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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 14:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Seems like unnecessary duplication. We already have a full set of Cities in Canada and Category:Cities in the United States. - SimonP 23:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I have to agree on this. The category is indeed unnecessary duplication. Pentawing 00:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and/or make as parent, if there is still a belief that this category can be salvaged. Pentawing 01:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not needed as a parent; Category:Cities by country already exists. Bearcat 02:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• downMerge to most specific cat for any not already so cat'd. Is there any structural desire to retain this as a parent? - Splash 00:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but only as a parent category for the cities by country. Move any other contents into the appropriate subcategories. - Sean Curtin 01:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• keep - This category created by 24.203.7.52 hap-hazardously. Also, parent categories for other continents will need to be created to match. Scott Dial 01:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - A category listing every city in north america is unnecessary and irrelevant. If there's already a separate listing of cities in canada and the US, that should suffice. Perhaps add a listing of every city in mexico, too. Plus, such a category would take a long time to completely fill up. Dr. Cash 01:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Duplication. -- rob 01:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - redundant Vsmith 02:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete duplication. Category:Cities by country already exists as a parent for the national categories. Creator also added several problematic Canadian entries, such as Nepean, North York, Chicoutimi, Scarborough and Hull, all former cities which now exist only as neighbourhoods within larger amalgamated cities, and hence aren't even categorized as cities within the existing Category:Cities in Canada subtree. Bearcat 02:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - delete. I came across this category from Wikipedia's entry about my hometown. I find it kind of funny that next to "Cities in North America" is "Cities in Texas." It is redundant/duplicate. -- J. Nguyen 03:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - what Bearcat said. - EurekaLott 04:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - it's all been said -- JamesTeterenko 04:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nominator. -- Kbdank71 14:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nominator. -- Flex 18:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 20:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as supercat containing two named cats (and Category:Cities in Mexico?) but no individual articles. Septentrionalis 21:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Septentrionalis. -- FuriousFreddy 21:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Bearcat. siafu 21:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, unnecessary. older≠ wiser 01:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (I left comments yesterday, but they didn't get saved for some reason). What Bearcat said; note also that some towns are included in this cat, such as Newmarket, Ontario. Mindmatrix 01:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Redundant and overcategorization. RedWolf 03:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as harmless parent category. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:41, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Kbdank71 14:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty category. The category itself practically admits that it's a joke, as there's no such thing today as a "Native Latin speaker". TexasAndroid 19:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: the WikiBabel template seems to refer to this cat automatically with the {{User la}} template siafu 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete impossible. Was it LA-3 we had through here a while back? That was kept because you could be nearly native. It is factually impossible to be a native speaker. - Splash 00:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Perhaps if an ex-priest married and ex-nun and their only common language were Latin... but such cases are too rare to admit categorization. -- Flex 18:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless and not impossible. Montaigne spoke Latin before he spoke French; and some home-schooling programs seem to be heading back there. Septentrionalis 21:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• What about Category:User ang-N? There have been claimed to be native speakers of Sanskrit in various indian censuses, but I have doubts about Latin and Old English.... AnonMoos 15:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• keep per Septentrionalis. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:25, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
• Keep: The Romans laboured with the concept of zero: Roman_numeral#Zero. "The lack of a zero digit prevented Roman numerals from developing into a positional notation, and led to their gradual replacement by Arabic numerals". Why should we worry about nothing/zero? ¢ NevilleDNZ 11:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC) ¢ reply
  • Because an empty category is not zero. It's something. It uses up system resources with, in this case, no hope of ever becoming useful. TexasAndroid 11:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. siafu 23:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Note: Congrats, people. No way on earth to have a native latin speaker, and yet we couldn't get consensus. I'm so disappointed in you. (BTW, Montaigne doesn't count; he's dead, and not a wikipedian.) -- Kbdank71 14:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicates Category:Dreamcast games. I've already moved the only two entries over to the much more populated category. TexasAndroid 18:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Could've sworn we already did this one a few weeks ago. - choster 21:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, duplicate. "Dreamcast games" will suffice. K1Bond007 02:42, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Appears to be a nonsense category. Delete. Hall Monitor 17:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. BJAODN. siafu 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete; speedyable sez I. Bearcat 04:50, 1 September 2005 (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 moved to SFD -- Kbdank71 13:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Proposed name is unabbreviated.

• Aecis 16:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Moved to SFD -- Sherool 17:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

A category for articles about individuals that someone has decided have reached a certain standard. Artbitary, non-standard, and will never be complete. Superfluous and confusing as a subcategory of category:People. Delete CalJW 13:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, would be completely redundant with Category:People. siafu 17:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, also confusing with Category:Biographies. - SimonP 23:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but do not use for individuals, but for general topics or subcategories having to do with biography as a field of study, such as Category:Biographical dictionaries. Uppland 11:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. redundant Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:08, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Is "Ethnism" even a word of English?? (Google turns up only 333 hits, and a number are from this Wikipedia category and its mirrors.) The category only has three members and so does not seem to have been found useful. Rename it to a word or phrase actually moderately commonly used in the English language, or merge it with another appropriate category? (I'm having difficulty finding anything it could be merged with, other than "Ethnic Slurs", though...) Ideas? AnonMoos

• Merge with Category:Ethnicity (if any) and delete. R adiant _>|< 09:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Radiant. siafu 17:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Inappropriate neologism, but Category:Ethnicity isn't really the right merge for this; everything in the category is related to some form or another of discrimination against an ethnic or cultural group. Category:Racism or Category:Prejudices would be more appropriate merge destinations. Bearcat 04:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• The merge with Category:Prejudices seems best -- I was having trouble finding it. Thanks. AnonMoos 16:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:Ethnocentrism. A real word, and seems to be roughly what the category is aiming at. In fact, the entry for Ethnocentrism has a "List of" heading that would better be a category. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:06, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
  • A minor distinction, ethnocentrism is complacent smugness, but not necessarily active hatred or discrimination. Anyway, someone seems to have emptied category Ethnism into category Persecution. AnonMoos 23:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Note: Category is empty, there is nothing to merge. Hence, the deletion. -- Kbdank71 13:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Subjective and contentious who is included.

• Delete Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:52, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

The whole category of "Secular Jewish philosophers" seems foolish. At least half of those listed were only Jewish in some kind of racialist fantasy (whether anti-semitic or Zionist, I'm not certain, probably more of the first), not as anything really pertaining to their life or thought. I tried to temper the list criteria, but frankly I'd rather just get the category deleted. FWIW, this thought is spurred by Wittgenstein, who like many of the names sort of neither belongs on nor off the list.

• Delete. Two reasons. First, I'm not sure what the taxonomic merits of having categories like this are. Second, it can, like all schemes to pigeon hole people by religious faith, be very difficult to use (and verify, per WP:V). This is made even more difficult in this case by the complex nature of what it means to be Jewish. See this thread, for example.— Encephalon | ^ζ  05:08:02, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
• Delete per Encephalon's excellent summary. Nandesuka 15:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Depopulate and Destroy. (as though anyone doubted how I felt about it...) Tomer ^TALK 21:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this hopelessly fuzzy category. Who is a Jew is problematic enough. Add to that who is secular and the category could include potentially everyone or no one. In some cases it's difficult enough to decide who is a philosopher. -- D Monack 20:14, 4 September 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 13:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Split into Category:Fictional emperors and Category:Fictional empresses, parent each to Category:Fictional monarchs and Category:Emperors/ Category:Empresses as appropriate, and delete this. The categories for fictional kings and fictional queens are already distinct. - Sean Curtin 03:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong objection. Do not subcategorize by gender. This is the precise example on Wikipedia:Categorization of how not to categorize. R adiant _>|< 09:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Split as proposed The policy is totally misguided and should be changed. But it won't happen through this page. You should just have gone ahead and done it Sean. CalJW 13:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Object. Misguided or not, it is policy, and should be followed. -- Kbdank71 14:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Policies are not rigid and can change. CalJW 01:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • True, but this is not the proper venue to change a policy. -- Kbdank71 14:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Kdbdank71. Make a policy proposal if its warranted, but this violates WP:POINT. siafu 17:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as above. 1)Do not subcat by gender; 2)No additional information is gained by so doing. - Splash 00:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Er, it tells you what gender the person was. CalJW 01:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, mais naturellment. James F. (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Category:Emperors, Category:Empresses, Category:Kings, Category:Queens, Category:Fictional kings and Category:Fictional queens are all currently subdivided by gender. Those should all be merged and deleted if this category isn't to be split. After that, we should revisit the similar divide between Category:Gods and Category:Goddesses, a divide which had majority support when it was CfDed some months ago. - Sean Curtin 01:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Please see Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. R adiant _>|< 07:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Have seen it; policy is to discuss such issues. Keep Septentrionalis 21:27, 1 September 2005 (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.