 4 62090 ^Contribs 01:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename some: not Trinidad and Tobago or Bosnia and Herzegovina Scranchuse 02:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename into culture by nationality, as suggested by the nominator. The current cat name violates WP:MOS, specifically, WP:NAME. __earth ^{( Talk)} 08:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename except Bosnia and Herzegovina and Trinidad and Tobago. Bhoeble 15:35, 7 May 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 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Categories of settlements usually take the in form. CalJW 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC). Rename CalJW 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:54, 7 May 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 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to match the other 81 subcategories of category:Conservatiion by country. CalJW 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. ReeseM 00:45, 8 May 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 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Two separate CfDs have established that the correct category name is Hill stations of Pakistan, user:Fast track has moved lots of articles around between Pakistani categories that I am trying to unpick. I this instance a bot just needs to move all the article from one category to the other and delete the source category. Thryduulf 12:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 18:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The existing category is correct. Bhoeble 08:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose This was recently renamed after discussion. Settlements take the in form. CalJW 18:34, 6 May 2006
• Oppose per above, but rename to Category:Hill stations in Pakistan per Thryduulf. David Kernow 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per above, but rename to Category:Hill stations in Pakistan Osomec 00:43, 10 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty Delete. __earth ^{( Talk)} 17:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete all Sabah categories that are empty. Wikipedia consists from articles, categories are only secondary. Inform the people so tirelessly creating cats, this is recurring event on CfD. Pavel Vozenilek 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Alan Liefting 21:59, 13 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

empty. Furthermore, according to Malaysian Constitution (Sabah is part of Malaysia) the state has no power in foreign relationship. Delete. __earth ^{( Talk)} 17:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Alan Liefting 22:00, 13 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

empty. Violates WP:MOS. Anyway, there's always Category:Political_parties_in_Sabah Delete. __earth ^{( Talk)} 17:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 22:01, 13 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

empty. violates WP:MOS Delete. __earth ^{( Talk)} 17:21, 6 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

empty. Delete. __earth ^{( Talk)} 17:21, 6 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

empty. Delete. __earth ^{( Talk)} 17:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete; also features faulty capitalization. David Kernow 14:22, 8 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

empty. Delete. __earth ^{( Talk)} 17:21, 6 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant. There's already Category:Sport in Malaysia to cater that. And since Sabah is a state of Malaysia, the logical step would be Sport in Sabah instead of Recreation & Sports in Sabah. Delete. __earth ^{( Talk)} 17:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. CalJW 18:34, 6 May 2006
• Delete; features ampersand and faulty capitalization. David Kernow 14:29, 8 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This is an empty category, categorizing Wikipedians, and I frankly suspect it was originally created as an attack category. In my opinion, it is a Bad Idea. Mak (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Self-limited category, if accurate. I concur that it's probably an attack category. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. CalJW 18.48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-- Aldux 19:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Marysunshine 22:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A bad idea nomatter why it was created. Valentinian ^(talk) 16:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete all categorization of Wikipedians by disability or disease, regardless of whether they were intended as attack categories. KleenupKrew 12:43, 13 May 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 rookies of the year form. Syrthiss 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename for pluralization and a little more specificity. Could also go to Category:NASCAR Rookies of the Year but I'm not sure I like that weird "secretaries-general" construction that is somewhat uncommon in English. Recury 15:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom -- D-Day^{( Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 18:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:NASCAR Rookie of the Year award winners per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:NASCAR Rookies of the Year. David Kernow 14:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:NASCAR Rookie of the Year award winners. Agree with nominator. Barno 19:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per original nom. Royalbroil 14:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:NASCAR Rookies of the Year. Follows form of Category:Rookies of the Year, which I'll nominate for renaming to add baseball to the name as a dab. Vegaswikian 05:21, 13 May 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 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Change to the latter as that is the most precise and common term. It is also the name of the article on that war in Wikipedia. El Gringo 14:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as more NPOV-- Aldux 19:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  The article [ notes that] The war is often referred to as the "Irish War of Independence" in Ireland and as the "Anglo-Irish War" in Britain. Choosing the British name is not NPOV.
  Most of the articles in Category:Wars of independence include the word "independence". -- BrownHairedGirl 12:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to match the article title. If the article needs to be renamed to fit the current category name, nominate the article for renaming, and if it is renamed, then the category can follow suit. - Sean Curtin 19:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl 12:24, 10 May 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 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Relist from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 24: The result of the debate was relist (tag was removed on 1 May, probably why there was only one vote) Tim! 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Tim! 11:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This is an unnecessary complication and perhaps unique to Pakistan (I'm half way through checking the "journalists by country" cateogories and this is the first "Journalism" category I have encountered). Pakistan has a media category, and like other countries has or can have separate categories for each branch of media. Merge. Bhoeble 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge per nom. Merchbow 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. CalJW 18:35, 6 May 2006

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 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply

As per Category:Kurdish provinces at [2] -- Cretanforever 10:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Please join the on-going discussions of Kurdish categorization at Category talk:Kurdistan and Talk:Batman, Turkey. -- Moby 11:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Historic and majority populations are citable. Open to a rename. -- Moby 11:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom-- Hattusili 12:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and listify. "Kurdishness" is a matter both of degree and contention, and requires clarification. Perhaps it would be okay with a rename e.g. "Cities with a Kurdish majority population" but even that wouldn't be without arguments! I am trying to think of a potentially equivalent situation - I guess I would be happy with e.g. " Category:German-speaking villages in Romania" or " Category:German-speaking majority villages in Romania". TheGrappler 14:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  TheGrappler I apriciate your efforts to find a middle ground so to speak. But I really do not see the point of categorising cities based on ethnicity, race, or language spoken. Cant such ratios be mentioned in the artice assuming its based on a census insted of indulging in lenghty category names? -- Cat out 20:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  It's not so much the middle ground as attempting to make the category meaningful and verifiable. Once it is meaningful and verifiable we can then figure out whether it is a useful navigational aid. At the moment we have a meaningless and unverifiable category that serves a certain, limited, navigational purpose. Meaningfulness and verifiability trumps navigational ease because otherwise we open ourselves up to endless edit wars. The residual navigational benefit of a more carefully designed category is debatable (probably quite low, though, especially in comparison to listification and inclusion of the list in "see also" sections of relevant articles) but it's a debate we can't have until we find a way to sensibly design the category. At any rate, my position remains delete, but open to discussion if it can be defined better. TheGrappler 21:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Possible, but so far I am not convinced any category linking cities based on ethnicity has any real usage given ethnicity is a contraversial issue. What percentage qualifies as a majority? Which ethnicities deserve a category? If all thats an unreasoable list of ethnicities as there are probably hundereds of ethnicities in any metropolitan US city. -- Cat out 21:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I do not see what purpose collecting cities under an ethnicity category serve. -- Cat out 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Categories are ment to be navigation aids. They are ment to keep articles related close by for people to edit articles of similar nature. If this categories is fine, so is Category:White cities. I doubt there is anything common between Paris, New York and Moscow and all are predominantly white.

  -- Cat out 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per my nomination. User:Retau is unaccounted for despite being the initiator of all this categorization by the way. He didn't even respond to User:Moby Dick's request for comment [3] A list is OK with me in the sense that, since interminable discussions on ethnicity seem inevitable, I'd rather see them taking place within a specific article containing a list, rather than on the main articles for Turkey's cities (some of them rather high-profile like Diyarbakır and Van), although I understand User: Cool Cat's arguments on the principle. Drawing a list or category of White Cities is no different than the categories we are discussing here, and they would make reference to a certain reality in, say, South Africa. -- Cretanforever 02:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• That post was on another subject; I've just left him a note letting him know about these CFDs. -- Moby 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as above -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I don't mind Category:Kurdistan, but these two new ones are pushing it. — Khoikhoi 22:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As per nom. -- ManiF 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Gokhan 09:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Bertilvidet 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Each town must have statistics showing the majority. It is a helpful geopolitical category. It is not possible to have so many ridiculous ethnic categories and indifferently categorize personalities according to ethnic criterias without asking them, and at the same time refusing the Kurds to have ethnic categories! I suggest people who vote against read a bit about history of Turkey and Kurdistan in various countries since at least World War I. Tazmaniacs 15:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Beside, Kurdistan is a geographic expression, while this category "Kurdish cities" define according to demographics, not geography, i.e. they are not the same cat. Tazmaniacs 15:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The problem is that these are cities, not individual people. We are not talking about banning "Kurdish ethnic categories" (even the "Kurdodeletionists" here) but of not attempting to apply ethnic categories to cities. On one level it makes sense - South Africa, India, the Middle East , even the United States, have towns and cities with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. But would we really want to categorise Washington D.C. as a "black city", for instance? While true on many statistically verifiable levels (and beware: in Kurdistan, these things are not going to be as easy as checking up on some census or magical Official Book Of the Ethnicity Of Cities, I have seen people argue for hours on end about whether certain cities are really Kurdish/Turkish/Arab...) these things are a matter of degree and extreme contention. While I appreciate the geopolitical significance, why isn't a list more appropriate? At least in a list, we can talk about degree of historical Kurdishness and discuss the current proportion of the population which is Kurdish (hopefully comparing several sources to achieve a more balanced POV). Trying to simplify it to the binary "it either is or isn't" of a category system is just asking for trouble, and is likely to lead to edit wars across scores of articles whereas a list will lead to centralized discussion and the discussion of sources and references - at least in theory ;) TheGrappler 22:02, 9 May 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 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Cateogries entitled with a propaganda term can never be made neutral. (original proposal by De mortuis...) Añoranza 08:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Question: What is the proposed new name ? US War on Terror ? We still need a name for the replacement category. -- PFHLai 09:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:War on Terrorism. It's general convention that the category for a war carries the same title as the article on that war; if you want a general renaming, take it up at WP:RM. Kirill Lok s h in 16:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The problem is that it isn't a war, that is just a claim made by George W. Bush for his personal political advantage. CalJW 18:38, 6 May 2006
  • It's hardly unique in that sense; see the rest of Category:War on something. ;-) Kirill Lok s h in 18:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I can come up with few... War on Adultry, War on Child labor. Or less noble ones such as War for peace. ^_^ -- Cat out 22:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. What would qualify as a war on terror? If this is the US war on terror the category should suggest it in its title. I do not how aver in any way endorse this category or any similar category. War on terror can be a fine article but is definately a poor choice of a category. -- Cat out 22:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bushite propaganda phrase. The U.S. articles can go in category:Foreign relations of the United States and the other articles can go wherever is appropriate on a case by case basis. Sumahoy 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Kirill Lokshin. -- Aldux 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Kirill Lokshin. It's a useful category, politics aside. Melchoir 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Do not rename. Just delete. KleenupKrew 12:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Sumahoy. -- Ezeu 22:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A category is not needed. It is generally covered in the article War on Terrorism which is in the parent category anyway. Alan Liefting 19:54, 14 May 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 people who died in hotel rooms (since thats the more inclusive of the two names). Syrthiss 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

If we want to keep this, it should be relocated to a less awkward title. Perhaps:

• Category:People who died in hotel rooms
• Category:People found dead in hotel rooms
• Category:Hotel room deaths

Using the present perfect tense implies, for many readers, that the subject is still living, which is confusing in the context of this category. — May. 6, '06 [07:52] < freakofnur_xture | talk>

• Why don't you just move it? Añoranza 08:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Because I'd like some input as to what the best title would be, and I had three different ideas come to mind. — May. 6, '06 [09:37] < freakofnur_xture | talk>

Categories can not be renamed by moving: they must be proposed here at WP:CFD, then deleted and remade. × Meegs 09:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename – I'm not certain if we should have this cat, but all three options would be an improvement. I very slightly prefer People found dead in hotel rooms. × Meegs 09:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • ...to Category:People who died in hotel rooms. Though I don't like the uncertain induction that people died where they were found, Doc's point below about bystanders in the room during the death is more important. × Meegs 15:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:People found dead in hotel rooms. "Hotel room deaths" notably matches the category:Firearm deaths, suggesting a causal link between the hotel room and the death.-- Mike Selinker 13:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Many people inflate the count of "Firearm deaths" by including anyone who had a firearm when they died — I'm not sure there's that much difference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps rename Category:Firearm deaths to Category:Deaths by firearm?   David Kernow 14:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Sure, but that's not this nomination. Let's not confuse the admins like we did the last time, David. :^) -- Mike Selinker 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Okay, now nominated here!  Regards, David 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Well, Category:1960s deaths does not consist entirely of drug overdoses either. — May. 6, '06 [19:20] < freakofnur_xture | talk>

• Rename to Category:People who died in hotel rooms. 'found' implies that they died alone and were found, which could technically eliminate many names from the category. Doc 14:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I could be wrong, but I think the "found dead" part is part of the original intention of the category.-- Mike Selinker 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

So are you saying that you think anyone who died with another person present should be eliminated from the category? Doc 18:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hard to say. I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of the person who made the category. The concept seems to be that Darryl Kile and Jimi Hendrix were found dead in their hotel rooms, and perhaps there's some aura of mystery or extra tragic element to that. So yeah, I guess I am saying that this category should be just for those people found alone. Maybe.-- Mike Selinker 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Are we going to have a subcategory " Category:people who died in hotel rooms while editing wikipedia"? Añoranza 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:People who died in hotel rooms. mattbr³⁰ 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:People found dead in hotel rooms so category may include anyone moved into a hotel room but died/killed elsewhere – unless that (unusual) circumstance meant to be excluded...?   David Kernow 14:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I would really like to know what the criteria for inclusion or exclusion is here: (A) found dead alone, or (B) just dying, in a hotel room? If A, then Rename to Category:People found dead in hotel rooms, if B, then Rename to Category:People who died in hotel rooms -- but the choice of A or B needs to be clear because John Belushi and Janis Joplin(both found dead) and Warren Harding and Abraham Lincoln (both attended by physicians and others) go to different categories. Carlossuarez46 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, the least important characteristics of a person. Pavel Vozenilek 21:14, 10 May 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused. Conscious 07:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete as there is Category:House of Osuna and List of Dukes of Osuna which meet the needs of this category. mattbr³⁰ 18:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom.-- Marysunshine 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:49, 8 May 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 Redirect -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Unused. Conscious 07:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Redirect to Category:British architecture writers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect as per ProveIt. mattbr³⁰ 18:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or delete per ProveIt/Conscious. David Kernow 14:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Now, I can't understand it. Why redirect "English..." to "British..."? If it's a useful subcategorization, let it exist as a normal category. If it's an overcategorization (and I assume that's why this category is empty), just delete it. I believe that many editors know the difference between the two terms, and "English" category will be created when it's needed. Conscious 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, I think English was created first; I remember adding cats for it. Later on, the creator changed his mind and decided to be more general, there probably aren't that many english architectual writers. Anyway, he just blanked it, so of course it just shows up again on the uncat cat list. And since I knew in this case it was really just a rename (read the history), I just added a ref tag to the new cat. I suppose it could get repopulated again later, who knows? -- ProveIt ^(talk)

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 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The category contains the images of Disney characters and is populated by {{ DisneyCharacter}}. The current name is not descriptive. Conscious 07:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Catagory description can be found inside page. When adding tag to image DisneyCharacter is easy to remember to insert, you don't want to rename DisneyLogo to Logos from Inside The Walt Disney Company. LordBleen 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. This category could be confused with Category:Disney characters, and the name of the category needs to reflect the contents of the category. The use of the {{ DisneyCharacter}} will be unaffected, the images will just be categorised in a different place. mattbr³⁰ 18:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per mattbr³⁰ (also removes faulty capitalization). David Kernow 14:51, 8 May 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 Redirect -- William Allen Simpson 06:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty and redundant to Category:Dinosaurs. Marked as category redirect, not sure why. Conscious 04:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• Redirect to Category:Dinosaurs -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. CalJW 18:40, 6 May 2006
• Redirect or delete per ProveIt/Conscious. David Kernow 14:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• I think it should be deleted instead. This category clearly violates the naming conventions (use plurals). Category redirects are for cases where there are several equally good naming possibilities, aren't they? Conscious 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, you make a good point, it does violate naming convention. However, novice editors won't know our conventions. If they are trying to categorize an article about a dinosaur then Dinosaur is likely to be the first thing they try ... and if it's not there, they may create it. That's probably why this category is here now. If we delete it, some well-meaning novice may just replace it later. If we leave a redirect, then they know what to do. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:41, 10 May 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 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a category about "things which are common to both India and China", apparently a misunderstanding of what "Indo China" means. Content is currently limited to one subcat, Category:Indo China Kingdoms. Something will have to be done about that as well. Nat Krause^{( Talk!)} 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Scranchuse 02:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete misused term. __earth ^{( Talk)} 08:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldux ( talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 14:53, 8 May 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 Children's books with LGBT themes. Syrthiss 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Corrected punctuation and caps; more accurate description. Her Pegship 03:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC). reply

• That's not more accurate, as it would allow for the works of Judy Blume, say, who wrote about sex but not homosexuality. This category documents the same-sex family children's book phenomenon, and thus shouldn't reach beyond that. So I suggest a rename to category:LGBT children's books to parallel category:LGBT art, category:LGBT newspapers, et al. (And we should remove the word "heterosexual" from the description, as that's not part of the "LBGTQIPPS" uber-acronym.)-- Mike Selinker 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Like Mike, I oppose greatly broadening what is now a nicely-sized and appropriately-focused category. I have reservations about Mike's suggestion, though, because while LGBT newspapers are written largely with LGBT readers in mind, most of these books are not. Also, I may be wrong, but I'm not certain how much the B and T factor into these books' subject matter. Though I don't like excluding B and T, the best I've been able to come up with is Category:Children's books about homosexuality. Any other options? × Meegs 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I went ahead and looked at the LGBT categories for guidance. Everyone who's categorized as one of these categories is listed in Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people. So there's a clear WIkipedia preference for grouping people of these categories together. The LGBT label applies to all works that focus on any of the categories (and I expect very few focus on all of them).-- Mike Selinker 19:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I think they should be too – I was trying to rationalize excluding bisexual and transgender, speculating that they may well not be addressed in any of these books (most of which are about same-gender parents). In any case, I'd rather have an inclusive cat, so if there's a non-awkward way to say Children's books about LGBT, I'm all for it. × Meegs 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Sure: category:LGBT-themed children's books. That makes it clear that it's not for LGBT children, just about those themes.-- Mike Selinker 03:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll support that. × Meegs 10:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename category:LGBT-themed children's books as per suggestion.-- Marysunshine 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Some of the more specialized subcategories (writers, artists, politicians, etc.) are subdivided into separate L, G, B and T subgroupings, but it's true that people who don't fit any of those are grouped into a single master category, rather than separate ones. Bearcat 18:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename not least due to faulty capitalization, but prefer Category:Children's books with LGBT themes as (a) keeps "Children's books" at start of name; (b) more explicitly indicates the plurality of possible LGBT themes. Regards, David Kernow 14:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• How bout? Childrens books dealing with LGBTQIPPS themes? Qrc2006 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'd be comfortable with either category:LGBT-themed children's books or Category:Children's books with LGBT themes. Whichever way consensus goes as to the phrasing, I favour a rename. Bearcat 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per either suggestion of Bearcat for the reasons above. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Children's books with LGBT themes per David Kernow. Angr ( t • c) 09:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename either per nominator or per User:Angr. JIP | Talk 11:18, 10 May 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 already deleted (and deleted Urban culture as well). Syrthiss 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Not a useful category due to a lack of well-defined criteria for inclusion Pak21 00:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. CalJW 18:39, 6 May 2006
• Delete per nom. Why is the Metropolitan Opera House not here? No, it won't do. Scranchuse 02:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 15:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment This category has been renamed to Category:Urban culture by a new user, Independent Journalist. Given that the reason for deletion is due to content rather than naming, I see no reason that this deletion discussion shouldn't equally apply to that. -- Pak21 17:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep The intent is to include coverage on Wikipedia of modern culture. The notion that a category could be deleted because of a lack of existence of "well-defined" criteria is ridiculous. The contents of the category ARE the criteria. Again, let us remember that the category itself has a relevant page at Urban culture. It has been hereby noted that User:Pak21 plays Warhammer and similar users have added a zillion entries to wikipedia which would suggest that the Wikipedian's tolerance for non-indoor activities is practically nil. Deleting this category is tantamount to a hate crime. Also, I can't fathom why that "Wikipedians who love cats" is a category for inclusion yet "urban culture" is not? Hello. McFly? McFly?? Independent Journalist 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Would adding Metropolitan Opera House to the category be appropriate? It is definitely urban, and definitely culture. -- Pak21 18:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: "Wikipedians who love cats" is (or would be, if it actually existed) a category for user pages, for which different criteria apply to that for article-space categories. -- Pak21 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Marysunshine 22:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both versions Category:Urban culture and category:Urban Culture. ReeseM 00:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep. It is easy to fill up, see Category:Urban geography, several music styles closely associated with urban culture ( Category:Hip Hop and Category:Punk, etc.). As Independent Journalist says, we have loads of uninteresting categories, I think you should give this one a chance. I forgot the Chicago School, several architecture movements, Futurism which would have never existed if modern cities hadn't, Urbanism and Urban planning, etc., etc., etc. Tazmaniacs 16:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The problem isn't with the category itself – it's with the lack of criteria on which articles should be placed into the category. Do you have a suggestion for that, preferably above and beyond "what's there already" and that specified by urban culture, which isn't much more than a dictdef. Secondly, just because there are some uninteresting categories on Wikipedia doesn't mean we should keep another one! -- Pak21 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Seems like diversifying Wikipedia is an important cause and urban culture is certainly relevant. I notice that those that complain the most have themselves contributed riduclous amounts of minuatae surrounding and including the inclusion of single frames of animation from their favorite Transformers epidoses. Remember kids, Wikipedia ain't just for computer enthusiasts and their 2600 fanclubs. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Rightofcenter 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - We must, as a group, remember that variations in demographics, dialects and other cultures other than one's own can sometimes result in racism and petty battles among elitists regardless if their exists an Internet or not. Absolutely this is a keep. Urban culture is as important as Rural culture. 70.25.28.229 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Comment: Wikipedia was built upon allowing new and exciting information to be added. * This is a dynamic category and should stay put. CelebritySecurity 18:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both per nom. - EurekaLott 00:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Just a random grabbag of articles. This has nothing to do with diversity or the category being "dynamic" (there's a euphemism for you) -- this is just an unfocused category. -- Skeezix1000 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Further Comment:The nature of this category seems to be changing on an almost hourly basis, as Independent Journalist appears to be rapidly adding and removing articles from the category. That demonstrates just how unfocused the category is. If, as per the nom, some criteria could be established, I might change my vote. But right now this category is all over the place. -- Skeezix1000 18:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

LOL! Have any of you have got a "well-defined criteria" for the tens of dozens of Category:Ethnic groups? Some people have kept insisting on putting the French people in that ethnic categorization, although it is clear to 98% of the French people that they form a "nationality", not an "ethnic group", and that it is a far right POV (or simply, in this case, an ignorant POV) to include the French people in that cat? There are loads of categories without "well-defined criterias", urban culture is defined per its name: cultural stuff (music, studies, art) related to cities. They are a few subcategories that don't join together that may be included in this category. They are some people who are interested by things relating to "urban cultures", in fact I almost passed a year studying this, and I assure you that such a category would have been useful for my researchs. Tazmaniacs 18:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)* reply

Beside, instead of focusing on "Independent Journalist", would you focuse on the debate? I've just looked at the cat, and all what is inside has been added by me to show what might be interesting to put in it. When I first looked at it, it was empty for unexplained reasons. Tazmaniacs 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

It was empty because Independent Journalist emptied it ( Category:Urban Culture) and placed all everything in Category:Urban culture for unexplained reasons. -- Pak21 22:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Not quite sure how the debate over French "ethnicity" is relevant here. And my comment with respect to Independent Journalist simply related to the fact that the nature of the category seems to be changing by the minute. One minute it includes Tim Hortons -- an hour later, it doesn't (just to name one example). Yesterday, when I commented on this AfD, the category was completely different than it is today. It appears that even the main proponent has an ever-changing vision of the category. Despite all the changes, the contents still appear to be a random grabbag. -- Skeezix1000 14:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as above. What do biodiesel, sustainable living on one hand and hip hop music and cannabis culture have in common? What exactly could you excluded from the category as currently used? Rmhermen 21:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• The super-simple test for whether a category makes any sense: If given a selection of random articles, would I be able to divide them into articles that belong in this category and those that don't? Here I have no idea, and more worryingly nobody else here does either. Therefore delete. It's salvagable in some form I'm sure, but needs a tighter focus. Graffiti springs to mind as something that tends to be more urban than rural, but bear in mind that even villagers in the back of beyond listen to punk music. Consumption of anything that has entered the mass media is unlikely to be urban-specific. Is this category for cultural phenomena that develop in cities (which is most of them, because more "stuff" in general happens in cities); for phenomena that are restricted almost exclusively to cities; to modern Western cities? TheGrappler 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Far too vague. Osomec 00:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Too vague to have informational value. Pavel Vozenilek 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, it's a category like this that keeps surfers coming back to Wikipedia. If anyone can tell me that those wikians hell bent on catagorizing non-existant wars between Dungeons & Dragons characters aeren't just a little more esoteric, than I'll be a monkey's uncle. Simpleton 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: this is the first Wikipedia contribution by this user -- Pak21 08:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Wikipedia is not a union, there are no points for seniority OrangePeel 13:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: there are no points, full stop. This isn't a vote. -- Pak21 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep: nom is sour grapes. OrangePeel 22:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Looks like the category is the evolution of hip hop culture which seeks to qualify individuals possibly based on race while this new and improved category embraces the diversity of city life. VForVendetta 13:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. What in the world is "Urban Culture"? KleenupKrew 12:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Much too broad and vague. bogdan 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Category is on its way. EUroPrtyctalia 16:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: this is the first Wikipedia contribution by this user -- Pak21 18:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I think somebody removed the CfD tag from Category:Urban Culture and emptied the category, which has led to it being speedied by an admin. -- Pak21 18:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I deleted the Category:Urban Culture because Wikipedia articles/cats generally don’t use capitalized non- proper nouns in them (with the exception of the first letter). The discussion should still continue over Category:Urban culture. AndyZ  _t 18:45, 14 May 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 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

There is no real distinction between these two categories. They are already being mis-used with a number of article having been placed in both categories. -- RHaworth 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Middlesbrough is a unitary authority. Bhoeble 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:21, 7 May 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.