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 16:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community articles needing help? Not sure what this is for, but it should either be with some WikiProject or it should be part of cleanup. The articles themselves seem to be fine, and a small cat tag at the bottom isn't useful. Delete. Radiant_>|< 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all There are plenty of alternative ways to request attention for articles (probably too many in fact). CalJW 00:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. No argument. siafu 01:59, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Cleanup and/or {{bio-stub}}. Delete, flag the few articles in here accordingly. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-standard approach. There are enough tags already. CalJW 00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 01:59, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and unused. Redundant with Special:Shortpages. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (creator). The category is empty because, by intent, pages placed in this category are speedy-deleted; the category is meant to encompass obsolete or unneeded subpages. Special:Shortpages automatically lists small articles, including a large number of substubs and stubs; what it doesn't do is list subpages, or indeed anything at all outside the main namespace. The category accomplishes something that Special:Shortpages doesn't address at all, and as such there is no redundancy. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 16:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but to my knowledge, blank pages are flagged with {{empty}}, which puts them in the regular Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Radiant_>|< 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting blank subpages is a different process from other CSD work; different and in fact simpler. CAT:CSD is already chronically backlogged and really doesn't need new pages that could easily be dealt with almost real-time if reported seperately. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it's not. Cat:CSD presently contains 39 articles, and is cleaned out on a daily basis. We get few enough blank articles that CSD can cope with it. That's easier than getting two redundant processes, because that way people have to watch both. Radiant_>|< 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 02:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Radiant. Not needed. -- Ze miguel 08:46, 24 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eschew obfuscation. Add consistency. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonencyclopedic trivia. 12.73.195.176 18:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being useless. Pavel Vozenilek 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is (for now) It's not meant to be encyclopedic, it's a maintenance category. I believe this is linked to Template:Lowercase and is related to the technical restrictions, and the vague hope that the issue might be resolved at some point in the future. I think, if we are changing the way a template works (and the way we deal with a particular maintenance issue), we should be discussing it on the relevant talk page before CfD gets involved. - N (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC), I changed Keep to Keep as is at 00:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC), seeing as the actual argument at hand is a rename. N[reply]
• Support rename. The current title is just wrong grammar. The proposed title is not great (each article has only one title, so "articles with a title" is a bit jarring), but it's an improvement. dbenbenn | talk 04:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A better title might be Category:Articles whose titles should start with a lowercase letter, since that reflects the actual state. I'd support that.--Mike Selinker 21:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with the crossword puzzle guy, it would be better as Category:Articles whose titles should start with a lowercase letter. Andrew Levine 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:^) When wikipedia creates a category like "Pairs of words that cross at the letter M," then my puzzle experience might be relevant. Till then, it's just an opinion like any other.--Mike Selinker 02:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename as per the above.--Mitsukai 04:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename - the current name isn't clear. —David Johnson [T|C] 15:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename - same reason. User:EasilyAmused (not logged in)

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 16:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency. Cat shouldn't refer to "article titles" but to "articles with title", per sibling cats. Radiant_>|< 22:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivia. 12.73.195.176 18:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being useless. Pavel Vozenilek 21:09, 17 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as redundant. A suspected hoax is by definition in need of proper sourcing. Radiant_>|< 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Merge -- "Suspected hoax" implies deliberate malicious intent, and so is higher-priority than merely lacking sources. AnonMoos 03:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No merge, per AnonMoos - a suspect hoax is creature deserving of more immediate attention than an article that merely lacks sources. BD2412 T 03:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that there are in fact two templates, one for hoaxes and one for lack of sourcing, that would be usable to keep them apart. Radiant_>|< 10:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No merge. These are two separate arenas, and should be kept separate. I go through the "suspected hoax" category looking for articles to work with, and I'd prefer not to have to wade through "regular" unsourced articles. Joyous | Talk 13:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above. Also note that using the {{hoax}} tag adds articles to this cat, so the template would need to be changed if this was deleted. I think there would need to be some discussion on the template talk page if this were to happen. - N (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No merge, per above. I think it's important to have possible hoaxes in one clear location. - Axver 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge, not everything which requires sourcing is a suspected hoax. Kappa 20:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't merge. Most articles lacking source are factually correct articles who simply lack references. bogdan 18:50, 21 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify. Create a "list of locations sorted by income". Also systemic bias since this focuses entirely on the USA, and cats are too large to be meaningful. Radiant_>|< 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all As per nom. Based on out of date information too. CalJW 00:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all. Nonencyclopedical, fluid (at some places can be). Wikipedia should not serve as replacement of national office for statistics. No lists please. Pavel Vozenilek 21:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and list, though lists should be sorted by date also. siafu 17:54, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Should either spell out the abbrev to read "United States", or use the term "Native American" like the parent cat does.

• Since the parent category is Category:Native American I could support Category:Native American Indian Reservations given that most of the articles include 'Indian Reservation' in their name. Vegaswikian 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. They are still referred to as *Indian* reservations officially. "Native American" is controversial, POV, PC, And not correct for this particular cat's intent and content. 12.73.195.176 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename. Aren't Category:Indian reservations and Category:Seats of government of Indian reservations sufficient. Indian reservation appears to be a term only used in the United States; Canada uses Indian reserve or First Nations reserve. These would have the advantage of conciseness. Valiantis 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is the a seat of government? I suspect that it is not the entire reservation. It is most likely a building or a community within the reservation, based on what I have seen so far. So changing the U.S. to United States or something else may be all that is required, no need to add the seats of government. Vegaswikian 18:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What exactly is the seat of government?" Erm, check the contents of the cat to find out! No-one is proposing renaming anything to Category:Seats of government of U.S. Indian reservations, merely that the two existing cats relating to Indian reservations should both be renamed in a way that avoids the abbreviation U.S. A reservation stands in relation to its seat of government in the same way that a state stands in relation to its state capital. It's quite reasonable to have a cat for each. Valiantis 18:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to "Native American" per Valiantis to match naming of parent. siafu 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is anyone clear what the actual proposed rename is? The original (anonymous?) proposer didn't spell out a suggested rename but stated two possibilities, one of which appears to be "Native American reservations". Vegaswikian suggested "Native American Indian Reservations". Siafu suggested renaming to "Native American", but it's not clear if s/he means "Native American reservations" or "Native American Indian Reservations" or indeed "Native American indian reservations" (the capitalisation proposal is unclear) as s/he stated this was per myself, and I proposed an alternative and (what I consider to be) a much neater solution. It might be helpful if those who've previously "voted" clarify exactly what names they want to avoid the current names - which are clearly wrong - being kept by default. (My suggestion is clearly set out above!) Valiantis 01:41, 21 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid abbrev. Rename. Radiant_>|< 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. BD2412 T 18:40, 15 January 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid abbrev. Rename. Radiant_>|< 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. BD2412 T 18:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment shouldn't this be Category:State capitals of the United States ? 132.205.44.134 01:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, though I agree with the anon that it should be "of" not "in". siafu 17:56, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. Merge, possible speedy. Radiant_>|< 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Absolutely not a speedy. Speedy is for cases where there is no doubt, and this proposal goes against policy. Boroughs are subdivisions rather than settlements so the "of" form should be used. It is Category:Boroughs in the United States that should be deleted and I will tag it. CalJW 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I meant the other way around. Reverse merge, and that still sounds like a speedy per the naming conventions. Radiant_>|< 00:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per CalJW. siafu 17:57, 20 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns the US, so should be named to reflect that. Rename. Radiant_>|< 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. - Darwinek 11:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 17:58, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, unused. Radiant_>|< 22:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this seems to declare a page as a waste, if someone thinks a page is useless they can nominate it for deletion. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BJAODN. siafu 17:59, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and unused. It's for pages with "little or no consensus about their future development", but we actually have WP:RFC for that. Radiant_>|< 22:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:59, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what a "housekeeping list" is supposed to be, but this cat simply contains a number of list-related cats that are also covered elsewhere, e.g. in Category:Wikipedia maintenance. Radiant_>|< 22:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. Merge. Radiant_>|< 22:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright examinations are preinclusion where copyright problems are postinclusion. So the cases are very different. Examinations are to tell us what we can do without getting into trouble, and violations to tell us what we have to do to get out of trouble. --Easyas12c 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is my understanding that copyright problems end up deleted, and the category for possible copyright violations in fact lists those pages up for examination, as per {{copyvio}} and WP:CP. Radiant_>|< 14:08, 16 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN is not guaranteed to be correct. That's rather weird; if you're unsure of an ISSN, you shouldn't list it. This cat is unused, and we have other cats dealing with the same, e.g. Category:ISSN needed or various accuracy disputes. Radiant_>|< 22:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:00, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, unused and redundant with Category:WikiProject Schools. It's good that the WikiProject schools is working on improving the articles, but they'd be better served with one category for that purpose rather than four similar ones. Radiant_>|< 22:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Empty and useless.--– sampi (talk•contrib) 09:09, 23 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, unused and redundant with Category:WikiProject Schools. It's good that the WikiProject schools is working on improving the articles, but they'd be better served with one category for that purpose rather than four similar ones. Radiant_>|< 22:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Empty and useless.--– sampi (talk•contrib) 09:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, and the former title is a bit weird since all of Wikipedia is actively undergoing construction. Merge. It's good that the WikiProject schools is working on improving the articles, but they'd be better served with one category for that purpose rather than four similar ones. Radiant_>|< 22:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No argument. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 09:09, 23 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for moving articles to the Wookieepedia, which is not a Wikimedia sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was originally typing a Delete, but then realised I should comment, hey, it's probably a very temporary category set up to help organize the people at the SW wikicities/wookieepedia. Might as well do them a favour and all...then I saw it was empty anyways, and 9 months old...so yeah, delete Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Terminate immediately. siafu 18:04, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current category name wrongly implies that this is about sf from Western countries (such as Europe/U.S.), as opposed to Eastern countries (such as Japan), whereas it is actually about sf in the style of the "Western" genre of films such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.Talrias (t | e | c) 20:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Er what? We have science fiction westerns now? Radiant_>|< 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — According to Wikipedia naming convention, the most significant word comes first. As such, I named the category "Western Science Fiction." The shows in this category are primarily Westerns. They all have themes exactly the same as any other Western, but with a science fiction backdrop instead of desert mesas and tumbleweeds. Wearing cowboy hats and roping steers don't make a Western. Westerns are marked by a particular genre of themes that encompass taming the frontier and expanding civilization. Whether that is done on a horse in old Colorado or on a space ship in future Orion's Belt, it is the same genre: a Western. Few people, if any, think that history will actually repeat itself in this way. Most modern writers of science fiction realize that our technology has already surpassed the point of the old west re-emmerging in space. See Quantum teleportation and the writings of Raymond Kurzweil for instance. *Peace Inside 23:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename to "Western (Science Fiction)" — The backdrop of future worlds has very little to do with the type of show. The stories in this category are typical Western frontier tales. --Peace Inside 05:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (See new vote on bottom)[reply]

• Delete, WP:NOR as Google indicates this isn't really a genre. Of course some SciFi flicks have influence from anywhere but that doesn't make them westerns. See also Steampunk, which is the more appropriate term for several items mentioned in the cat. Radiant_>|< 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google results 36,100 for "Science fiction western"

Google results 14,700 for "Western science fiction"

*Peace Inside 00:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, obviously, but if you actually check what those hits are about, you'll find that most of them are listing a number of genres or referring to science fiction written in West Europe and/or America. This is not a genre. Don't go by the numbers, go by the facts. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As I'm sure you can tell from your Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Science_fiction_Western page, a Western with a Science Fiction backdrop is definitely a genre, even a chiche', but I'm just curious, what category would you put Star Trek in, if not "Western Science Fiction?" *Peace Inside 01:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move to "Science fiction Western" to avoid the ambiguity of whether "Western" refers to Western civilization or Western (genre). (It should be the latter, and the wording "Science fiction Western" indicates that.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - there is definitely a sci fi Western genre, and the current name makes it easy to confuse the genre with the region. BD2412 T 03:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename Dalf | Talk 06:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. The relevant article is Science fiction Western (which may be on AfD, but there appears to be no consensus to delete). Valiantis 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and redefine — After discussing the matter here and looking at google examples, I believe that Science fiction Western refers to Science fiction stories told with a Western backdrop, while Space Western refers to Western frontier stories told with an outer space backdrop. Both categories have numerous examples. Therefore, I vote to rename the category per nom and redefine it to be only those shows that have a Science Fiction storyline with an American Western setting. The other shows that use outlying planets in place of frontier towns and star ships in place of wagon trains, but tell the same frontier stories, should be placed in a new category called Space Western to match the term that has been around since the forties. *Peace Inside 03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Blindingly Glowing's idea below better. We need to stick with consistency and terms in wide use. *Peace Inside 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Do Not Rename: "Space Western" is a term that has been broadly used for over sixty years. "Space" is an adjective that describes the setting. "Western" is a noun that describes the type of story. The setting adjective always precedes the type-of-story noun. In the case where a Science Fiction story is told in a Western setting (i.e. "Wild Wild West"), the adjective would be "Western," and the noun would be "Science Fiction." The only logical name for this genre is "Western Science Fiction." --Blindingly Glowing 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Blindingly Glowing's comments above and create a new category for the Space Western genre. *Peace Inside 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned User:Zephram Stark. See WP:ANI. Radiant_>|< 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME Western Science Fiction already has a wide connotation of SciFi from *WESTERN CIVILIZATION*. 132.205.44.134 02:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A genre is never defined by who produces it. Themes and settings define a genre. For instance, it doesn't matter if France, Japan, or Nigeria produce a Western. If it has themes of the old west, and especially if it is set in the American Old West, it's a Western. *Peace Inside 19:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was genre name, just that the term elicits scifi from the west. And since fiction is categorized by who produces it in many places, it's quite an ambiguous title considering what it's being used for. 132.205.46.166 21:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; genres are often defined by who produces them (e.g., Spaghetti Western), so this ambiguity needs to be avoided. siafu 18:09, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: racist nonsense. We already have a category for gang members; we do not need to divide them by race. I notice no category white gangsters or filipino gangsters. csloat 20:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Radiant_>|< 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Commodore Sloat. -- Darwinek 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, haha Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This category was already put up for deletion once before, which should have been noted here.[1] Asking for deletion while ignoring the previous discussion, and failing to inform others of it, seems highly unfair and I don't see how a vote to delete can properly be made by other members without this knowledge.

These are my other reasons to keep.

1) a) No evidence has been given to show that the category is racist, and b) simply calling it that assumes bad faith on the part of the editors.

2) Several categories and lists of blacks or African-Americans already exist. There is no more reason to exclude a category simply because it lists gangsters by race or ethnicity than there would be to exclude categories that list actors, athletes, or politicians by race or ethnicity.

3) Gangs have historically been formed along racial or ethnic lines; they divide themselves this way. Listing gangsters along racial or ethnic lines is accurate, and useful to those studying them.

4) If pertinent categories for gangsters of other races or ethnicities do not currently exist, the black gansters category should not be deleted, the others should be created. Italian, Irish, or Mexican, for example. Again, as per reason 1), this does not show racism, and as per reason 3), this would be historically accurate. --Alsayid 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We need clear distinctions between Category:gang members, a Category:gangsters, and a Category: American mobsters, since we have categories for all three. To my limited knowledge, they are the same thing. The category pages don't offer any explanations. -Will Beback 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are no other "gangsters by ethnicity" subcats, but there are plenty of "mobsters by ethnicity" subcats and this cat is a subcat of Category:American mobsters as well as Category:Gangsters. If there are African-American mobsters then this would be an appropriate rename within Category:American mobsters, (in so far as there should be any ethnic subcats there - I'm inclined to say "no", but doubt there is consensus to remove them all) but as there are no other ethnic groups in Category:Gangsters this cat should be removed from there post haste. Valiantis 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the no consensus result of the previous discussion, it seems unlikely that this category will be properly renamed through CfD. It's better off not existing. siafu 19:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: We don't break out actresses from actors in any other case. Clearly, this needs to at least be renamed somehow but I vote for a merge. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The words for men and women in English are not different for any other country so far as I know. Perhaps a merged category should be called Category:Filipina and Filipino actors. ReeseM 19:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Would prefer just "Filipino actors" to avoid "actors and actresses" mess. Radiant_>|< 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen "Philippine" as well. Is that acceptable to cover both genders? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Philippine is not supposed to be used for people apparently. I don't have a problem with them being separate, but the category for actresses is misnamed. CalJW 00:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, breaking out by gender would be totally inconsistent with every other actors-by-country category. Second, I disagree because the distinction really isn't important here. Why does it matter if an actor is a male or a female? They're essentially the same in this context. What is the benefit to making users bounce back and forth between them? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge reluctantly. The policy of not categorising by gender is plain wrong, and hopefully it is being broken down, but this name is misformatted so I don't want to see a "no-consensus, no-change" outcome. CalJW 00:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge to Category:Filipino actors. Circa 1900 07:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; the term "actor" is inclusive of both men and women, and English does not use grammatical gender. siafu 19:13, 20 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted at CFD, undeleted at DRV, and now relisted here, per standard practice. Category is currently empty, but I suppose that will change. No vote from me. -R. fiend 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vague and ever changing. ReeseM 19:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is 20th and Category:21st century philosophers categories, which should serve the purpose well. --Pfafrich 20:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per both voters. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vague. Radiant_>|< 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there was similar discussion on Category:Living philosophers few months ago [2]. Mel Etitis (a professional philosopher hanging out on WP) had supported existence of such category. Pavel Vozenilek 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Major category. Useful. Not vague — includes all living philosophers (excludes all dead philosophers). Easy to maintain, as only about one or two notable philosophers die per year. — goethean ॐ 16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with goethean, it is a major category where a bot could include all living philosophers. tresoldi 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see that it's vague (though the also deleted "Living philosophers" would be better), Category:2006 deaths is also changing all the time; as a philosopher enters one she leaves the other — why is that a problem? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Useful category. If it is empty, that is not a reason for deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This cat makes more sense than 21st century philosophers. Banno 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, contingent upon the goethean /tresoldi suggestions. Lucidish 01:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful guide for current thought. Infinity0 ^talk 16:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or recreate living philosophers cat.Lacatosias 17:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per previous discussion. siafu 19:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mirror Vax 13:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bad precedent. CalJW 23:12, 22 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it sounds promising at first, the category is too POV to keep track of any hope of definitions for who does/doesn't belong here. At the moment it consists almost solely of Rwandans, I just had to revert vandalism of somebody adding two Vietnam infantry soldiers to the list (Who were never charged with war crimes), and have now removed Lynndie England (with the summary "Conspiracy, mistreating detainees and indecent actions" do not make one a war criminal which sums it up). Ignoring the fact there's only a matter of time before the George Bush debate arises, do we honestly think we'll be able to list every person from every war who committed something that some country has deemed a warcrime on here? Most of the people on the list have never been convicted of warcrimes anyways, they're "thought to have known about" or "suspiciously complicit" or "were investigated" - History is written by the victors gentlemen, but hopefully not on Wikipedia :P Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, but I'd like to have a clear definition of who can go into that category. I.e. what if somebody was accused of one government as a war criminal, but escaped to another country and never faced trial, like Salomon Morel, whom you removed from that category? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is slightly POV, but I agree it needs clearer definition. Nazi war criminals are clear, so why others aren't? - Darwinek 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, since Category:Nazi war criminals was only created recently, and only houses 17 articles, I daresay it isn't a perfect example - nevertheless, presumably the Nazis listed are (hopefully) those who were convicted of war crimes...but then, Joan of Arc was convicted of war crimes just as much as Lynndie England was. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy is a war-crime?? P.S. In favor of deletion of category unless semi-objective criteria for inclusion are established AnonMoos 19:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much a war crime as "Conspiracy to mistreat detainees" is...and no, I don't think either are, that's my point, what is/isn't a warcrime is very subjective, and varies by country and jurisdiction. If we're including people charged with WC, a little-known fact is that on Bush's visit to Canada in November 2004, he was actually charged with war crimes by an independent body of lawyers - I know, because I wrote the article for the local newspaper about it. It was ridiculous and spurious, but it serves to illustrate why this category is equally ridiculous. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's your choice to defend that "person"... --Darwinek 19:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Or change to "convicted war criminals" or something more clearly defined. I am sure if I added Barry McCaffrey or Oliver North to the list there would be backlash. This category is way to POV.
• Delete, POV magnet. Radiant_>|< 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: I would support the renaming to "Convicted war criminals" as suggested above (the unsigned delete vote) to avoid the POV people will have when adding articles to "War criminals." Oliver North had his conviction overturned, so technically he wouldn't belong. However, Lynndie England does belong in the category, because she was convicted of mistreating prisoners of war (which is a war crime for the rest of the world, but seemingly not for the United States). Also if George Bush is convicted of war crimes, then he would belong, no matter what, even if it means sharing a category with Hussein and Milosevic (if they're convicted). --CDN99 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note, to prove my case that things aren't always so clear...Lynndie England was convicted of mistreating detainees, not prisoners of war, which means technically she escapes on a loophole, she was not convicted of any war crimes. This is kind of my problem with the category...where the US differentiates between detainee and POW isn't the same place they did during Vietnam, and it's not the same way that Tutsis did in the 1990s. It's all just a little too subjective Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 13:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -POV --Haham hanuka 12:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Convicted war criminals". As much as I'd like to add Henry K. to this category, I shouldn't be allowed to. -- Samuel Wantman 09:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Convicted war criminals", otherwise it's POV. -- nyenyec ☎ 18:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; don't rename but yes use it exclusively for those convicted as such. — Dunc|☺ 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Convicted war criminals", otherwise too POV. Shawnc 17:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Duncharris. — goethean ॐ 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is ambiguous, and like the many other "x criminals" or "x offenders" categories, could only exist in reference to particular legal systems. This isn't like Category:Murderers, which can be objectively judged as murder is clearly defined. siafu 22:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mirror Vax 13:31, 21 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what purpose this category serves (there's no evidence in the articles that these persons are related to each other, and even if they were, I'm not sure that the fact would need to be memorialized in a category) AnonMoos 14:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a book (Baron von) that may benefit from this. Radiant_>|< 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Currently includes two real people, one fictional character, and a psychological disorder named for said fictional character. What we have are two seperate groupings, neither one large enough to warrant a category. siafu 22:34, 20 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:California parks --> Category:Parks in California
• Category:Illinois parks --> Category:Parks in Illinois
• Category:Nevada parks --> Category:Parks in Nevada
• Category:New York parks --> Category:Parks in New York
• Category:Oregon parks --> Category:Parks in Oregon
• Category:Washington parks --> Category:Parks in Washington
• Category:Wisconsin parks --> Category:Parks in Wisconsin
• Category:New York City parks --> Category:Parks in New York City
• Category:Bronx parks --> Category:Parks in the Bronx
• Category:Brooklyn parks --> Category:Parks in Brooklyn
• Category:Manhattan parks --> Category:Parks in Manhattan
• Category:Queens parks --> Category:Parks in Queens
• Category:Staten Island parks --> Category:Parks in Staten Island
• Category:Seattle parks --> Category:Parks in Seattle
• Category:San Francisco parks --> Category:Parks in San Francisco

• Rename all. Crystal clear naming conventions. - Darwinek 14:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. BD2412 T 14:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all: per nom. Looks like others could be renamed too. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all CalJW 00:09, 15 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat already covered by Category:Parties. N (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as proposed. Ze miguel 08:50, 24 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerals are normally used for centuries in category names:

• Category:Earthquakes in the eighteenth century change to category:Earthquakes in the 18th century
• Category:Earthquakes in the nineteenth century change to category:Earthquakes in the 19th century
• Category:Earthquakes in the twentieth century change to category:Earthquakes in the 20th century
• Category:Earthquakes in the twenty-first century change to category:Earthquakes in the 21st century

Rename Calsicol 09:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename —Wknight94 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.--– sampi (talk•contrib) 09:14, 23 January 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 --Kbdank71 15:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the country is the United States, and this is the term used in Wikipedia. A few subcategories also need renaming. -- Egil 09:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The bald statement "this is the term used in wikipedia" is hardly an accurate summary of a complex situation. This is a cultural category and it should stay as it is. Calsicol 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think they were refering to the fact that the related article is Television in the United States. -- Reinyday, 01:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Please educate yourself. Mirror Vax 11:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Someone once told me not to beat this horse into glue. It's already been covered at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I thought this one had been largely resolved! Valiantis 02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Television in the United States to match article title. siafu 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or rename the article to match the cat. Vegaswikian 04:23, 21 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South East Queensland is a rather informal designation and this is probably the only South East Queensland category. Local categorisation in Australia is otherwise done by state or territory (such as Queensland) or by major city. This one is also miscapitalised. It will be underpopulated if renamed, but that will dealt with in time as with any other incomplete category. Rename Calsicol 08:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename though that only really adds Townsville and Cairns that are likely to have any shopping centre articles. ReeseM 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 19:39, 17 January 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This change brings this category in line with the remainder of the categories in Category:Defunct companies by country. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Calsicol 08:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - N (talk) 15:06, 14 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other short story categories have the hyphen and it isn't normal usage. Calsicol 06:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom - N (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom ReeseM 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Frst, the hyphen is grammatically correct; secondly, it is indeed noraml usage among a very large group of (literate) writers; thirdly, if the other actegories don't have it, they should. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Only one use of the hyphen on the first five pages of google hits. CalJW 23:11, 22 January 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 --Kbdank71 14:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of cases that deal with reproductive rights, but not abortion (e.g. Buck v. Bell, United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird), but which are often discussed in the same context as abortion rights cases. The abortion rights case law category is not heavily populated, so this proposed change would allow these cases to be brought together under a single umbrella of moderate size. BD2412 T 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose "Reproductive rights" is pro-abortion pov. Calsicol 06:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that the category would (and should) contain non-abortion-related cases that discuss the same issues... as a compromise, I'll create a reproductive rights cat for the four cases named above (and others like them), and we can discuss whether abortion rights should be a subcat thereof. BD2412 T 14:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support proposal is more inclusive, and thus better-named. Former could be a sub-set of the later if there are enough articles at some point. If the mere term reproductive-rights is POV, then so are all other X-rights terms. Possible, but if so should be addressed overall. Joshbaumgartner 16:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as per Calsicol. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The legal coverage of abortion and consent issues surrounding foetal rights on the Wiki is very poor and, as a result, much of the non-law debate on what constitutes rights of autonomy for the mother or for the foetus, and whether they are biased is ill-informed. An apolitical statement of the case law affecting all aspects of reproductive, medical treatment (voluntary and involuntary) and foetal rights would be a major step forward. A critique on whether that is what the law ought to be can then have a better starting point. Because so much emotion has become associated with the word "abortion", I think a move to label the topic "reproductive rights" would be an improvement but it neglects a reference to foetal rights. It important to take a holistic poview of this area of law so that it can be tested for consistency. Hence, reference should also be made to the rights of the foetus to sue and be sued, to inherit property, etc. Whether this can properly be labelled "reproductive rights" is moot but it does not affect my support for some change in the right direction. David91 01:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Calsicol. While I agree with David91 that there's gotta be a better way to do this, I'm not sure the above is it.--Mitsukai 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "reproductive rights" is also prejudically tainted, and "Mother–Child Protection Law" is already taken as a term of art in Japanese law, perhaps the title should be "The law of mother and child". David91 12:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Mirror Vax 13:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not the right place to ask but why is abortion not termed "foeticide" as a more neutral term? David91 04:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging Category:United States abortion rights case law into the new Category:United States reproductive rights case law. Regardless of anyone's personal view as to whether abortion is properly allowed as a reproductive right, the United States Supreme Court's abortion cases are undeniably part of its reproductive rights jurisprudence. Artificially separating them merely because some people oppose abortion rights but support other reproductive rights is inconsistent with NPOV. --Cjmnyc 06:17, 22 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The region is generally referred to as East Africa. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Should have done Western Africa too. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. --Cjmnyc 06:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--– sampi (talk•contrib) 09:16, 23 January 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.