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 12:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:George W. Bush administration controversies consistent and NPOV w.r.t. other administration lists. (see below). -- Tbeatty 21:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. BD2412 T 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ~ Jeff Q  (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. -- Sammysam 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to less pov term. CalJW 23:05, 22 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 merge (will list "Administration" for speedy to "administration"). Syrthiss 12:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Clinton Administration controversies. Current separation is POV. -- Tbeatty 20:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. BD2412 T 01:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ~ Jeff Q  (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. -- Sammysam 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment : Should that "A" be lowercase...?  Regards, David Kernow 16:23, 18 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 merge. Syrthiss 12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into the standard Category:Regions of Germany. -- Inge-Lyubov 20:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support nom. Green Giant 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as per nom. David Kernow 16:24, 18 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 support rename. Syrthiss 12:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Putting up some cats that have unofficial category redirects, as far as I can tell. Unofficial redirects are ones that have not gone through here, and thus have not been properly set up for automated bot enforcement. But they still have the cat-redir tag. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 16 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. Syrthiss 12:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Largely unattested (garners just 40 Google hits) term for films and television series about police officers operating outside of their usual environment. Parent article is itself listed on AFD. Delete as overcategorization. Bearcat 16:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, IMHO too broad. From the looks of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cop out of water, it is likely the term is not familiar enough for a category name either. - choster 20:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above. David Kernow 16:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. JoshuaZ 21:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, overcategorisation, very poor name. -- BrownHairedGirl 12:13, 21 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 no consensus. Syrthiss 13:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The content is covered in much more detail under Category:Towns and villages in Merseyside, the duplication is unnecessary. Shrew 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Merseyside is the only part of England that has combined categories. They should all be sudivided and the "towns and villages" categories should then be deleted. Carina22 20:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. In principle standardisation is desirable, but in this case it would hinder rather than help the user. Note that Category:Towns and villages in Liverpool has recently been renamed Category:Districts of Liverpool (not my proposal) and this is still fully referenced by using Category:Towns and villages in Merseyside. Delete is still proposed. Shrew 13:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support. Put the rest of England in line with Merseyside if that bothers you; its the more sensible way to do it, people shouldn't have to know which category they fall under in order to find them, especially when it is further subdivided below the Merseyside category. That overcategorization is counterproductive. Gene Nygaard 15:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support Overcategorization is confusing and unproductive. JoshuaZ 21:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose This isn't overcategorisation, it is standard categorisation. The change for Liverpool was appropriate because it is a city, but the other boroughs are not. If anything should go it is the borough categories (other than Liverpool). CalJW 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Keeping both Category:Towns and villages in Merseyside and Category:Towns in Merseyside seems excessive. Can you expand your views on what you would do with the other borough categories please. Shrew 09:00, 23 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 merge. Syrthiss 13:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into standard Category:Sport in Qatar. CalJW 15:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC). reply

• Speedy merge Bhoeble 15:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy merge. David Kernow 16:26, 18 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. Syrthiss 13:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Cities of Ancient Pakistan, Category:Cities of Ancient India, Category:History of ancient India, "ancient" is a subjective term. A proper periodization should be chosen instead, such as Middle kingdoms of India (are they 'ancient' or not?), Mughal Era etc. The distinction between "Pakistan" and "India" is pointless for periods before 1947; geographical terms like "Punjab" should be chosen insead. dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Saforrest 03:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. David Kernow 11:06, 19 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, but merge with Category:Lists of ambiguous human names in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry. Couldn't find a discussion on the talk page about moving this category, so I've reset the template to point to the original category. Please tag the page with a rename request and go through the proper channels, rather than saying that one 'merge' vote trumps nine 'keep' votes. Noisy | Talk 23:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep - if any subcats of disambig should exist, this one and geodis are the ones. It is useful for many foreseeable reasons to subdivide out some niches from the gigantic category of all disambig pages. BD2412 T 01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep - it's clearly useful. Themindset 19:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep its amazingly cool to look up famous people who have the same name!! JeffBurdges 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete too many human names also refer to something other than a human being - too confusing to maintain and navigate Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Only for self-nominators for adminship with editcountitis, some of us actually read and think before edits. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If a disambig page leads to both human names and other concepts (like Scarlet (disambiguation), then it's just a disambig page; if it only contains names of persons (like Thomas Baker) then it should have an hndis label. BD2412 T 20:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly identifiable subset of disambiguation page. -- User:Docu
• Keep. Although thinking about it, I can't see a clear use as some other voters have intimated they have. It's very poorly sorted at the moment, because not many people seem to use the 'name=' parameter to get the sorting done on surname. Seems like a candidate for a bot if (!) this survives CFD. Noisy | Talk 13:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with the existing Category:Lists of ambiguous human names created during discussion in January, and Rename to Category:Lists of human names sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Of all the issues facing us, tracking biographical articles is perhaps the one that concerns me most; and this category is an obvious step in the right direction. Charles Matthews 20:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep clearly useful. -- BrownHairedGirl 12:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Since "people" have a specialized style of disambiguation entry, it seems sensible that some editors might want to be able to FIND such entries. A number of editors have been trying to standardize the order, but have been sidetracked by the attempts to do away with it, so the argument that it's a mess is partly self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps they should be allowed to fix it. Chris the speller 05:02, 23 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, but merge with Category:Lists of ambiguous place names in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep as per the category for hndis. BD2412 T 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep extremely useful. JeffBurdges 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete too many place names also refer to something other than a human being - too confusing to maintain and navigate Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No harm. -- User:Docu
• Merge with the existing Category:Lists of ambiguous place names created during discussion in January, and Rename to Category:Lists of place names sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 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, but merge with Category:Lists of ambiguous place names in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete in favor of geodis above. Stars are places too. BD2412 T 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BDA, unless any astronomer votes keep. JeffBurdges 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete no need for a seperate category Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete in favor of {{ geodis}}, and Merge with the existing Category:Lists of ambiguous place names created during discussion in January, and Rename to Category:Lists of place names sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• KEEP it's an organization of disambiguation pages. Besides alot of stars have the same name. 132.205.46.156 21:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE: This is not a geographic category. Perhaps we should have an Category:Astronomical body disambiguation as a parent? 132.205.46.156 21:52, 22 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, but merge with Category:Lists of ambiguous place names in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete in favor of geodis. BD2412 T 01:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no need for a seperate category Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete in favor of {{ geodis}}, and Merge with the existing Category:Lists of ambiguous place names created during discussion in January, and Rename to Category:Lists of place names sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 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:Lists of ambiguous numbers in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep I'm surprised at how sparse it is. JeffBurdges 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's sparse because rampant disambiguators have been orphaning {{ numberdis}} without consensus about alternatives! -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete no need for a seperate category Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Rename to Category:Lists of mathematical terms sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Rename to Category:Lists of ambiguities including numbers. (The title proposed by WAS is not appropriate.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin ( talk • contribs)
  • I'm open to suggestions. My rename was to conform to other existing practice. Would Category:Lists of ambiguous numbers be more to your liking? -- William Allen Simpson 21:31, 19 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. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep Do you have any idea now much math words are overloaded? This category could be of very real use to working mathematicians, especially grad students. (yes, I am a professional mathematician). JeffBurdges 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not sure why these would have to be a seperate category. The issue isn't the existence of the dab pages, it's how to categorize them. Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This category is needed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics to maintain and track changes to mathematical pages, and is used to feed Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. The gooal is to make sure that all pages on math appear as a subcat of Category:Mathematics, as otherwise it is impossible to locate some random page on the disambig category and determine if its mathematical or not. I don't know how ya'll track things without having a category like this. linas 02:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's useful for us mathematicians and it does not seem to do any harm. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 04:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Rename to Category:Lists of mathematical terms sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Unambiguously keep. Much more useful than the monster Category:Disambiguation. Disagree with renaming to the long redlinked title above. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Trying to conform to existing practice, would Category:Lists of ambiguous mathematical terms be more to your liking? -- William Allen Simpson 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. per Linas and Oleg Alexandrov — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, keep. Nominator takes no account of the current use, let alone future uses. Charles Matthews 20:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep A very necessary category, considering how many different mathematical terms have radically different meanings. JoshuaZ 21:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Linas. Any better alternatives should be discussed and established before deleting a useful category. -- C S (Talk) 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's not broken. -- Ancheta Wis 13:38, 22 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, but merge with Category:Lists of ambiguous place names in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete in favor of geodis. BD2412 T 01:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BDA JeffBurdges 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete no need for a seperate category Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete in favor of {{ geodis}}, and Merge with the existing Category:Lists of ambiguous place names created during discussion in January, and Rename to Category:Lists of place names sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete CalJW 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:Geographical locations sharing the same title (if not already done) & Delete. Dan, the CowMan 01:50, 23 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. Syrthiss 16:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. A number of the pages in this category have multiple categories in addition to the dab category, which is also a no-no. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Seems quite useful to me. Care to elaborate? JeffBurdges 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete no need for a seperate category Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge with the existing Category:Lists of ambiguous human names created during discussion in January, and Rename to Category:Lists of human names sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. but I have asked for this discussion to be held open a while longer, to generate a clear consensus - there are an awful lot of these articles (see [1]), and I don't think the ambiguous human names category is quite the right fit (I've never met anyone named Hurricane Earl). BD2412 T 04:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Hatty (in the comic?), they are all human names, it would easily be done with category sort like all the other "Surname, Given". But there's an existing template, and an existing project, and it might be better let them keep it. Striking my merge suggestion, I was just trying to be consistent and accomodating. -- William Allen Simpson 00:36, 27 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, but merge with Category:Lists of ambiguous place names in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. The category talk page asks "what is the purpose of this category?", and there's been no answer for a year now. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete in favor of geodis. Galaxies are places. BD2412 T 01:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BDA, unless any astronomer votes keep. JeffBurdges 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete no need for a seperate category Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete in favor of {{ geodis}}, and Merge with the existing Category:Lists of ambiguous place names created during discussion in January, and Rename to Category:Lists of place names sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• KEEP disambiguation organization category 132.205.46.156 21:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE: This is not a geographic category. Perhaps we should have an Category:Astronomical body disambiguation as a parent? 132.205.46.156 21:51, 22 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. Syrthiss 13:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. If kept, change "dabs" to "disambiguation pages". - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. If people really want to tag a dab page as belonging to the realm of economics (why?), they can use an ordinary econ category. -- Smack ( talk)
• Delete same reason as math Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge and Rename to Category:Lists of mathematical terms sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. That rename is singularly inappropriate. Economics and mathematics overlap, but are not identical. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • There are only 3 terms in the category, was trying to fit with existing. Would Category:Lists of ambiguous economics terms be more to your liking? -- William Allen Simpson 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and merge back into regular disambigs. The two pages in this category now are not primarily economic terms at all, but are instead words with some economics-related meanings, and some non-economic meanings. BD2412 T 16:50, 25 March 2006 (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. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above; also, empty orphan. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Gtrmp Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- never used -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 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, but merge with Category:Lists of ambiguous place names in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

As above. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete in favor of geodis above. BD2412 T 01:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BDA. JeffBurdges 21:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete no need for a seperate category Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete in favor of {{ geodis}}, and Merge with the existing Category:Lists of ambiguous place names created during discussion in January, and Rename to Category:Lists of place names sharing the same title. -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 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. -- William Allen Simpson 11:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Category description and corresponding template suggest that these pages are only for homonym disambiguation, but these are ordinary dab pages that happen to also have homonyms included. That's a pointless distinction that doesn't need a subcategory or a separate template. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Trivial distinction, subject to change as items are added and removed from dabs. -- Smack ( talk) 04:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Smack Tedernst | talk 23:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- homonyms should always be a the "See also" section on a disambiguation page, along with misspellings -- William Allen Simpson 16:21, 19 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 speedy rename. - EurekaLott 04:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Purely grammatical in nature. Turning singular into plural. __earth ^{( Talk)} 09:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename. David Kernow 16:27, 18 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 moved to a TFD discussion as linked. Syrthiss 13:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Was proposed as a speedy rename to Category:Computer and video game character disambiguation, but Category:Disambiguation isn't supposed to have subcategories, especially when there are only three articles in that subcategory. - Sean Curtin 09:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep if you find more characters with eponymous video game titles. (unsigned comment from anon)
• Rename to Category:Lists of ambiguous computer and video game characters. Actually, this listing isn't really appropriate, as it is generated by a template. Should be a TfD, instead. -- William Allen Simpson 16:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25 -- William Allen Simpson 23:48, 25 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 but stricken one. Syrthiss 13:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Moves to be made:

• Category:German Hip Hop to Category:German hip hop
• Category:Hamburg Hip Hop to Category:Hamburg hip hop
• Category:Jews_in_hip_hop to Category:Jewish hip hop musicians
• Category:Hip hop musicians by country to Category:Hip hop musicians by nationality
• Category:Dominican Republic rappers to Category:Dominican rappers
• Category:Rap metal groups to Category:Rapcore groups After discussion, its been decided this one shouldn't be done.

Explanation: The punctuation is hip hop (look in Category:Hip hop by nationality if you don't believe me. As far as country to nationality, consider this: there are categories for Category:Rappers by nationality and Category:Hip hop by nationality. Calling it by nationality instead of by country allows us to include ethnic groups' hip hop, like hip hop made by Jews and Gypsys and Kurds(by the way, I created Category:Jews in hip hop, my mistake in the first place). Dominican is the proper term for referring to the nationality of someone from the Dominican republic. Rap metal groups to rapcore, because rap metal is a redirect to rapcore, and because rap-metal is just a subgenre of rapcore, almost every rap-metal group includes elements of rap-rock and other stuff, so its pointless to get that specific with the genre. Also, Category:Rap metal groups is too specific if you consider the fact that we don't even have a Category:Rapcore groups yet. That's my reasoning.-- Urthogie 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support except the last one. I believe "rap metal" is much more common than rapcore, and yes, I know there's not complete overlap. But for the average fan, if it contains throbbing guitars and rapping, it's rap metal.-- Mike Selinker 15:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

How about this. We make it a subcategory of Category:Rapcore groups?-- Urthogie 15:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, actually, I guess I'd argue that category:Rapcore should become category:Rap metal. But that's not the debate at hand. For now, I'm just arguing that category:Rap metal groups should stay as is.-- Mike Selinker 16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I think thats simply inaccurate. Rapcore includes rap-metal, rap-rock, etc. It's a blanket term for all those fusions of hip hop and other rock-influence genres.-- Urthogie 17:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all with exception of Category:Rap metal groups if its members are rap metal rather than rap rock, rap rap, rap classical, etc. David Kernow 16:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, based on input here I've recategorized Category:Rap metal groups and removed the {{ cfru}} notice from it. Everyone satisfied with renaming all but this one?-- Urthogie 16:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

10-4 here. David Kernow 11:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. Just to be clear, I don't think you're wrong about rap metal/rapcore. I just think most people aren't aware of the latter term.-- Mike Selinker 06:48, 21 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 as empty. Syrthiss 13:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Papua New Guinea are yet to play official one-day internationals, as such an international needs to be given official status by the International Cricket Council and none of these matches have yet. The one player in this category is definitely a Papua New Guinean cricketer, though, so a rename seems sensible. Sam Vimes 08:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rather than renaming, I suggest creating the parent category, Category:Papua New Guinean cricketers, immediately, and moving the one entry to the parent category. That will leave an empty Category:Papua New Guinean ODI cricketers (of course, because there are no PNG ODI cricketers), which can be deleted. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 09:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Have followed-through Stephen's suggestion. Best wishes, David Kernow 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete the ODI cat as above. CalJW 23:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete ODI category as per CalJW. David Kernow 18:28, 24 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. Syrthiss 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Since the city article is simply at Liverpool, and there aren't really any other intrnationall famous Liverpools - and also given that "Music" and "Liverpool" generally means only one specific city, I propose dropping the national qualifier on this category. Grutness... wha? 08:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. CalJW 15:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Shrew 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, although does Wikipedia treat music as being "from" or "of" a place...?  Regards, David Kernow 16:36, 18 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 Segrave Trophy recipients. Syrthiss 13:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Switch to plural in line with usual practice and improve word order. Rename Bhoeble 07:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC). reply

• Good catch! Thank you. Royalbroil 13:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• After more reflection, I think we need to come up with a better name. It is not a trophy that you win (capture/compete for), but a trophy that is awarded. It appears to be generally awarded as a lifetime achievement. I like Segrave Trophy recipients. I disagree with the format Recipients of the Segrave Trophy because it is too passive. Royalbroil 16:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Amendment Okay, make it Category:Segrave Trophy recipients Bhoeble 15:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Agree Category:Segrave Trophy recipients - Recipients is better than winners, since not an event but an award from a committee. -- mervyn 20:05, 18 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 as empty. Syrthiss 13:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

All articles were moved to the more appropriate category category:Segrave Trophy winner. Royalbroil 07:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, but I've nominated the new category for renaming above. Bhoeble 07:36, 16 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 no consensus. Syrthiss 13:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Small category with little opportunity for growth. Should be renamed to accomodate Eckankar, Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad and possibly Soul travel. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The category Eck Masters is a subcategory of Religious leaders and should remain a category for individual people. If Eck Masters is too specific it could be renamed Eckankar leaders but it should not be broadened to include pages that aren't about individual people. -- JeffW 13:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, not to Eckanar, but to Category:Eck masters. Samaritan 00:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment While Eckists would write it as "ECK master", secularists such as Eckankar critic Ford Johnson tend to spell it "Eck Master". CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Then I suppose ECK masters, if that's the name members of the group themselves would use, should be ours, unless neutral observers of the group use something else in turn... Samaritan 01:54, 17 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 reverse merge of Health to Healthcare. Syrthiss 13:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Confusing as Category:Health in Uganda covers the need. It is also empty -- Ezeu 03:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Catamorphism 03:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment : Suggest Category:Health in Uganda merged with Category:Healthcare in Uganda as current population seems healthcare-orientated. Regards, David Kernow 17:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree. -- Ezeu 01:02, 19 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. Syrthiss 13:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Inherently POV category. Who decides which Canadians are "heroes"? Delete. Catamorphism 02:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

no more POV then any other category identifying 'distinguished' individiduals...of which there are many already existing on Wikipedia. This category expands on an article which was started to list distinguished Canadians. This list has been on Wikipedia for over 2 years without any debate on it's merit. Adding a category seemed the next logical step on that page to allow the valid categorization of Canada's many distinguished and honoured citizens. As for who gets on the list. That's up for all Wikipedians to decide. And also, being Wikipedia, the talk page exists for anyone to debate on a person's addition to the list. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Seal Clubber 02:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Seal Clubber. Ardenn 03:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete a list can have references. This can't. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete, I went to the category page to nominate it myself. It sounds cute and kitschy when you think "Icelandic hero", but ask yourself what an "American hero" is, does Rosa Parks count? Richard Nixon? Captain America and The Incredible Hulk? hopelessly POV Sherurcij ^{( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete An egregious breach of npov. The list should be deleted as well. Bhoeble 07:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, inherently POV. - Sean Curtin 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. POV bs (and i m canadian) Mayumashu 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Hero implies POV. KimvdLinde 14:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• I noticed this from seeing one of my own heroes listed here, but it's so egregiously POV I redacted it immediately. Strong delete. Notable heroes in fiction can go to List of fictional heroes, List of superheroes, Category:Superheroes and children, etc. as appropriate. To Seal Clubber's argument that "the talk page exists for anyone to debate on a person's addition to the list. That's what Wikipedia is all about" – not so. Wikipedia is not ideally a place to push our own opinions then argue them out. It's a place for us to contribute objective and factual information about subjects that interest us. This may including objective information about notable or widespread subjective opinions where appropriate, but as opinions. We should aim to write only that which an editor on the other side of almost any fence from us, writing honestly, would have to agree to include. The alternative is perpetual and futile edit war. Though it might seem like it some days, that's not what Wikipedia's all about. Samaritan 22:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete Totally unacceptable category type. Osomec 23:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. A completely subjective and POV category. I'm have to say I'm amused by the fact that Sir John A. and Louis Riel are both included. :) And why Tecumseh and not Joseph Brant? Why Maurice Richard and Bobby Orr but not Gretzky? Why Lord Beaverbrook but not Thomson or Black? (Okay, Black I can see.) -- Saforrest 03:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. Gordon Lightfoot's a hero, and Joni Mitchell isn't? That's a silly debate to have, and this category forces us to have it. Lose it.-- Mike Selinker 09:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. pov Scranchuse 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the various arguments above. Way too POV. — GrantNeufeld 16:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Why not simply impose a broad inclusive standard, like for Category:Terrorism. Surely Category:Terrorism is more controversial than Canadian heros? JeffBurdges 21:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Category:Terrorists. They have more or less clear factual criteria that must be met, and which result in useful characterization. The best you could achieve for "Heroes and Heroines" would be "people highly commendable to some who probably sacrificed something at some point," by which nearly every Canadian with an article could be added. Sheesh. Samaritan 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. Is Stompin' Tom Connors in there? The Tom 00:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The fact is that whether someone is often seen as a hero to or by a certain group is NPOV and verifiable. JoshuaZ 04:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete category contents would only be opinions. -- maclean25 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per comment of bhoeble et seq. Fishhead64 18:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV. CalJW 23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can't think why we would have this as a category in addition to the List of Canadian Heroes and Heroines. The latter has criteria and references. Sunray 07:45, 23 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 Academics of Queen's University of Belfast (without the the) to match article name, if you want the the bring it back to speedy rename please. Syrthiss 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The entry for the Queen's University of Belfast includes 'of' and the category should reflect this. AtomBoy 00:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• move per nom. Ardenn 03:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• What is the logic behind adding the word "the" to the category name? - EurekaLott 06:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• The definite article is featured in other similar category names and scans well AtomBoy 00:57, 17 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.