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

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 03:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Expandable PCs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Just about every personal computer must be expandable internally (the currently listed articles are only a tiny fraction of what computer models could be included). It seems rather pointless and redundant to have a category that would contain just about every article also included under Category:Personal computers, nor do I see why such a category is important. I raised this on Category talk:Expandable PCs, but no response. Mdwh 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This characteristic does not deserve a category. --musicpvm 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 03:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the opposite category might be more notable than this one. - LA @ 10:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 12:39, 1 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 03:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Northern Ireland to Category:Areas of Special Scientific Interest in Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland has ASSIs, not SSSIs. SP-KP 21:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. --Mais oui! 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Confirmed by official website. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Landolitan 21:36, 2 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cricket lore to Category:History of cricket

• Merge, Under its new name this is just a uselessly vague semi-duplicate of Category:History of cricket. Chicheley 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket I have no problem with Cricket Lore which is an oft-used term to include anecdotes, Brian Johnston's tales and the like which are not history but are "stories" about the game. As the main contributor to Category:History of cricket I can tell you that to include lore in history is completely inappropriate. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • That isn't what the category is being used for, and I don't see how it could be used for that. Wikipedia has factual articles, not extracts from cricket personalties' memoires. Casper Claiborne 12:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the present three articles are not lore (or folklore) but the category may have potential and should not be the subject of a nomination that is disparaging. It is not "uselessly vague". Using a phrase like that is a pathetic reason to give for the removal of a category. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts I have changed my mind about this particular lore category as the three articles in there at present are historical and belong somewhere in Category:History of cricket, therefore merge --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral comment - at least one article that had been categorised under lore was decategorised by User:Chicheley with the comment "I don't know what Category:Cricket lore was called before the Americans renamed it, but this can't possibly go in it now". That article, Underarm bowling, is probably equally usefully categorised under Category:History of cricket. The category was apparently created in accordance with the discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 18#Category:Memorable moments in sports See [1] and [2]--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Underarm bowling belongs under the bowling category where it has always been. Category:History of cricket is not used for specific topics like this and only contains general history articles, plus its various sub-categories. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 1981 incident which is referenced in the article extensively is why it merits inclusion oin the history cat or lore cat--A Y Arktos\^talk 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As below, I did this to put each sport-specific member of category:Sports lore under an individual sport's lore category. Whether individual articles should go there, I have no opinion. But I oppose the deletion of the category unless no cricket articles will be going under any of the sports lore categories.--Mike Selinker 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per comments by Mike Selinker above whose action is completely justified and correct. Frankly, the nomination makes no sense at all. Cricket lore (or folklore) is all the massive fund of anecdotes, stories and theories that are very popularly published in many books but which are not really historical material. The suggestion that "cricket lore", "soccer lore", etc. are "uselessly vague" is sheer nonsense. --GeorgeWilliams 11:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you look at the contents. This contains three articles, of which not one relates to cricket "lore". Casper Claiborne 12:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep (folk)lore is separate from history --AlbertMW 12:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Merge I have looked at the articles in the category and they are all historical so I now disagree with myself! --AlbertMW 11:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Look at the contents guys. There is no "lore" here. Casper Claiborne 12:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Casper Claiborne and revised comments by BlackJack. Any article about a past sporting event that is neutral and verifiable is historical, and articles which are not neutral and verifiable should be rewritten or merged. Calsicol 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The articles are all about factual historical events. Olborne 13:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Casper Claiborne. Anything that is verifiable is history, "lore" makes me think of dubious bar-room tales. Landolitan 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This is not useful in any way. ReeseM 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Lore sounds POV. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "Lore" is not a suitable term to use to define the content of an encyclopedia. Nathan Mercer 09:34, 3 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Football (soccer) lore to Category:History of football (soccer)

• Merge, This is one of the inappropriate categories recently created when the very clear and version of English neutral (apart from the plural) Category:Memorable moments in sports was renamed to Category:Sports lore. I just don't see that the name has anything much to do with the contents of the category. It is certainly inappropriate as a top level category in Category:Football (soccer). Many of the articles have more appropriate categories already, but if it is merged into Category:History of football (soccer) that will provide a tidy hold all. At present it is just POV and a misrepresentation of "football lore", whatever that very vague term might mean. I can't imagine what this was called before, but things like Goal of the Month don't belong here in any case. It is just a useless confusing mess. Chicheley 21:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep for the same reasons as with cricket above. There is absolutely no reason why lore should not be included in an encyclopedia but to place these stories and anecdotes under history is frankly ridiculous. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I note that you changed your mind of the cricket category. Please specify which of these eleven articles is a non-historical "story or anecdote". In my opinion none of them are. Olborne 13:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Changed my mind again. The articles should be in soccer history. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I made this category this morning when trying to place all the contents of category:Sports lore into parallel categories. All these articles were under the parent category of "Sports lore," and they needed a football/soccer equivalent. I made no value judgements on what should go in the new category, other than "yup, that's soccer." So if people think things should be removed, they should remove them. But I oppose the deletion of the category unless all the contents are deemed "not lore."--Mike Selinker 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per Mike here and in cricket topic above. The merge proposal is ludicrous and out of touch with reality. Folklore is not essentially history and needs to be classified in its own right. --GeorgeWilliams 11:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the cricket category, it is pretty obvious that the keep voters haven't bothered to look at the contents and are voting on the basis of theory rather than fact. Therefore you "out of touch with reality". Casper Claiborne 12:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (folk)lore is separate from history --AlbertMW 12:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge These are basic history articles. There is no "lore" here. "Lore" belongs in a book of anecdotes, not an encyclopedia. Casper Claiborne 12:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Any article about a past sporting event that is neutral and verifiable is historical, and articles which are not neutral and verifiable should be rewritten or merged. Calsicol 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Out of 11 articles 7 are straightforward history, three are about awards and should not be grouped with the others under any name, and the only 1 which might be called "lore" is also historical and is already in several categories that are more appropriate than this one. Olborne 13:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Anything that is verifiable is history. "Lore" makes me think of dubious bar-room tales. Landolitan 21:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per the cricket category. ReeseM 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge "Lore" is not a suitable term to use to define the content of an encyclopedia. Nathan Mercer 09:35, 3 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 03:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Cult actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, This is little used and no attempt has been made to define what it is for. "Cult" is an extremely vague word. Let's get rid of this before it clutters up the category lists on any more articles. Chicheley 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and lets see how it develops. Cult actors and actresses and cult films are an accepted terminology within the film industry. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "Cult" is a term within the industry but it doesn't have a hard definition that can be nailed down. Dismas|^(talk) 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• C'mon, KEEP! A cult figure is well defined enough in the article, and not everone would realize the "cultishness" of certain actors till they scroll down and see this category. It helps keep the Wiki-visitor moving through the site. Bill 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vague term that is entirely subjective and a matter of opinion. Even the Cult figure article provides no assistance ("The term cult figure is difficult to define and different people may or may not qualify as cult figures by different standards"). Agent 86 01:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The term "cult" is POV, and is much abused for marketing purposes. Casper Claiborne 12:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for who's included and who's not. Carlossuarez46 16:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would this be for actors in cult films, or for actors who belong to a cult? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What constitutes "cult" can never be pinned down. It's strictly a matter of opinion, and opinions shouldn't form the basis for a category. Crabapplecove 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every one would need to be checked. People would disagree and it isn't worth the hassle. Olborne 13:36, 2 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 03:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Evil Clone Wikipedians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Empty category, only refers to itself. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another Wikipedian joke category. --Cswrye 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it only referenced in an unused user template. - LA @ 10:10, 1 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Anglicans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Categorisation by paper faith is just useless and clutter. Pjacobi 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: There are three subcats, Category:English Anglicans, Category:Northern Irish Anglicans, and Category:Welsh Anglicans. I think the nomination should be amended to include these three, since the "paper faith" slur applies to all three subcats. --M@rēino 19:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I see that there are categories for virtually every other religion prevalent on the British Isles. Therefore, this one is needed for balance. --M@rēino 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why single out Anglicans? --Usgnus 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominate all or none. Chicheley 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are no genuine grounds for deleting these categories.

172.188.129.115 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all or delete all, no preference, but you can't single out just Anglicans. BoojiBoy 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, of course I meant to delete all these categories. It's not an anti-Anglican plot. Feel free to beat me in listing the other cats. But to repeat: Just list the members of any denomination in a category is nither usefull for categorization not for navigation. I'm thinking along the solution in de: which limits the Person by Religion category to persons whose religion is a significant part of their life and/or who are of special significance for this religion. See e.g. de:Kategorie:Anglikaner. --Pjacobi 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Religion is one of a person's most significant attributes. Olborne 13:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passer-by 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restrict to those for whom the Anglican Communion is notable. But I don't see how this leads to deleting the category, rather than depopulating it. Note that this cat should have no articles in it directly at all. Septentrionalis 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An important issue. Sussexman 17:59, 3 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per this CfD, matching other categories in category:Wikipedians interested in TV.--Mike Selinker 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment maybe everything should be renamed to who watch, since you might not necessarily like a show, but still watch it if you have nothing else to watch at that time... and thus become a pseudo-expert/pseuo-authority that can be consulted about the show on articles. 132.205.93.88 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --musicpvm 01:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually I think delete. Only one user so categorised and I really don't see it as useful or encyclopaedic. I know there has been a whole debate into userboxes and I am not intereted in going there - didn't pay much atention then and not interested in revisiting; my comments are stand alone about this category. If it was not a user category but a category of say people who played a sport, it would possibly get deleted. The one wikipedian who watches and maybe even likes this show is presumably an active editor of related articles and thus his/her interest will be apparent from his/her contributions. He /she can say as much on his/her user page. We don't need a category. Fellow The Shield watchers will surely find each other by article editing and constructively contributing.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ridiculously obscure catagory. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, meaning there is no need for such ridiculous catagories. Viridae^Talk 05:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - LA @ 10:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • C'mon, guys. We just named all of them according to a scheme, and this is the one outlier. Let's just fix it and move on, okay?--Mike Selinker 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 21:23, 1 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• category:Fans of Pokémon to category:Wikipedians who like Pokémon
• category:Fans of Digimon to category:Wikipedians who like Digimon
• category:Fans of Cardcaptor Sakura to category:Wikipedians who like Cardcaptor Sakura
• category:Fans of Wolf's Rain to category:Wikipedians who like Wolf's Rain
• category:Fans of Fist of the North Star to category:Wikipedians who like Fist of the North Star
• category:Full Metal Fan to category:Wikipedians who like Fullmetal Alchemist
• category:Fans of Gundam to category:Wikipedians who like Gundam
• category:Naruto fans to category:Wikipedians who like Naruto
• category:Fans of Sailor Moon to category:Wikipedians who like Sailor Moon

Similar to this CfD, these should gain "Wikipedians" in their name. There are also a couple dozen subcategories of the Naruto one, but someone more versed than me will have to figure those out.--Mike Selinker 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's also Category:User manga and Category:User anime, which could be renamed Category:Wikipedians interested in manga and Category:Wikipedians interested in anime, respectively. Then we might want to delete Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga, which would be redundant. - EurekaLott 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these are both anime and manga, so splitting it would cause headaches for (in my opinion) no reason.--Mike Selinker 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, not encyclopedic, and I can't see the justification for including this alongside such other useful, encyclopedic categories as Category:Presidents of the United States. --Cyde↔Weys 19:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. These are no more unencylopedic than all the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by interest and other Wikipedian categories. --musicpvm 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as it looks like I started this. :) - LA @ 10:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if they are both anime and manga, then Category:Wikipedians interested in anime and manga is a good parent. 132.205.93.88 22:32, 1 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge -- Drini 03:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:French defunct newspapers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Defunct newspapers of France. I created it by mistake. Rather than deleting it, a merge would be appropriate. Tazmaniacs 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 31 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other subcategories of the newly renamed category:Sports lore, per this recent CfD.--Mike Selinker 13:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I love how Sid Bream is on the list, although I hate the historical event that put him on that list... --M@rēino 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The new name for the parent category is dreadful. They should all changed back. How on earth did this get imposed on cricket and football? In British English "lore" does not mean "memorable moments". In fact is not a sensible term to use at all. Chicheley 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. "Lore" is completely acceptable to me as an English cricket fan and I have often heard the terms "cricket lore" and "soccer lore" spoken. I would only question if Americans use the word and apparently they do. Perfectly acceptable title. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "British English" does not mean anything at all. What a stupid term! As for "lore" it means "folklore" (i.e., things that are memorable) and it is widely used throughout England by people who speak English. --GeorgeWilliams 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No? Then perhaps the article British English should be deleted? Casper Claiborne 12:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of anecdotes. Casper Claiborne 12:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Anything that is verifiable is history, "lore" makes me think of dubious bar-room tales. Landolitan 21:35, 2 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Films associated with Generation X ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Who associates these films with Gen X? This is too subjective. Dismas|^(talk) 13:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree. This is highly subjective. What does "associated" mean anyway? Are these supposed to be movies that Gen X watches, enjoys, wrote, starred in, or what? --dm ^(talk) 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a shame, this is a really good idea. I'm sure that the Generation X article could benefit from a well-cited dissertation on cinema's role in its cultural development. As a category, though, it's very subjective as to what's in and what's out. --M@rēino 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categories are not a good tool for dealing with matters that are hard to pin down. The discriminating reader should have no confidence in such categories, so it follows that Wikipedia will have more credibility, and will mislead less people, if they do not exist. Chicheley 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and develop As per M this is a good idea and it is downright insulting to suggest that some readers are not discriminating. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is the suggestion that some readers are not discriminating insulting? Some readers are in fact not discriminating. So what? --dm ^(talk) 05:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too subjective. There's not even firm agreement on what dates qualify one as a Gen-X-er, much less a clear definition of what movies are associated with it. --Bookgrrl 02:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and develop if it goes nowhere, then delete, but give the category a chance, it was just created yesterday. The person or people categorizing the films into this category haven't even gotten to the Hughes films yet, and those are definately my generation, which happens to be Generation X. - LA @ 10:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - EurekaLott 15:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and maybe listify. There are categories for film genres and even films "by societal reaction", but other than "children's films" none connecting a particular age group to a type of film; I think this could get messy. If there were, say, a WikiProject GenX, maybe. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:19, 1 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete also with Category:Cities with minimal evidence of world city formation - GaWC Inventory of World Cities (1999 Edition) (per common sense) -- Drini 03:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Cities with some evidence of world city formation - GaWC Inventory of World Cities (1999 Edition) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Delete, Aside from the horrendously long name, this is better as a list, with perhaps a mention in each article with a link to the relevant article. older ≠ wiser 12:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a list somewhere or other, probably at global city. This is very bad category material. Nonomy 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete its better as a list. Also delete the similar Category:Cities with minimal evidence of world city formation - GaWC Inventory of World Cities (1999 Edition) - can it be added to this nomination? Also note that the template for this cat is listed for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 31. ---Vclaw 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and make into a list. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BlackJack et al --Bookgrrl 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olborne 13:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to something including "global city" in the title, as opposed to the former, the latter is usual terminology in urban planning and development literature (Sassen 1991, e.g.)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 17:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Use see also list. Passer-by 19:16, 2 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Dutch liberals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Category:Dutch conservatives
• Delete, Inherently POV. Includes self-proclaimed affiliations, which are difficult to prove. Errabee 12:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm ignorant here, what are the names of the Dutch political parties? Lots of nations have parties named The Liberals and The Conservatives. Maybe that's what's going on here. --M@rēino 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are many Dutch political parties; there are two that are member of the Liberal International. On the other hand, one of these is also considered to be the most conservative political party (although in US terms they would be called left-wing extremists). However, definitions like conservative tend to be vague, most certainly so in the Netherlands. Because where one can be conservative on one issue, they can be progressive in other issues. True conservatives, noteable enough to be included in Wikipedia, will be hard to find. Errabee 19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Members of Democrats 66 and People's Party for Freedom and Democracy are liberals. Both these parties are member of the Liberal International. The problem begun I think when someone added Femke Halsema to this category, who is a Green politician with GreenLeft (pedigree to the Dutch communists: CPN). Bart Jan Spruyt, who is in the conservative category is founder of the Edmund Burke Stichting, named after Edmund Burke. Intangible 16:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed it began when someone put Femke Halsema in there. She's a self-proclaimed liberal, and indeed she has some liberal ideas; but in my opinion calling her a liberal is like saying cats and dogs are best friends. And I would like to think that membership of a (political) party is not automatically proof someone is liberal or conservative. Let history decide upon that. Errabee 19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well guess who were the first two in the category [3] and [4]. I had not really the intention to put every member of D66 or VVD in this cat. Bolkestein is one who I would put in this category, because he has written about (Dutch) liberalism. Intangible 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. But now it looks like membership of VVD or D66 guarantees categorization as Dutch liberal. Errabee 10:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Again, that was not my intention for these two categories. Maybe the introduction should be more explicit? Most politicians from D66 and the VVD can be removed from the cat imho. This category should be about people who shaped liberalism in the Netherlands, and can include some politicians, but I rather see history deal with those current politicans of D66 and VVD, if they warrant an inclusion at all! Intangible 01:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I agree with this definition of the category, and the removal of most politicians except the ones that have explicitly and unambiguously added to the liberal or conservative movements. Errabee 13:04, 3 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as meaningless. It contains four subcategories, all of which have other parent categories. --Mereda 09:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is misnamed and undercategorised, that it all. It should be a subcategory of category:Categories named after people. Keep and rename to Category:Categories named after Pakistani people. Nonomy 13:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Categories named after people should not be subcategorized by nationality. --musicpvm 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. They are already in Category:Categories named after people. --musicpvm 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Nonomy. The number of these categories will grow, so the categorisation system for them will need to evolve. I actually have less of a problem with large numbers of categories being added to other categories than to articles. Chicheley 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. What on Earth is the point of large numbers of categories with tiny numbers of articles in them? As for articles being spread across multiple categories, it is a wiki guideline that an article should have multiple access routes. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 31 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was dELETE and Category:User cAPS as well per common sense (this CFD is discussing the same issue) -- Drini 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Category:WIKIPEDIANS WHO USE cAPS LOCK ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• DELETE. I'M JEALOUS THAT THERE'S NO CATEGORY FOR USERS WHO CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO TURN OFF CAPS LOCK. - EUREKALOTT 07:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another Wikipedian joke category. --Cswrye 19:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE PER NOM. --musicpvm 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who use caps lock. No stranger than many other "Wikipedians who foo" categories. --Usgnus 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as completely ridiculous and a poor joke. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep as it is attached to a user template that is in use. - LA @ 10:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Aw, Keep as it's pretty darn funny. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Vegaswikian 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Category:User cAPS and Category:WIKIPEDIANS WHO USE cAPS LOCK or - if kept - rename to Category:Wikipedians who use caps lock and merge with Category:User cAPS --The.Modificator 22:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE - Kittybrewster 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. I wouldn't include myself in this category, but I imagine this (and many others) would be seen as trivial to those whom it doesn't concern. I'll gladly extend the benefit of the doubt to others as I appreciate extension of same to myself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify within user name space. Passer-by 19:17, 2 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Churches in Georgia to Category:Churches in Georgia (U.S. state)

• Round two for this category; its previous incarnation was renamed to Category:Churches in Georgia (country). Now it's time to fix the category created for the state. Rename. - EurekaLott 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Which one gets the redirect? --Dhartung | Talk 08:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For most of the Georgia categories, the answer is neither. A disambiguation category could be created, but they have to be patrolled manually. - EurekaLott 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Category:Churches in Georgia should become a disambiguation category, just like Category:Government of Georgia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This Disambiguation category thing is growing on me. --M@rēino 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the use of disambiguation categories should be discouraged in most cases, because people will not pay attention and will place articles in the categories anyhow. See Category:People from Georgia for an example. If the category is a red link, contributors will not use it. - EurekaLott 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming, oppose disambiguation category page per EurekaLott Signed: Bejnar 22:44, 4 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jericho to Category:Jericho (TV series)

• Rename, disambiguation. This TV series is only one recent instance of the name "Jericho", take a gander at Jericho (disambiguation) to see what I mean. heqs 05:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. There isn't a Jericho (city) category yet? --Dhartung | Talk 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Jericho (US TV series) Bluap 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This might be better, to disambiguate from Jericho (2005 TV series). I'm not sure. (Category:Jericho was created for articles about Jericho (TV series), if anyone was wondering.) heqs 06:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - LA @ 10:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 04:50, 2 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:District of Columbia to Category:Washington, D.C.

• Merge, There are many reasons for suggesting this, but the two most powerful are

1. article District of Columbia already redirects to Washington, D.C., and
2. both categories contain few entries, so a merge would be pretty easy.

72.83.87.17 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The city and district are under one unified government (mayor & council, with Congress holding the purse strings and city constitution), so most of these are one and the same. But historically Georgetown and Alexandria were in the District as separate entities. Maybe that's moot, but there could be a case for keeping them separate. Most of the subcats and articles, though, seem like they could go in either or are already in both. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. The distinction is important but I feel that its explanation belongs in the main Washington, D.C. article, with another note on the Washington, D.C. category page, and possibly subcategories for Washington-specific and DC-specific topics if necessary. Does that sound okay? In any case, it's the ambiguity of the articles presently categorized that I'm worried about. --72.83.87.17
• Strong Merge. They are sufficiently synonymous. The only differences are trivial. Separate categories is confusing and creates more problems than it solves. —Markles 10:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. You are correct on both counts. I'm a DC/DC-metro native and no-one ever calls the city anything but "DC". My confusion upon finding an initial category for the formerly uncategorized Southeast article is what led to a merge nomination. --72.83.87.17
• Merge. There hasn't been a distinction between the two in over a century. --dm ^(talk) 15:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A hopeless, meaningless oppose per Dhartung. It makes sense administratively, but it's a beautiful distinction that The District's locals are fond of making. --M@rēino 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Unless we're trying to troll tourists, in day-to-day discourse any resident who isn't a lawyer (and there are some!) typically ignores the distinction. Worthy of section in the Washington, D.C. article, surely, but perhaps not requiring its own category right now---especially when most (all?) of the articles thusly categorized today are not "DC"-specific! Thanks for your consideration. --72.83.87.17
• Merge. I actually like to think that there should be separate articles for Washington, D.C and the District of Columbia, but as long as the articles are merged, the categories probably should be as well. --Cswrye 19:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. The distinction is trivial. Users should not have to look through two categories. It is confusing especially when there is only one article. --musicpvm 20:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge to Category:District of Columbia. The District is distinct from the city, and articles would fit better into the district named category, as it would be nonsensical to discuss Alexandria in a Wash-DC category. 132.205.93.88 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment District of Columbia and Washington, D.C. should be separate articles. It makes no sense to combine them. 132.205.93.88 00:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Follow-up I did not suspect that there would be as many District advocates as there are. Let me know what you think of the following approach as an alternative to my suggested merge.

1. Create a distinct District of Columbia stub article.
2. Add a disambig message to the District of Columbia and Washington, D.C. articles, explaining the distinction and cross-linking to each other.
3. Remove all Washington, D.C.-specific entries---except for the main Washington, D.C. article---from the District of Columbia category.
4. Add a disambig message to the District of Columbia and Washington, D.C. categories.

The crux of the matter is that DC and Washington, DC are effectively synonyms in informal speech, at least locally and perhaps nationally in the USA. This issue should be highlighted by disambig notices if the articles & categories are to remain separate. Also, separate category pages should contain explicit descriptions of the categories' intended content in order to avoid further miscategorization. The argument for separate District stuff is valid but let's be consistent: either leave the article redirect and merge the categories, or create a new District article, clean up the District category, and crosslink everything with disambig messages. Does that make sense? Thanks, everyone, for your comments. --72.83.87.17

• Keep both. Passer-by 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Duplicate categories are not helpful. Any differences can be explained in an article. Landolitan 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per all above. Hezzy 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The District of Columbia and the city of Washington were not coterminous until 1895, when the remainder of the district were either retroceded to Virginia (namely, Alexandria County) or annexed by the city (Georgetown and Washington County). Some of the subcategories, e.g. category:history of the District of Columbia and category:history of Washington, D.C. have to be separated, with good reasons. Both nominated categories should stay, but it's true many of the subcategories have to be fixed and consolidated. — Instantnood 19:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Duplicate categories are not helpful. Any differences can be explained in an article. SchmuckyTheCat 20:40, 5 August 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who are hot ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Totally POV category, no objective way to determine who belongs. If kept, would require a rename to something like Category:Wikipedians who are hot. Vegaswikian 01:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, per nom. --The Raven 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless. - EurekaLott 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians in drought states. Or delete. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This vanity/joke category does nothing to help the project. Nonomy 13:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Category:Wikipedians who are hot, or Category:Wikipedians who like heat. Everyone who's voting delete seems to be under the misguided belief that this category is using the word "hot" as slang to mean "sexy." It's not. It's included in Template:User Hot, which ever since its creation has featured a picture of a volcano and implied hot temperatures. --M@rēino 16:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regardless of the meaning of "hot". If it refers to temperatures, well, that's not a constant description since the temperature can change daily. If it's referring to attractiveness, the category doesn't describe anything that could contribute to the project. However, If this category is not deleted for some reason, it should be renamed "Wikipedians who are hot". --Cswrye 19:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, meaningless, pointless, subjective, unencyclopedic, userbox-populated category. Need I say more? --Cyde↔Weys 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If deleted, the closer should update the infobox to remove the cat. Vegaswikian 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Either find a suitable and meaningful name or forget it. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Just out of curiosity, what would be a suitable name for this category ;) --Bookgrrl 02:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

• Delete per Cyde-of-the-light-red. Viridae^Talk 05:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/ Completely pointless. —Mira 06:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as the corresponding cold user template does not have a category attached to it. - LA @ 10:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This ain't MySpace or Facebook. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SterlingNorth (talk • contribs) .
• Strong Delete. It's POV, OR, and most importantly, I'm miffed that I'm not on the list. Crabapplecove 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All of Wikipedia is POV and trivial—that is, where it can even be verified. Objectivity is a joke. Why should categories be any different? (n.b. I actually love this place.)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hopelessly POV in any case. --Royalbroil 19:20, 2 August 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.