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 01:46, 19 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 01:47, 19 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 (percolated to above discussions). Syrthiss 01:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

(a) To clarify whether the crashes involved need be associated with each occupation; (b) To improve grammar.
Taking aviators as the example, which would you prefer: Category:Aviators killed in aircraft crashes or Category:Aviators killed in crashes (or something else), etc...?   David Kernow 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Well, I certainly don't see the point in Category:Aviators killed in crashes which would combine both aviators killed in plane crashes and aviators killed in car crashes. But Aviators killed in aircraft crashes might be too narrow. How would you feel about Category:People killed in aircraft crashes? -- JeffW 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'd agree that "Aviators/motorcycle racers/racecar drivers killed in crashes" not that useful, but the categories appear to exist in order to collect together those people killed by crashes as a result of their occupation. Have amended the proposal above accordingly. Regards, David Kernow 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Then shouldn't the second category be Category:Motorcycle racers killed in motorcycle races or perhaps Category:Motorcycle racers killed by motorcycle crashes while in a motorcycle race, and similarly for Racecar racers (not drivers). -- JeffW 03:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
      • How about Category:Aviators killed while flying, Category:Motorcycle racers killed while racing, Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing...?   David Kernow 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I like those names...why did you strike out the Aviator category? -- JeffW 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
          • To allow for aviators killed while on board an aircraft but not controlling it, e.g. as passengers or non-piloting crew members, etc. Too subtle?  Meanwhile, I've tweaked the proposals given in the heading again. Yours, David 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Are you sure that you want to include aviators who were just passengers? And what is an aviator? I don't think that just anyone with a pilots license should qualify. And two of the people in the Motorcycle category died while practicing for a race, which under your new name would seem to be excluded. However, I think at some point you just have to go with common sense and possibly a clarification in the category itself. -- JeffW 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
              • My impression is that Wikipedia's use of "aviator" is meant to imply "pilot", but, so to speak, not necessarily. For now, I'd suggest trying "Aviators killed in aircraft crashes" as I'd say most people would assume the category to be filled with "pilots killed when the aircraft they were flying crashed" without having as specific (or cumbersome) a name. Re "...killed while racing", I agree and, as you suggest, would indicate at the top of the category that "racing" here includes preparation (practice sessions, qualification). Thanks for your thoughts!   David
        • Question: Should Michael Phillip Anderson be in the Aviator category? He was the Payload Commander of the Columbia space shuttle, so although he was a pilot, that wasn't his occupation. -- JeffW 16:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Hope the above answers your example!  Regards, David 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Aviators killed in aircraft crashes, Category:Motorcycle racers killed while racing and Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing (i.e. per heading as at time of this post) as nom. David Kernow 17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

{BTW, when we're done with this could you help me figure out how the lists List of fatally crashed aviators, List of deaths by aircraft misadventure, and List of people who died in aviation-related incidents should be combined, or even if they should be combined?) -- JeffW 02:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Sure; I was going to propose List of fatally crashed aviators → List of aviators killed in aircraft crashes if and when the above was supported. David 03:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

That should probably be Timeline of ... since the entries are in chronological order. -- JeffW 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Aviators killed in aircraft crashes, Category:Motorcycle racers killed while racing, and Category:Racecar drivers killed while racing as long as clarification is added to the first category that only people known primarily as aviators are included, and to the second and third categories that deaths that occur while practicing on a race track are also included. -- JeffW 17:37, 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 keep. Syrthiss 01:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

It really seems unnessecary for Wikipedia to include this information here, including all the songs played at these shows. This fan-specific information can just as easily be found at Phish.net, Phantasy Tour Phish, ect through the links at the main Phish article. 63.42.90.41 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Seems a fine way to categorize these articles.-- Mike Selinker 23:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment This isn't really a categorisation issue. The articles are all horrendous fancruft and could reasonably be merged into the main article on Phish (and reduced to an encyclopedic length). The proposer might like to nominate the articles for deletion or merger at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. However, until such time as the articles cease to exist, the category is appropriate. Valiantis 14:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, Cleanup, and Edit. Speaking as a major editor of the Phish article, I can say that the main article is already busting at the seams: including this information on it will do us no good. I think horrendous fancruft is a GROSS misgeneralization; there is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done in the Phish category and there are a few dedicated editors attempting to reel in the monstrosity it has become. With some diligence, these articles will become encyclopedic. Someone has taken great pains to start the articles, misguided though it might be, and I would really hate to lose the information. I should say that this response would obviously be applicable to any other articles nominated along this vein: just give us some more time. —   Music Maker 20:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep; per MusicMaker5376 -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:07, 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 rename. Syrthiss 01:50, 19 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 01:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Prompted by discussion here ("Many people inflate the count of "Firearm deaths" by including anyone who had a firearm when they died...") David Kernow 22:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 22:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. I'd also change category:Firearm suicides to category:Suicides by firearm.-- Mike Selinker 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. However, it would be a long and tedious process... -- GreyCat 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • A bot will do it. Hawkestone 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as nom. Palendrom 03:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• RENAME TO Category:Deaths caused by firearms and Category:Suicides using firearms . Current proposal is ambiguous. It could be interpretted to mean it's a supercategory for Saturday Night Special deaths, M60 deaths, Tommy Gun deaths, etc. 132.205.45.148 01:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both, DO NOT RENAME. These categories are only useful to those pushing a POV agenda. KleenupKrew 12:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Please elaborate; I don't understand how or what POV agenda these categories might push...?  Thanks, David Kernow 13:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Generally those who make a fetish of identifying firearms or guns as a cause of death, suicide, or violence are advocates of gun control framing the issue to portray firearms in a negative light. Hence their insistence on saying "gun violence" rather than "violence", "firearm deaths" rather than "deaths", etc. These categories are POV no matter how they are worded. KleenupKrew 21:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yikes... Well, in addition to the above, I guess I'd also support Category:Deaths by electrocution, Category:Suicides by hanging, etc, as these seem equally valid categorisation methods. Thanks, though, for your thoughts. Regards, David Kernow 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename both per nom. It doesn't make sense to have Category:Suicide by method and Category:Death by cause then not allow one of the methods to be enumerated. -- JeffW 00:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename both per nom. Hawkestone 22:45, 15 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 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

POV, subjective, defamatory, has no place in an encyclopedia. Delete. 151.200.27.142 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep; For some, like Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Charles Manson it is why they are notable. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per ProveIt Bhoeble 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per ProveIt - Will Beback 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Of the people there that I knew, every one of them looks like a cult leader to me.-- Mike Selinker 23:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per ProveIt. Valiantis 14:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't suppose that anyone would object adding to the list Jesus, whose cult now due to its years and numbers is called religion, is why he's notable, too? Carlossuarez46 00:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Bronks 15:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete inherently POV. Categories are by nature binary, and normally should not have controversial/contested/doubted claims. A list can cite its sources, to be clear who makes the claim. A category can not. Yes, some of the names seem very obvious cult leaders to me. But, this category is something likely used by people with an agenda, to label people they don't like. But, I don't think Hubbard and Manson belong on the same category. Of course Hubbard was seen be large numbers to be a cult figure, and there's a good case to say he was, and we can mention that in his article (neutrally and in context). But, we shouldn't state it as a certain fact, which is what this category does. We should be concerned less with the present use of this category, and more with future misues. Notice how List of groups referred to as cults deals with the problems appropriately, by including citations for every single cult. The reader knows exactly who considers an organization a cult, and doesn't think Wikipedia has taken a position. -- Rob 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Rob. As controversial as this may be, it is still a subjective category. Can't sleep, clown will eat me
• Delete per above. This category is useful only to those with an agenda. KleenupKrew 12:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is not POV to group people together who are given a specific label by the majority of observers.-- Apostlemep12 21:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If a majority of observers agree, can we put George W. Bush into Category:War monger or Category:Stupid? Do you mean majority of people in the world? Is this by an opinion poll? I prefer sticking to objective facts. Very often the majority of people do hold an opinion which is a non-neutral point of view. WP:NPOV means we do not advocate for such views, even if they are the majority. Of course we can mention certain people hold an opinion, but we aught not represent that opinion as fact. -- Rob 20:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The definition of "cult" is simply way too subjective to have the category "cult leader." It is unavoidalbly non-NPOV. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, inherently POV. - Sean Curtin 04:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and expand to include all cult leaders, including L Ron Hubbard, Jesus, Mohammed, et al. -- Cyde Weys 22:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and expand with other cult leaders such as L:Ron:Hubbard.. Already done. -- Karl Meier 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and add user Cyde Weys. Seriously, I would Keep the category and restrict living people from it. The category has to be policed for reasonability as with anything else on Wikipedia. Outriggr 03:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Charles Manson and the rest are already classified in plenty of other ways so it isn't really necessary and the point at which a religion becomes a cult is too vague. A list would be better as per Rob. -- JeffW 03:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment There is no basis for deleting this category unless Category:Cults goes with it. If we are going to identify cults, identifying their leaders is a matter of fact. Outriggr 03:56, 16 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 both. Syrthiss 01:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Peruvian rock singers
• Category:Peruvian pop singers

Only one entry Monni 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• These should both be merged into a new category:Peruvian singers, which should be a subcategory of category:Singers by nationality. Per Valiantis's calling out the "Rock singers by nationality categories (which I hadn't noticed), I'm changing my vote to Keep.-- Mike Selinker 18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• merge as per above ;) Monni 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose They should be classified as pop and rock singers as appropriate. Bhoeble 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment There is only one singer that is listed in both categories... If you think there is need for two categories, you should represent more singers to justify your claim. Monni 22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No I needn't. The point is that these are Peruvians and the rock singers should be subdivided by nationality and so should the pop singers. Bhoeble 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I just created Category:Peruvian singers, which at the moment serves as an umbrella category for the two categories above, plus Category:Peruvian opera singers. - EurekaLott 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep both. My intial thought was to merge due to small size and the very subjective distinction between pop and rock. However, the current division reflects the general hierarchical division into Category:Pop singers by nationality and Category:Rock singers by nationality, so it seems appropriate to leave this in place for Peru too. Valiantis 14:14, 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 rename. Syrthiss 01:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Downloadable magazines -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment For goodness sake, someone rewrite the category description to something closer to English - it reads like a spam mail! -- Vossanova 17:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't see the point of classifying magazines in this way. Magazines are signgicant for their subject matter (if at all). If not deleted rename as per nom. Bhoeble 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Downloadable magazines. The current name is erroneous, because there exist free-of-charge print magazines. JIP | Talk 11:14, 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 reverse merge us one, whack uk one (which was empty when I looked). Syrthiss 01:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

We already have Category:United States Rhodes scholars. Gamaliel 16:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete; per nom -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse Merge from Category:United States Rhodes scholars to Category:American Rhodes scholars to match most of the categories under Category:Rhodes scholars. Also Rename Category:United Kingdom Rhodes scholars to Category:British Rhodes scholars to finish the cleanup. Vegaswikian 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge to Category:American Rhodes scholars in line with the convention for categories of American people. Bhoeble 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge as per Bhoeble. Valiantis 14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge both American and British pages as per User:Vegaswikian. Mayumashu 09:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Category:United Kingdom Rhodes scholars. There is no such thing as British people are ineligible. The three articles in the category were miscategorised as they settled in the UK as adults. I have moved them out. Bhoeble 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think that its ever been established that a country in the name of a page means that they people on that page had to be born in that country. Often it just means that they've settled and established themselves in that country, in which case perhaps you shouldn't have moved those articles. -- JeffW 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
    • People have to be non-British at the time they get the scholarship. Rhodes scholarships are handed out on the basis of national quotas and the quota for British people is zero. Each person should be in one Rhodes scholar category and in no case is British the right one. Hawkestone 22:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge American and delete United Kingdom per Bhoeble. Hawkestone 22:41, 15 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 no consensus. Syrthiss 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge category. Only two articles are in the Dance websites category, and both claim to be community websites. -- Vossanova 16:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. there are much more notable websites. The category has a clear-cut definition, and the number of entries is irrelevant. Not to say that "community websites" target is a total misnomer. Some dance sites are instructional ones, others are communities, still others sell dance apparel. `' mikka (t) 23:52, 11 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 del. Syrthiss 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete empty category. Several Entertainment website and Technology website categories already exist. Vossanova 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom (also features faulty capitalization). David Kernow 23:12, 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 keep. Syrthiss 02:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge suggested - only 3 guitar-related articles. No other websites by instrument categories exist yet. Vossanova 16:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep as it is also a subcategory of category:Guitars. Bhoeble 21:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rename to "Guitar music and tablature". The current contents are sources of guitar music that happen to be websites. I don't think the content of Category:Music websites really relates to the content of Category:Guitar-related websites. At the least, if the proposed change was made, I would want to see a subcat of Category:Music websites for music websites that provide written music - not music reviews, etc. etc. Outriggr 00:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Nope, you're not quite right. There are some "guitar-related websites" around that provide more than songs and tabs. They empower guitartist community, they provide guitars / equipment review, interviews with famous guitarists, tutorials, etc. Almost anything that any good "guitar magazine" would publish. It's a subculture and there's lots of notable sites I'd like to see mentioned in wikipedia. -- GreyCat 08:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strongly keep, but reparent from Category:Websites to Category:Music websites. Guitar-related websites are really a separate, but nowadays small category that host things specific to guitarist subculture: tabs, chords, guitar / misc equipment reviews, guitarist article, tutorials, etc. It has almost nothing to do with regular public music websites that all are more or less dedicated to music reviewing, news, encyclopaedism and community terms. -- GreyCat 08:36, 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 02:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Legislative Branch of the United States Government. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• support... otherwise someone might add sexual intercourse to it (which means the same thing as "congress"). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete (empty). David Kernow 18:38, 12 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 02:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - already supplanted by the more appropriately named Category:Eccentrics. Note: I created this category in the first place. Cleduc 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, Cleduc and use of "notable". David Kernow 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above arguments. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:46, 11 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 Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 23:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:Norwegian engineers (caps / speedy delete?). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per nom (yes, make proposals involving capitalization alone at WP:CfD#Add requests for speedy renaming here – thanks!) David Kernow 23:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:03, 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 listified. Syrthiss 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This should be converted to a list, imho -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Convert to a list It already is a list. All that would have to be done is to copy the text to List of social network researchers and add another category tag, Category:Lists of people by occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffW ( talk • contribs)

I agree. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Listify per JeffW. David Kernow 23:20, 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 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, plus faulty capitalization. David Kernow 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete mistakenly created by a new editor unfamiliar with wiki categories. -- Etacar11 19:56, 12 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 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

See: Category:International and regional union federations (merged, but not deleted) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• delete, was left as a temporary measure when merged. -- Bookandcoffee 20:01, 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 which caused a big stir at the time but which will quickly be forgotten. Syrthiss 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom (joke category). David Kernow 23:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as a joke. Has potential to contain thousand of articles here, though. Pavel Vozenilek 21:05, 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 Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 23:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Blanked by creator, speedy delete? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. David Kernow 23:24, 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 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete (and most other hyphenated-American plus occupation cats!) Valiantis 14:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Valiantis. Hawkestone 22:43, 15 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 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty and unused, pigeon -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 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. Syrthiss 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl 11:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom Palendrom 03:53, 11 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 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Category has been empty and unused since its creation 10 weeks ago. -- BrownHairedGirl 11:49, 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 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete it can only become a mere duplicate of Category:Canadian soccer players as 98% of players listed here have played one or more internationals. Mayumashu 15:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename category:Canadian international soccer players. Over time the number without international caps will rise. This category exists for other countries and is sure to exist for Canada in the long run, so let's not waste time deleting it and recreating it. Bhoeble 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename per Bhoeble. David Kernow 23:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Bhoeble. Conscious 09:06, 15 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 and make catredirect at natives of reading. Syrthiss 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Natives of Reading are called Redingensians, not Readingites. Robwingfield 12:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support as per nom. Mayumashu 15:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support - the following was left at Category talk:Readingites - I created this page after searching endlessly for what natives from Reading are called. Seeing as I made a mistake it's only appropriate to rename it! 72.139.52.150 01:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC) -- Robwingfield 09:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Alternative rename Category:Natives of Reading (standard form for such cats in UK). If someone had to research the correct name then it can't be in common usage; demonyms are only tolerable if widely recognised. Valiantis 14:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I take the point about common usage, but there are other categories such as Category:Liverpudlians ( Liverpool) and Category:Novocastrians ( Newcastle upon Tyne) for when there is an actual word available to describe a native of a particular town/city, i.e. there is no standard form. I'd rather have the category as Category:Redingensians and a category redirect at Category:Natives of Reading. Robwingfield 15:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support use of established demonym. Brcreel 13:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support alternative rename Demonyms should be reserved for the very commonly known ones. -- JeffW 18:08, 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 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

In line with existing categories for other Greek peripheries, see Category:Peripheries of Greece. Damac 10:27, 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. Syrthiss 02:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

In line with existing categories for other Greek peripheries, see Category:Peripheries of Greece. Also, there needs to be a distinction made between the peninsula and periphery of the Peloponnese. Damac 10:27, 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. Syrthiss 02:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

In line with existing categories for other Greek peripheries, see Category:Peripheries of Greece. Damac 10:27, 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. Syrthiss 02:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant. Already exists as Category:The Dodecanese. Damac 10:16, 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 merge as nominated, bring the fictional british knights to fictional knights as a separate nom if needed. Syrthiss 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I did a pretty good search and couldn't find anybody else to add to it. Replace with Category:Fictional British knights. Jonathan D. Parshall 09:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

It's also inaccurate, since the Doctor was knighted by Queen Victoria and the Order of the British Empire wasn't created until 1917, 16 years after her death. -- Necrothesp 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. I shall also nominate Category:Fictional Dames Commander of the British Empire Tim! 17:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I recatted the two entries in Category:Fictional British knights to Category:Fictional knights, most several of whom are British and which doesn't appear to merit a subcat. — Wh o uk ( talk) 13:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• COMMENT these are members of the Order of the British Empire... are there fictional cats for MBE, OBE? 132.205.45.148 02:00, 12 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 no consensus (but rename). Syrthiss 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• I frankly dont see the point of this category. What significance does an ethnicity have in living at a place. I fail to see what does cities have in comon just because Kurds happen to live there. If this is ok, so should be Category:White inhabited region.
• This also rises interesting questions. How many kurds or what percentage qualify as "inhabited" serve. I'd also like to note that there are no census data regarding kurds.
• I'd like to note the arguments in the recent cfds of Category:Kurdish provinces, Category:Kurdish cities.
• Delete -- Cat out 09:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Comment. To understand the point of this category one might read: Peter Singer, The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, New York : Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1981. ISBN 0374151121 -- Moby 13:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  So the reason of this category is so complex one has to read a book to understand... -- Cat out 12:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Gosh, there must be some way of getting Kurdistan-related entries organised together in categories. Cool Cat seems to have vociferously opposed all of them so far, in a way that I'm beginning to find disruptive. This one even was an attempt at finding a compromise in his favour. Lukas ^{(T.| @)} 11:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rename to Kurdish inhabited regions - Agree with Lukas. Much effort has gone into discussing this whole issue at Category talk:Kurdistan but User:Cool Cat is adamant in his desire to delete. -- Moby 11:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts -- Moby 11:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This category was created by User:Ed Poor as part of the discussions at Category talk:Kurdistan. -- Moby 14:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Lets not make this personal. Cool cat has a point, this "region" is usually not only inhabited by Kurds but by others too and the consensus is usually not provided or poorly recorded, plus Kurds have a big community in London too..should we add London to the "Kurd inhabited region"? Its just too vague, so for the sake of preventing edit wars over which to be in the category and which not to, I say Delete. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. However, I must say that I am impressed by the vigority this user conitunes their attempt to disrupt anything related to Kurdishness. Bertilvidet 14:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That user has not attempted to "disrupt" articles related to kurdish culture or language or a large variety of topics and articles. I am very spesific in what I nominate. There is no other example of a categorization criteria based on "ethnicity" even when census data is avalible anywhere else on wikipedia. Why should kurds be treated any differently? -- Cat out 19:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Category:Kurdish cities and Category:Kurdish provinces. Draw a list. -- Cretanforever 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Another politically motivated nomination. Bhoeble 21:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Cool Cat is pushing his luck. -- Mais oui! 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  That isnt a criteria for deletion discussions. -- Cat out 19:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per comments by Kashk and Cretanforever. The category is too vague. Oh, and one shouldn't vote based on who nominated it, but on the merits of the category. I'm saying it's too vague. If someone can spell out inclusion criteria, I may be pursuaded to keep it. - Mgm| ^(talk) 10:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: In the context of Category:Kurdistan (see Category talk:Kurdistan) I have been seeking to categorize the region currently and historically occupied by Kurds. It is not my intention (or anyone else's that I can see) to tag Paris or some restaurant in Berlin as Kurdistan or Kurdish inhabited. -- Moby 10:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Agree with Moby. Also, make it clear that listing a region in this category does not mean that the land "belongs to Kurds" or "ought to be part of a national homeland for Kurds" - merely that a large percentage of Kurds live there. -- Uncle Ed 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: ( Category: Hispanic inhabited regions) = a good number of U.S. cities...( Category: Moslem inhabited regions) = Bradford, Saint-Denis, Anderlecht...( Category: Kurdish inhabited regions) (supposing it will be changed to plural, since the category we are discussing has been created so hastily with the perspective of deletion looming for the two other related categories, that not even the use of singular/plural has been put right) = İstanbul, İzmir, Manisa, Adana, Mersin, Haymana, Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen, Nantucket. There's no end to either of them. I added Milas already, since it is my hometown and there are a good number of Kurds there. Draw a list. -- Cretanforever 14:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete despite reservations about nomination: this nomination appears to be in bad faith and deliberately antagonistic to compromise. However this category has an awful name grammatically and it still doesn't seem to be well-defined. We desperately need a compromise category that contains the articles I (and most other people here) know "ought" to go in it... but for instance, I know that Berlin probably shouldn't go in this "ideal" category yet it is one of the world's major Kurdish population centers and (under its current name) should be sorted in the nominated one. Hmmm. We need more thought on the name of the category, if we go with a category, and this certainly isn't it. A list may be a far better idea for this kind of thing, but a well-defined, useful, neutral, meaningful category would be good too. This one is neutral-ish, not very meaningful (if the name was taken at face value), and (if we used the category as its name suggests) would be next to useless. My home town was used as center for Kurdish refugees, and therefore could be sorted here. That's simply not useful... and extending it to other national/ethnic/cultural groups could get out of hand. All this said, I urge the nominator, and some of the other delete voters, to engage more in a spirit of consensus-building than Kurdodeletionism. TheGrappler 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

On second thoughts I now accept the nominator's good faith - this category has a genuinely appalling name and I think nobody would have cut any slack to "Irish inhabited region"/"Hispanic inhabited region"/"Chechen inhabited region". A name that is grammatically incorrect and doesn't make it clear which type of article should belong or not is a strong sign the category should be renamed and rescoped at the very least. I also believe it is an utterly reasonable belief that we should not start to mix ethnic and geographical categories and therefore the nomination is good faith, even if not as compromising as others would like. I am unsure about the issue of joint ethnic/geographic categories, but certainly it needs to be done better than this effort. Perhaps there is a place for Category:Cities in the United States with a 40-50% African American population, Category:Cities in the United States with a 10-20% Hispanic population, Category:Towns in the United Kingdom with a 30-40% Asian population, Category:Towns in Russia with a 20-30% Chechen population, Category:Towns in Turkey with a 60-70% Kurdish population.... assuming there was reliable, uncontentious data available. I'm open on that question. However, this category (under its current name) is certainly not the way forward, and I will accept as good faith any efforts to delete by users who disagree with combining ethnic and geographical categories. My public apologies to Coolcat. TheGrappler 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not a helpful category. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Category:Kurdish cities and Category:Kurdish provinces — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattusili ( talk • contribs) diff
• Delete It already says in the article that there are many Kurds living there. But there are also many Kurds in Istanbul, İzmir, Antalya, etc.. and even Sweden. Do we really have to categorize this like "look there are many Kurds living here"???. Metb82 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I thought this category was created as the result of a compromise... — Khoikhoi 23:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Name could perhaps be improved. Osomec 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is a Kurdistan article, according to which there are Kurdish inhabited areas in the Middle East. Hence one can think of a category for the districts that fall under the definition of Kurdistan. There are only two option for such a category: Either Kurdistan category or Kurdish Inhabited Regions Category. Since opponents do not like any of those, I suggest that they try their luck with deleting the Kurdistan-related articles altogether. Problem solved :) Heja Helweda 04:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment there is no definitive definition of Kurdistan so how can we say "Hence one can think of a category for the districts that fall under the definition of Kurdistan" when we have no way to tell whether or not an article belongs in such a category? People disagree about the limits of Kurdistan. People have been killed because of disagreements about the limits of Kurdistan! There is not sufficient reliable, trustworthy data to decide which areas have a Kurdish majority/significant minority population. Many of the biggest centers of Kurdish population are in Western Europe (should they be included in this category?). Nobody here is talking about mass deleting Kurdish articles, the problem is nobody has found a satisfactory way of categorizing them. I would also like to find a good way of categorizing them, but this category is awful - a grammatically incorrect name that would include large areas of Western Europe. If you would care to give an adequate definition of what should and shouldn't go in the "proper" category (I think both you and I would agree about which individual articles should go in, but I honestly can't come up with a "rule" to decide whether to include or exclude any given article - and remember, the outcome of the rule has to be binary - "yes" or "no" - and uncontentious) then please share with us what your exact definition is and what would be the name of a category that adequately reflected that rule. "Kurdish inhabited region" is just daft... London? Berlin? Sweden? I "know" what it is meant to achieve but at the moment it just isn't achieving it: it's not precise, it's not possible to tell which articles belong to the category or not, it's a categorization requiring citations to back it up, which is always likely to be a problem... we need more thought. TheGrappler 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep - but correct the title. Telex 10:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep after the recent attempt to delete Turkish Kurdistan, another nomination about an article related to the Kurds is also nominated... Am i paranoid that i see political motivations behind this action? -- Hectorian 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  before jumping to conclusions and asuming bad faith, try responding to the arguments. A response without a rationale is a response without a rationale. Key question is, should we be categorising by ethnicity? -- Cat out 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The category is useful. These areas are indeed inhabited by Kurds. An alternative title would be 'Kurdish homeland' (or something...). The reasons are enough for me. Of course, my question to whether I am paranoid or not, was a rhetorical one... -- Hectorian 00:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not trying to dispute weather or not kurds live there, that is an entierly different argument and this naomination has nothing to do with it. We do not categorise by ethnicity anywhere else on wikipedia. Where am I supposed to consider "kurdish homelands"? Should I mark France as " Category:White homeland"? -- Cat out 08:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Useful for organizing information. `' mikka (t) 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Because Kurds exist and Kurdish inhabited regions exist. Ozgur Gerilla 01:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Atoms also exist, do we tag every article about any object with Category:Atom. I frankly dont see the point of your argument. -- Cat out 12:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Politics aside, it's a useful cat to group related articles. -- Irpen 05:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Stockholm is related to Hakkari? They arent even on the same country much less same continent... O_O [1] [2] -- Cat out 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Fixed Stockholm. -- Moby 09:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Why? Kurds do live there. They live in rome too. Why is Ankara and Istanbul a kurdish inhabited region and yet Stockholm is not? Why shouldn't I tag Michigan State University with this category? I met kurds there... -- Cat out 11:58, 18 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 02:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The criteria is entirely too subjective. Would John Cusack qualify even though he really only had one action movie, Con Air? Dismas| ^(talk) 08:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as too vague, plus faulty capitalization. David Kernow 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom --too much of a grey area Palendrom 03:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Did anyone else notice the recursive categorization? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:42, 11 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 Deleted -- Cyde Weys 00:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Rename to conform to the other "User Xyz" cats and remove the annoying semi-double-namespace part, which breaks Special:Allpages slightly (try setting the namespace to category and pages starting at "user:") SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 05:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not an encyclopedic category. -- Cyde Weys 22:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Doesn't make much sense either way. Hawkestone 22:43, 15 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 mod per other discussion. Syrthiss 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to match all the other categories in Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment to the closer - see also [ [3]] for a renaming of the target. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:42, 15 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 'ename 'ename!. Syrthiss 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The title of the program includes the exclamation mark (hence the page is at 'Allo 'Allo!), so we should rename to be consistant with that. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 04:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Tim! 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:27, 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 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty; I have now moved this page to Category:Afghan Jews. Marcus 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as convention in Category:Jews by country is for Fooish Jews. mattbr³⁰ 11:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Mattbr30. -- BrownHairedGirl 11:46, 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 withdrawn. Syrthiss 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty; has been obsoleted in the new military history categorization scheme (primarily by Category:Warfare by period and Category:Military history by country, although some others are also applicable), as it's basically most of Category:War and Category:Military lumped together. Kirill Lok s h in 01:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. People will look for a "military history" category and also for a "History of war" category. Similar arguments to those I raised for keeping separate "war" and "military" categories. Also, there may be other ways to organise military history articles in future, not just by country. For example, the military articles could be organised by period. Additionally, there should be a catch-all category for all historical aspects of war and military things. At the moment, the best would seem to be WikiProject Military history... ;-) Carcharoth 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll just note that Category:Warfare by period is organizing them by period ;-) If we keep this category, somebody needs to figure out what we should put in it (as opposed to some other category); as it is now, it doesn't seem to be very useful, even if the name is convenient. Kirill Lok s h in 11:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Very strong keep This "history" project seems to ignore the need to have a comprehensive category:History. It isn't difficult to find categories which should go in this category. Bhoeble 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep as per and Carcharoth. -- BrownHairedGirl 11:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep as per Carcharoth and Bhoeble, this would be of great help as a navigational starting point to users Palendrom 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

  Fair enough; since this obviously isn't going anywhere, there's no point in wasting more time with it. Consider the nomination withdrawn. :-) Kirill Lok s h in 14:49, 11 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 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty; has been obsoleted in the new military history categorization scheme (primarily by Category:Warfare by type). Kirill Lok s h in 01:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As the "warfare" categories are subcategories of the "War" category, and "warfare" is here being used as a synonym for "war". Carcharoth 11:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 11:34, 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.