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, qualifies as speedy renaming. -- MarkSweep  (call me collect) 08:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:TelecommunicationsStandards

Badly named category, only content was TIA/EIA-568-B, which I've moved to Category:Computer and telecommunication standards. cesarb 23:46, 28 February 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 per its own description, "the 001 means nothing. aether is a lot of things." (nonsense) xaosflux ^Talk/ _CVU 02:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Appears to be bad faith addition / test. The category was added to Lightsaber but I removed it as I know it has nothing to do with lightsabers, at least. Deskana (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy - Nonsense created by a user who has been warned about nonsense edits. CG janitor 00:03, 1 March 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 -- Latinus 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Local councils is the official name. In quotation marks with Israel it receives 30 times as many hits. Local municipality is confusing as municipality is reshut mekomit and every such entity is specific to a location. Of the fewer hits, many spoke of people who turned to their "local municipality members", whether a local council, a regional council or city gidonb 21:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

There seem to be no objections, and 48 hours have passed; how do we move the category? -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 14:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nomination. gidonb 21:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, although I don't volunteer to move all the articles from Category:Local municipalities in Israel to the new one. Just moved all the local councils from Cities in Israel. By the way, I used local municipality from the start because it was already used in a number of articles and I assumed there was a good reason. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 21:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ynhockey, thank you for emphasizing this point. People may have translated concepts from Hebrew to the best of their understanding, without getting into the official terminology of Israeli local government. I appreciate your contribution to all articles on Israel!!! gidonb 23:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, local council is a better translation and more in line with the British roots left from the mandate period.-- Shuki 23:37, 28 February 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 oppose rename. — akghetto  ^talk 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The category is meant for fictional Americans but the way it's written, it could also mean fictional characters from American comics. --- Lancini87 18:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment Couldn't it just be American comics characters? Are there any non-fiction comics characters? But in any case I'm not sure this CfD should be taking place right now because a CfD for Category:Fictional Americans is still taking place (Feb. 22). -- JeffW 20:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean, and since no one has voted, i removed "fictional" and changed it to Category:Comics characters from the United States because Category:American comics characters could still mean fictional characters from American comics, and we know that not all of them are American. --- Lancini87 01:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, there already exists Category:Comics characters, not Category:Fictional comics characters. -- JeffW 21:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose after the rename I guess Superman goes, although he's from US comics, he's not from the United States. Carlossuarez46 19:13, 3 March 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/merge as nominated. — akghetto  ^talk 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Absolutely identical categories. The latter is older and and its name seems consistent with current Wikipedia naming trend. Cuppysfriend 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename as per nom. Choalbaton 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. - EurekaLott 03:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Should Category:United States Registered National Landmarks be renamed to Category:Registered National Landmarks of the United States so that these two similarly named categories follow the same form? Vegaswikian 19:16, 6 March 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 -- Latinus 22:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Commen sense says this can be shortened to "hip hop culture", although I have a feeling the category was created to backup this idea of there being a finite number of elements(some people say theres 4...some say 7...some say more than that...), which is POV by its very nature if thats the reason. Urthogie 15:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. Choalbaton 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename and Delete. CG 18:36, 1 March 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. — akghetto  ^talk 06:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

A category for people e-wrestling characters; non-notable topic, all pages in the category have been added to AFD. Proto|| type 12:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Update - all three characters in this category have been speedily deleted. Proto|| type 17:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Empty. Vegaswikian 23:28, 9 March 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. — akghetto  ^talk 06:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

limited use category, the one entry is also debatable whether they are British or Irish. Alibabs 11:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• As of the timestamp in my signature, the category appears to have no members, in which case I'd suggest Delete; but if it can be populated, Keep, as it seems a reasonable construct. David Kernow 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Empty. Vegaswikian 23:27, 9 March 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. — akghetto  ^talk 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Only one entry; obscure topic, limited growth potential. Keep cjllw has swayed my original thinking on this. JonHarder 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Most of the people who might be in this group might not be an english speaker, so this has no reason to exist on the English Wikipedia. Funnybunny 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is for the first time I see a category being member of itself. Pavel Vozenilek 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Describing these people as an 'obscure topic' is a little uncalled-for, and a rather relative statement which presumes the ignorance of the potential reader. They have as rich a heritage, culture and history as any other, whether known or not known by english-based editors, and accordingly its 'growth potential' is exactly the same as for all other peoples. The main limiting factor is the willingness or otherwise of wikipedia editors to research and expand upon related articles. Consider for example Category:Basque for an idea on how non-english speaking peoples have the potential for a great deal of coverage within WP-en. And the comment that it 'has no reason to exist on english wikipedia' is plain silly, since evidently this is not just an enyclopaedia about the english-speaking world, or even topics presumed to be of interest to english speakers. Perhaps the category could be criticised as being a little premature, in that related articles are yet to be written; but as the Basque example shows they have the potential to be. I agree though that the category at present appears malformed as assigned to a subcategory of itself, but that can easily be corrected and the category properly parented to some other ethnic group or societal category.-- cjllw | TALK 03:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • comment- as an addendum, I've now corrected the circular reference, and the category is now parented to some other appropriate cat, not itself.-- cjllw | TALK 04:24, 3 March 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 all. — Mar. 8, '06 [14:48] < freakof nu r_x ture | talk>

• Category:GameCube players to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo GameCube
• Category:Nintendo DS players to Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo DS
• Category:Windows XP users to Category:Wikipedians who use Windows XP
• Category:Firefox users to Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox

I suggest renaming of these categories to distinguish their being categories dedicated solely to users of the encyclopedia. KramarDanIkabu 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support They could do with better titles. Funnybunny 04:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not a big fan of the titles either, I just wanted to get this out there since its been bothering me for a while. Feel free to suggest. KramarDanIkabu 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Keep the category names short. If anyone tries putting them in articles, of course, they can be removed, but adding "Wikipedian" to every Wikipedian-categorizing category is just unappealing to me. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 05:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support, the hassle saved by clarifying what these categories are for far outweighs the bother a slightly longer category name brings. Particularly when the people who have these cats on their user page are almost always in about 50 other 'Wikipedians who ...' categories anyway, so the length of the category name makes little difference. Proto|| type 10:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Length not an issue, they only have to be entered once.-- cjllw | TALK 04:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support. Clarifies what this category is for, and most people get added due to adding a userbox anyway. -- *Wilfred* ( talk) 10:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedians who own iPods. — Mar. 8, '06 [14:39] < freakof nu r_x ture | talk>
category is misspelled, was prodded; I moved to cfr; ipod owners easier and more intuitive than iPod possessors Thatcher131 02:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support: The members of the category will be transfered to another category of the same reason for existance. Funnybunny 04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I suggest renaming to a category that makes self-reference clear. Category:Wikipedians who own iPods or Category:User ipod for example? KramarDanIkabu 03:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment I looked over the subcategories in category:Wikipedians and didn't see a consistent naming pattern; Category:Wikipedians who own iPods is quite clear but a little long? Anyway all I really wanted to do was get it out of prod. Thatcher131 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per KramarDanIkabu to Category:Wikipedians who own iPods, and not per the nomination. This also avoid's attempting to put the lowercase "i" at the front of the title, which simply doesn't work. — Feb. 28, '06 [08:09] < freakof nu r_x ture | talk>
• Delete both, do not rename. -- MarkSweep  (call me collect) 08:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Clarify: The first name is misspelled, the second name does not follow the naming conventions for user categories. Moreover, categorization of Wikipedians by gadget ownership serves no useful purpose. -- MarkSweep  (call me collect) 02:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per KramarDanIkabu to Category:Wikipedians who own iPods, and not per the nomination. Serving a useful purpose is irrelevant for Wikipedians categories - let people group together however they want. - Seth Mahoney 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete over-categorization, are we going to have Category:Toyota owners, Category:Dell owners, Category:Cuisinart owners, Category:Boxflex owners, (hopefully these are all red) etc.? They've sold millions of those gizmos, I would be nearly impossible to determine of the various Category:Living people who have sufficient means to purchase one who has and who hasn't and why does this even matter to an encyclopedia? Carlossuarez46 19:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who own iPods-- Samuel Wantman 00:39, 6 March 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. — Mar. 8, '06 [14:37] < freakof nu r_x ture | talk> This category doesn't make sense. Languages other than what? English? Rhobite 01:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC). reply

• Comment What about renaming the category, or merging it with a category whose name makes more sense? Funnybunny 04:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The category doesn't contain any articles and the text is meaningless, so I'm not sure how this could be merged. Rhobite 12:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Then I will change my vote to Delete. Funnybunny 02:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom KramarDanIkabu 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 06:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom Srasku 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. What? Nonsense. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:49, 2 March 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.