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

The result of the debate was rename all. -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Building and structure images to Category:Images of buildings and structures
• Category:Castle images to Category:Images of castles
• Category:Museum images to Category:Images of museums
• Category:Prison images to Category:Images of prisons (added 10-16)
• Category:National Register of Historic Places images to Category:Images of places listed on the United States National Register of Historic Places (added 10-17)
• Rename: Avoids difficulties with adjectivals and the primary purpose of the category (images) is clearer being at the begining. It also seems to read clearer. Vegaswikian 21:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 03:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'd like to add Category:National Register of Historic Places images to this nomination. However I can not come up with a short name that follows this format. What I think works as the correct title is Category:Images of places listed on the United States National Register of Historic Places. As you can guess that is not something I'd like to propose. Any better suggestions? Vegaswikian 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom. And I think that that's a perfect name, vegaswikian. - jc37 08:51, 17 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:S.C.I.F.I. World ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television#Categories, "TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network." CovenantD 20:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I am thinking about all the re-runs ever shown on a local station : ) - jc37 08:51, 17 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Freedom ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant category. There are thousands of articles than can placed under "freedom". It's also far too bold. Freedom, how? It does not give an explanation. It's just called freedom. It dosen't clarify if it's freedom in literature, actions, feelings, etc. Either should be deleted or renamed UnDeRsCoRe 19:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I don't know at all what this is trying to express. It seems very abstract. What connection does Peace have to freedom? -- Newt _{Ψ Φ} 19:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Far too broad, and there are always going to be placements based on original research. Plus, think of what would happen if someone tried to place Iraq War or October Revolution in this category. Picaroon9288 20:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Looking at the contents it is unmaintainable. Missing Freedom is Slavery. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete; too vague. David Kernow ( talk) 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Over and misuse has made "freedom" one of the least useful words in the lexicon. Calsicol 10:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Freedoms. I know I'm going against the pack here, but I think this is a useful category that could use some clean-up and populating. - jc37 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I could never trust the selection of contents chosen for this category, so I don't want less critical users to be exposed to it. Piccadilly 14:27, 17 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per creator. David Kernow ( talk) 03:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Congressional districts of Northwest Territory ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I made this category. It's just no longer necessary. — Markles 19:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support. You can nominate for speedy deletion with {{ db-author}}. -- Dhartung | Talk 01:38, 15 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:United States Courts of Appeals to Category:United States courts of appeals

• Rename, Rename to match parent article of United States court of appeals. Opposition to speedy rename was based on the incorrect belief that United States court of appeals is a proper noun. — DLJessup ( talk) 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Ought to have been speedy. — Markles 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• rename rename per nom Hmains 19:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support and note #Category: United States Courts of Appeals judges further down the page. -- Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Rename per nom. - jc37 08:51, 17 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Per the amended nomination below, suggest Category:Famous gems renamed to Category:Individual gemstones   Category:Named gemstones (amended per Bookgrrl below). David Kernow ( talk) 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC), amended 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as nom. If renamed, will rename List of famous gemstones accordingly. David Kernow ( talk) 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Is the word "famous" really contentious? I don't see why it would be; the articles I checked all state why that particular gem is famous. However, if it must be renamed I'd suggest "Named gems" as the new title. After all, each gem in the world is an "individual gem"; presumably the point of this category is to identify a few particular ones that have been named for some particular reason. -- Bookgrrl 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Support as amended :) -- Bookgrrl 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Thanks!   David ( talk) 03:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Good point re "individual"/"named" – thanks – so I've amended the proposal accordingly. Hope you'll feel able to support. Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to category:Named gemstones, per discussion. - jc37 08:51, 17 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Suggest Category:Famous diamonds renamed to Category:Diamonds Category:Individual diamonds   Category:Named diamonds (re-amended per Bookgrrl in discussion above); that contentious word "famous" not needed. David Kernow ( talk) 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC), re-amended 02:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as nom. David Kernow ( talk) 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per above. AuburnPilot 17:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- musicpvm 17:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Misfired original nomination; have amended Diamonds to Individual diamonds. (See parent categories for context.)

• Rename per amended nom. If renamed, I'll rename List of famous diamonds accordingly. David Kernow ( talk) 17:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Since we don't have a Category:Diamonds, why not use that? Rename. >Radiant< 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Too similar to Category:Diamond...?  Thanks, though, for suggestion, David Kernow ( talk) 02:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose for reasons stated at Famous gems above. -- Bookgrrl 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Rename per amended nom above :) -- Bookgrrl 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Thanks!   David ( talk) 03:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Amended per Famous gems above. Hope you feel able to support. Yours, David Kernow ( talk) 02:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to category:Named diamonds, per discussion. - jc37 08:51, 17 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Athletes suffering strange injuries ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Inherently POV and incapable of precise definition. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 17:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, vague and POV. -- musicpvm 17:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete vague, speculative category that violates NPOV. Wryspy 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Bookgrrl 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete "strange"? : ) - jc37 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. Aside from the serious POV issue, and the fact that many other athletes ( Clint Barmes for example) should be there but aren't, I checked some articles, and it's not even easy to find within the articles evidence that the injury was strange, or that the strangeness is noteworthy in any real way. 129.98.212.164 04:29, 18 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Acquaintances of Lewis Carroll ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete This is an awful precedent that needs to be stamped on. Think of the category clutter that would result if we had such a category for every famous person! Hawkestone 16:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep or listify, in the case of lewis carroll, we have someone who is a bit beyond a 'famous' person, we have someone who changed the way people think about the world. My online concern is that there is an adequate standard of inclusion using verifiable sources. If that exists, then, documenting and providing this information is part of what an encyclopedia does. -- Buridan 16:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Yet another attempt to turn categories into a database tool. Pavel Vozenilek 22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as being someone's acquaintance is not an inherent quality. -- Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and possibly listify with citations. David Kernow ( talk) 03:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Do not listify until well cited. Wryspy 05:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and do not listify. Key acquaintances should be mentioned in the main text of the article. Wikipedia has a over emphasis of lists, because they are easier than good prose articles for non-experts to produce. Calsicol 10:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - requires citations, which of course can't be done in a category. - jc37 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and don't listify. He is in no way "beyond a famous person." Recury 19:34, 19 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:LGBT television series to Category:LGBT television

• Rename, to broaden the scope of the category. Technically now it does not encompass TV movies such as An Early Frost (although I stuck it there for lack of a better alternative) or LGBT-related specials. Otto4711 16:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A television series cannot have sex with another television series of the same gender. Do not simply rename. A television cannot have sex with a television of the same gender. Wryspy 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and expand the definition of Category:LGBT-related films to include made-for-TV films. CovenantD 06:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wryspy. Besides, LGBT-related jokes occur in most sitcoms nowadays. >Radiant< 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wryspy. The LGBT categories are a nightmare anyway. There is not enough stipulation on what, where or whom goes into them, no pun intended. ( Animedude 09:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wryspy and Animedude. Most of the LGBT categories should be deleted as they show the systemic bias of Wikipedia's mainly young Western editor base all too clearly. Calsicol 10:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm curious as to whether comments like "a television can't have sex with another television" are made out of ignorance or if the people making them think they're funny or what. Clearly the categories which include "LGBT" in reference to inanimate objects are not about those inanimate objects having sex with one another. As is clearly noted in the category description, the category is for television series which include one or more LGBT characters. But if it's really so grating on people, the idea that a category name could suggest that gay TVs might be having sex with each other, then as an alternate naming proposal I suggest Category:LGBT-related television programs, to bring the name in line with the existing LGBT-related movies category. Otto4711 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too nebulous. "[P]layed a prominent role in the evolving presentation of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered characters in entertainment." How prominent? According to whom? What does "evolving presentation" mean? What do you have to do to be considered to have had a "role in" it? Bookgrrl 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Excellent point. Please review the updated category description. Otto4711 22:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:LGBT-related television series, to match with Category:LGBT-related films, and expand the latter to include TV movies.
• Delete - For the same reason that we should delete category:Single mom-related television series, or category:Office worker-related television series. - jc37 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per jc37 and others. Piccadilly 14:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I'm mostly indifferent to the renaming, but this is a meaningful and socially significant category. Wryspy's deletion rationale is a joke, or should be: "LGBT television" is as valid a concept as LGBT literature or LGBT music. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

per Josiah Rowe -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 13:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Another LGBT deletionist nomination? Wryspy's 'joke' is far more offensive than it is funny. It is REALLY clear what this catagory is for. I suppose those voting 'delete' here will promptly place Category:Black sitcoms or similiar categories up for deletion or risk exposing the fatal inconsistency with their (already quite obviously flawed) logic. CaveatLector ^Talk 04:46, 23 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Military defeats ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Generally a bad idea, as the vast majority of military encounters result in a defeat for somebody - this category could have such a large population as to be virtually useless. As it stands right now, itis subject to potential NPOV concerns, as the battles that have been added follow no logic other than "this seems to have been a particularly embarrassing defeat," which is an inherently non-neutral determination. Carom 16:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, a very bad idea since a defeat is also a victory for somebody else, so this title violates NPOV. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It doesn't violate NPOV, but it is pointless. Hawkestone 16:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no way to apply NPOV (many battles receive quasi-mythical treatment in English historiography, leaving little correlation between the popular (mis)conception and what actually happened on the battlefield—systemic bias of the most acute kind) and no real criteria for inclusion. Albrecht 16:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Bookgrrl 21:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Save Surely there must be some place to put the most notable defeats in history. Right now there is nothing to connect the Alamo or Waterloo or Pearl Harbor as military debacles. The category specifies not just any defeat, but hisorically notable defeats, surely there is no POV problem with classifying the Alamo or Waterloo as notable defeats. "this category could have such a large population as to be virtually useless - No is this is only for NOTABLE defeats.. As it stands right now, itis subject to potential NPOV concerns - How can Waterloo be considered as a non-neutral point of view? "this seems to have been a particularly embarrassing defeat," - exactly which is an inherently non-neutral determination - How can anybody possibly argue that determining that Waterloo was a massive defeat possibly be non-neutral?? Tthis title violates NPOV. - No it does not if everybody agrees it was a defeat. "but it is pointless." It is pointless to NOT note the Waterloo was one ofthe most notable defeats in history. To not note it would be pointless. "no way to apply NPOV" This is ridiculous, there is no debate or POV of any of the currently listed battles. "systemic bias of the most acute kind" What bias? Custer lost. Texans lost the Alamo. No POV. All of the reasoning given here are just plain silly. --~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarcaddy ( talk • contribs)
• Delete Per Nom PPGMD 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all above.-- Zleitzen 23:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Who was defeated? What evidence do we have of the defeat? Oh, right, citations... Delete.- jc37 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Could contain every battle ever fought (one can always argue that a "statemate" was northing of the kind). Piccadilly 14:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per nom, ludicrusity of objective ;why not have Notable vistories instead? No, didn't think so.-- Dryzen 18:16, 17 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Eastern European Political parties into Category:Political parties in Europe

• Merge, This title is problematic as the definition of Eastern Europe is not generally agreed. The introduction refers to the Soviet era, but an ever increading portion of the parties in the subcategories did not exist in that era. Category:Political parties in Europe is sufficient. Landolitan 14:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Locate someone from the Czech Republic/Hungary/Poland/Slovakia in Eastern Europe and you'll know why. GDR is omitted. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. David Kernow ( talk) 03:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. Anachronism. Calsicol 10:57, 15 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Eyepatch wearers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fictional eyepatch wearers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category system should not be burdened with categories that connect people on the basis of trivial attributes that to not reveal any essential similarity between the various individuals concerned. Hawkestone 11:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete trivial overcategorization. -- Newt _{Ψ Φ} 15:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Interesting information. --- RockMFR 15:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The world is full of information that is interesting to some people but not appropriate for an incorporation into the structure of an encyclopedia. What makes this important enough to merit a category? Hawkestone 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Much too specific -> overcategorization. AuburnPilot 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, too narrow, but consider Fictional characters with visual impairments. -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 17:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Secondary categories should be implemented as this kind of classification is obviously believed as useful by too many people. Pavel Vozenilek 23:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this excess. The parameters for inclusion are undefined. Many characters have worn eyepatches without wearing them habitually, maybe as part of a pirate costume. What's next, fictional characters who carry gold watches? Overcategorization like this will cause Wikipedia to have more categories than articles. Do the math. Wryspy 05:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above users. Calsicol 10:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - While I don't necessarily consider this trivial, I do think it would be better as a list, rather than a category. - jc37 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - hey look, a list -- HKMarks TALK CONTRIBS 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Eventually it would be split into Category:Fictional wearers of eyepatches on their left eye and Category:Fictional wearers of eyepatches on their right eye. And that way lies madness. Postdlf 16:50, 20 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:LGBT rights movement into Category:LGBT civil rights

• This category is too thinly differentiated from its parent. I think a merge would make things easier to find, especially since this category is made almost entirely out of subcategories. -- Beland 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to category:LGBT social movements to match the article name. Though I do think that some of the articles in the parent cat should be moved to this cat. - jc37 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose or Rename to Category:LGBT movement. Intangible 23:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Spell out the acronym which is not widely used in all parts of the world. >Radiant< 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I vaguely recall (perhaps incorrectly!) a consensus somewhere to retain "LGBT" (but ideally with one-line explanation on each category's page in which it appears)...?  Unsure, David Kernow ( talk) 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 11:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge into Category:LGBT rights movement which is a neutral term. "LGBT civil rights" implies to me that separate rights should exist, a POV which I do not share. Everyone should have the same rights regardless of orientation (right to vote, right to marry a member of the opposite gender etc), and LGBT people should not have additional rights. Hawkestone 11:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge into Category:LGBT rights movement. A more generic name. Vegaswikian 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge into Category:LGBT rights movement. The term "Civil rights" is much more used in the U.S. than other English speaking countries. Calsicol 10:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge both into Category:LGBT rights to match precedent set by Category:Civil rights, Category:Men's rights, Category:Minority rights, etc. "Civil rights" tends to have more specific connotations. - Sean Curtin 00:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Merely re-affirming my comment from the previous listing: Rename to category:LGBT social movements to match the article name. (See my comment above.) - jc37 08:51, 17 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- RobertG ♬ talk 08:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Dubious historical resources

• Delete as inheritantly POV.-- Jersey Devil 05:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete the article List of dubious historical resources was deleted with good reason. See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dubious historical resources for discussion. This inheritantly POV category should suffer the same fate.-- Oakhouse 06:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Oakhouse  Jorcoga  08:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the AFD. >Radiant< 10:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 11:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete; dubious category. David Kernow ( talk) 14:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Newt _{Ψ Φ} 15:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Jersey Devil. AuburnPilot 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I pretty much randomly loaded up an article and was rather alarmed to see such a category. heqs 01:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename None of the articles in this category are resources, but it is a useful collection of bizarre historical theories. Suggest rename to "Historical fallacies" or "Unproven historical theories." -- Bookgrrl 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Dubious according to who? - jc37 08:51, 17 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge both to Category:Internet activism -- Kbdank71 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Advocacy websites into Category:Electronic advocacy

• Merge, categories are pretty much exactly the same. --- RockMFR 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Actually, I would prefer merging both into Category:Internet activism, to match the current Internet activism article. --- RockMFR 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Well, as both categories already had "advocacy" in their names, and due to the semantic difference between advocacy and activism (and because it's more accurate in this context), I prefer "advocacy" (as I note below). - jc37 11:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Using the term "Internet advocacy" implies advocating the Internet, which is not what we're talking about. --- RockMFR 16:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Note that "Internet activism" has similar problems : ) - jc37 09:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• "Electronic advocacy"... Advocacy on the internet...?  Seems a more straightforward description... (I'm guessing all such advocacy would use the internet at some point.)   Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge both to category:Internet advocacy per the merge notice on the associated article(s): Electronic advocacy and Internet activism, and DK's comment above. - jc37 08:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Let's go with Advocacy on the internet per RockMFR's observation...?  (If so, merge Electronic advocacy and Internet activism accordingly.)  Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 01:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• That sounds fine with me. (Though I am wondering if "on the internet" is better than "online". I'm really unsure. Any thoughts?) - jc37 09:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Online advocacy is neater!    David ( talk) 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Variations of "online advocacy" and "online activism" are not good. The term "online" is not specific to just the Internet. Hence why we don't have categories named "Online culture" or "Online forums". --- RockMFR 20:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Is this category meant to be limited to the internet...?  Regards, David ( talk) 01:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Yeah, it's limited to stuff related to the Internet. --- RockMFR 14:13, 23 October 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 section.

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Famous transport infrastructures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
How are we to decide what is "famous"? I do not believe we can choose a bar for inclusion that meets WP:NPOV and does not make it redundant to Category:Transport infrastructure. NE2 01:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete, we've had the discussion many times and we're not going to have categories with the word "famous" in them. >Radiant< 10:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Would that apply to Category:Famous numbers, which has been around for a while and has some guidelines? -- NE2 10:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I can see the point of that cat, but I think it needs a different name, and a bit more focus. It contains several numbers known from pop culture (e.g. 42, 007) and several numbers with important mathematical properties (e.g. e, -1). I'd be in favor of splitting to clarify the distinction. >Radiant< 10:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Re Famous numbers, how about Significant numbers (borrowing "significant" from the rationale on the category page)...?  (Or are "significant numbers" mathematical objects yet to be given a Wikipedia article...?)   Regards, David Kernow ( talk) 14:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I've thrown it on today's CFR list for discussion. Please join. >Radiant< 08:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Roger that; thanks. David ( talk) 03:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Who is to say which are famous? Category names must be objective. Hawkestone 11:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Silk Road is omitted. Or rename to Category:Transport infrastructures famous in popular culture. Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete' all categories based on "fame". Calsicol 10:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I think that it's a good idea, but it does need a better name. If anyone comes up with a name that doesn't include "infrastructures", I might change my comment to rename. : ) - jc37 08:51, 17 October 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 section.