< July 19	July 21 >

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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this list of 3 complete? Will it be kept up to date? One would have to check a Wikipedia article or another source to decide, which makes the category rather pointless. Hawkestone 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Hawkestone 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete population size subcats don't seem to be standard practice, would need updating with each census. --Groggy Dice 23:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. David Kernow 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for a separate list as ppulation information can be added to subdivisions of Peru. Choalbaton 12:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 12:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 05:26, 22 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in line with the general convention for regions. Hawkestone 22:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. C56C 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 05:27, 22 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Journals" may indicate periodicals of a scholarly nature, and "magazines" those of a "mainstream" nature, but that is not currently clear, and I don't think the average user either knows or cares about the distinction. I suggest we either merge journals into magazines or create a parent cat, Category:Political periodicals and tuck them both under it, with appropriate descriptions on each cat page. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Casper Claiborne 22:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While the proposed merge makes sense (merging both into magazines), the result would be a category that is very large. Is there some other way to subdivide these? siafu 05:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Create Political periodicals as their parent category. Passer-by 13:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and then subdivide by country of publication. Athenaeum 13:54, 22 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is no longer used - 132.205.45.148 19:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. C56C 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 05:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 20:01, 23 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 keep --Kbdank71 16:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. Those leagues that were nationalist can go into Category:French nationalist leagues, those that were fascist can go into Category:French fascist leagues. Intangible 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose.Here we go again. Intangible is trolling around. See here for a non exhaustive list of his recent edits and Afd. The category "French far right leagues" is in accordance with the Far right leagues article, based on the article. "Far right" is actually lot less ambiguous than the categories proposed by Intangible, since many historians disagree on whether these leagues were or weren't "fascists". This debate is of course linked to the alleged existence of a "French Fascism", a thesis supported in particular by Zeev Sternhell. No historian doubts that they were nationalist, anti-Semitic and militarists; the question rather is if the fascist rituals and appearance adopted by them (Roman salute, etc.) was only an outward appearance or rather a true fascist organization. Thus, the category "far right" leaves this debate open and lets each one make up his own mind on the subject. Tazmaniacs 18:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See the section "Words implying a value judgement" in Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Intangible 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. hat is pure sophistry, as has already been pointed out to you on other pages for CfDs. Far right has an obvious and neutral meaning in the French context (and in several others, especially those of 19th and early 20th century Latin Europe); for Chrissake, it was a self-designation! Dahn 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an English language wikipedia. Intangible 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per Tazmaniacs and per common sense. 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (User:Dahn (forgot to sign)).
• Oppose, category names should follow the corresponding article names (and shouldn't take stances on highly controversial historical questions, in any case). (A somewhat less-than-serious question: would the Catholic League count as "far right"? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the far right leagues article should make clear (if it isn't enough, this should be changed), the term "ligue" was mainly used in the 1930s, although historians usually distinguish end of 19th century far right leagues, 1920s and 1930s leagues. Thus, to answer your question, not it doesn't. Tazmaniacs 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep category as is per others. Intangible is splitting hairs to get rid of "right" and "left," which are very distinctive and important definitions. His argument is poor since he is worried about "french" meanings, when this is the English wikipedia. C56C 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am absolutely not worried about "French" meanings; I would rather see them be removed from the English Wikipedia. Intangible 01:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep category as is. Aren't all poliitical groups "nationalistic"? Seems like a personal issue with "right" and "left," which is being expressed with deletion nominations. C56C 03:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you voting twice? There is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Intangible 23:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never metioned anything about patriotism. YOU want it changed to nationalistic when there are nationalistic groups on the left. So you therefore destroy the classification of French politics between right and left, which includes a distinction of far right french that oppose parliamentarism. French left parties are very nationalistic. You know nothing about french politics and POV to get right of left and right categories does the wiki readers no favors. C56C 20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Some far left regimes also exploit nationalism. Osomec 22:09, 28 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Manchester, England" is ugly and sounds American. No other Manchester has as significant a musical presence. There is precedent with Category:Music from Liverpool, renamed from Category:Music from Liverpool, England on March 16, 2006. —Wereon 16:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Landolitan 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How does it feel, to rename this like you do? BoojiBoy 13:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Choalbaton 14:32, 23 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is just POV. The majority of historians have been alleged to be nationalist or marxist or whatever by somebody, most often by sombebody with a political agenda as well. For npov reasons, only historians that self-identify as nationalist could be added to this category. Of the three entries in the cat, Ram Swarup is not a historian and K.S. Lal has never self-identified as a nationalist. (Though he may have been alleged of being nationalist by others with a political agenda, because Lal did not sucribe to the negationist revisionism of indian medieval history, not because he was a nationalist.) The only one in the category that could maybe be described as nationalist is Goel, but I don't know if he self-identified as a nationalist, and sources for this claim are missing. Bottom line, a category "Indian nationalists" should be more than enough, for these people that self-identify as nationalists. (There is also not a category "Indian marxist historians".) --Msiev 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Indian historians per above. Landolitan 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Indian historians. Pigeon-holing historians with one or two word labels in category names could be misleading in many cases. Choalbaton 12:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is POV, but not because of some personal political agenda. It is simply reflects a real and huge schism between historians of India that exists today. There is the whole debate going on within India on its history in particular the impact of Muslim and English (read Christian) and even other older conquerors of India which affects politics and even school books of history. I agree there is no India marxist historians catergory but maybe there should be, but there is a Marxist historians category as well as article describing what that is and it may required a sub-section for Indians because this split is sufficiently significant that it needs to be acknowledge by Wikipedia as it leads to significant alternative renditions of history that extend outwards to even Japan and Ancient Greece. The only people labelling each other with this pigeonhole labels are the historians themselves by using labels such as "saffron", "marxist", "colonial", "hindu nationalist" "communal" etc.

Please read the following articles and you can easily find a lot more on the net.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=741

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0203/190.html

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/feb/04thapar.htm

My aim in creating this category was to acknowledge this category of historians and the whole debate, naturally we must accordingly also acknowledge the other side but the central theme is these are historians who are attempting to change the way history is viewed today, and they need to be mentioned. These people are historians, they have a significantly marked view of history and are acknowledged as such by each other and they have a defining charecteristic trait in their works and as such this category is a valid and real classification of historians. You can help me by exploring a way to do this effectively, deleting is I beleive the same as denying its existence which is a disservice to the community. I have attempted to keep the section balanced to reflect this, and it is still work under progrees. --Tigeroo 23:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. While I agree with Tigeroo that there is a very real and huge schism (look at the edit history and discussions for Taj Mahal, for example), I don't think that there is an NPOV way for wikipedia to represent this by categorization. I think it would be much more fruitful, especially in the long run, to address this case-by-case in the text of the articles themselves. siafu 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Indian historians. Yes, nationalist historians exist, but there is no pov way to make a cat on them.--Aldux 11:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair Enough, can we turn it into an article instead of a category then let it regulate itself? --Tigeroo 09:14, 26 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Based in X" is the wording used by all but one sub-cats of Category:Organisations by city (Ex: Category:Organizations based in Philadelphia). Renaming is proposed for reasons of consistency. Kurieeto 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 20:07, 20 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 ((category redirect)). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Polioptilidae. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect or reverse merge if there is no difference. Nonomy 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect Sumahoy 22:56, 24 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProveIt added the to speedy to amend "Course" to "courses", but the correct form is "clubs and courses". Twittenham 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Twittenham 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 22:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ReeseM 04:58, 26 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 --Kbdank71 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem very useful. --SPUI (T - C) 13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rather marginal to both articles. Potential Amtrak expansion is better covered in the Amtrak article. Chicheley 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• " It remains to be seen if Amtrak or a successor will plan to revive the Phoebe Snow or operate medium-haul trains from Binghamton, New York over a restored Cutoff." Delete category b/c (1) current members are all Crystal Ball violations, (2) if you follow Amtrak in Congress, you know that there are thousands of "potential" routes, but that Congress isn't going to fund them while Bush is in office, so it's all way too speculative. --M@rēino 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chicheley. The "potential" changes all the time. siafu 05:35, 22 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to rename the following Think tanks by country categories to use the "based in X" wording of their parent, Category:Organizations (Ex Category:Organisations based in Italy). The current names are ambiguous for several reasons, including the "of" wording leaving it ambiguous if the think tank is an arm of the state. The "based in X" wording is preferable for reasons of clarity and consistency. The following renamings are proposed:

• Category:Australian think tanks to Category:Think tanks based in Australia
• Category:Think tanks in the United States to Category:Think tanks based in the United States
• Category:Think tanks of Pakistan to Category:Think tanks based in Pakistan
• Category:Strategic think tanks of Pakistan to Category:Strategic think tanks based in Pakistan
• Category:Political and economic think tanks of Pakistan to Category:Political and economic think tanks based in Pakistan
• Category:Political and economic think tanks of the United Kingdom to Category:Political and economic think tanks based in the United Kingdom

--Kurieeto 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. --Mais oui! 00:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 02:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Hawkestone 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Athenaeum 14:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate Rename to Category:Think tanks in the United States, etc. (would leave U.S. the same, but changing others) "Based in" implies the think tanks are necessarily international, "in" leaves it open to international and domestic think tanks. -- Tim4christ17 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I don't see that the implication Tim4christ17 asserts exists. Landolitan 17:02, 26 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 15:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Entertainers who died before age 20
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 40s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 50s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 70s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 80s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 90s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s
• Category:Entertainers by age upon death
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide before they were 20
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 30s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 40s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 50s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 60s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 70s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 80s

Far too specific, could lead to categories such as "People named Tim who died young" or "Entertainers under 5'6" " - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. ReeseM 14:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Landolitan 19:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is minor value in the categories for entertainers who died in their 20s and 30s, but if this system isn't nipped in the bud it could be the thin end of the wedge that leads age of death categories being added to everyone. Hawkestone 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment None of the categories proposed for deletion in this nomination have yet been flagged with a ((cfdu)) notice. Kurieeto 17:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Moreover, the parent category Category:Entertainers by age upon death, and the subcategories (e.g. Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s) should be included, based on the nom. siafu 05:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as category clutter. All now tagged.Golfcam 02:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All: Come on! This is the fourth time these have been nominated and the vote has been leaning more and more to keep each time! Isn't there some limit to this? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the first bunch of these were created nine months ago with the rest following shortly thereafter. There is no trend towards more specificity here. I'm more worried about the little end-around by not tagging the categories until three days after the CFD is started! Very uncool. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, and also delete Category:People named Tim who died young, too. Nandesuka 04:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I feel like we've done this before. JRP 07:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Extreme overcategorisation. Choalbaton 14:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Athenaeum 14:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all agredd that is far too specific,next they'll put 'entertainers who love pbj's' or something.i am snape.i killed innocent bugs. 17:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All I think it's a good category as it lists all the people under this in a easy to find manner.User:Mikecraig 14:00, 25 July 2006
• Delete all These are very trivial categories. Chicheley 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All This is very useful and interesting, and it is an excellent reference resource. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.69.2.88 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 26 July 2006.
• Delete as useless minutae. Piccadilly 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all These could be fine lists. The lists could be linked to all the articles when the articles say something like "... died at the age of 73... I hope the closing admin will keep the category contents before deleting. -- Samuel Wantman 10:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recent (largely positive) review of Wikipedia in a historians' professional journal identified the obsession with linking people to others who were born or died in the same year as a example of Wikipedia's over focus on easily identified but irrelevant trivia. Merchbow 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as trivia. Merchbow 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is the 4th nomination in less than a year. See previous noms here. These are potentially very useful categories that can save much research time. One strength of WP is its ability to provide cross-connections to information not obviously related. What may be "trivial" or "minutiae" to some may be vital to others. WP content should be as deep as it is broad. --Blainster 09:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided so Keep: the categories documenting a young death should be kept, as it is a part of their legend, but "Entertainers who died in their 70s" may be considered poor form (or morbid). Although I believe it is unfortunate that categories were made for every possible old age, "Entertainers who died in their 20s" provides an interesting service. - GilliamJF 10:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mixed Fold all of the suicide categories into Category:Entertainers who committed suicide and leave the age of death categories alone. If an entertainer committed suicide at age 46, then that entertainer would be in Category:Entertainers who died in their 40s and Category:Entertainers who committed suicide. We don't want to have a bunch of categories crop up such as Category:Entertainers who were murdered in their 60s. Keep cause of death and age at death seperate. Keep everything above Category:Entertainers who committed suicide before they were 20, from that category down, merge with Category:Entertainers who committed suicide. The reason I don't have a problem with the ages is that those categories are by decade, not specific years.
  Another problem is that these have been up for deletion 3 times before and were kept then, this looks like persecution. - LA @ 11:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note My comment was a little off, but I was tired when doing it...minor change to make it make sense. - LA @ 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP ALL!

Why the obsession to delete these Categories? They are valuable tools for those researchers trying to identify trends - among other things. There are many areas of study that are of no interest to some, but are at the core of others’ work. If you are working in the fields of psychology or sociology, certain categories would be important to have – if you are not, they would not – leave them alone! Michael David 12:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all the above categories. Q0 13:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, somewhat useful in assessing correlation between lifestyles/personality and life expectancy. Arniep 13:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no harm in these categories, although I'm uncertain about the suicide categories - they should have had a separate nomination; I won't complain if they're kept, too, though. 23skidoo 15:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Mikecraig Agathoclea 15:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I think these categories can and should be deleted (see above), I see no problem with keeping the information as lists. The list could include additional information, such as cause of death, and combine all the information in one place. I'd suggest List of entertainers by age at death. I've copied all the information now contained in the categories into a text file. If anyone wants to create this list, please let me know and I'll upload it. I have no interest in this subject. -- Samuel Wantman 15:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wanted to note User:Blainster's User talk CFD notifications to Users GilliamJF, Deiz, Carie, Carlossuarez46, MK2, Q0, Arniep, Lady Aleena, Ckessler, Michael David, 23skiddo, and SportsMasterESPN. A proposed policy/guideline about such notifications is under development at: Wikipedia:Survey notification. Kurieeto 16:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why would you post a comment about a proposal which is under development? Michael David 19:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the proceedings here are relevant to the proposal, and Wikipedians involved in this CFD which has been affected by a series of User survey notifications may want to contribute to the development of the proposal. Kurieeto 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blainster notified me of this, yes, but I still have my own mind, hence my mixed comment. - LA @ 19:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I was notified, too. As I've said on other AfD's: I appreciate the notice, whether I participate or comment to the liking of the notifier is entirely MY DECISION. And for those who like to make comments along the lines of Kurieeto; I fail to see any relevance to them unless the editor seeks to devalue or discount the input from some other editors. Carlossuarez46 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks for making me aware of the survey notification proposal. It needs to be discussed. I only contacted editors who have participated in one of the three other CFDs for this group (now expanded to include suicides) in the last six months, which seems like PCP (persistant category persecution). --Blainster 21:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep these have been kept several times before, are useful, certainly as useful as [[:Category:<year> births]] and [[:Category:<year> deaths]]. Carlossuarez46 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for all you "keepers" Would you accept a compromise of turning these into a list? A list could have much more information than the category, would be more comprehensive, and probably easier to maintain. The list could be linked from all the articles. The information would still exist, and would be found by those looking for it. The problem with this as a category is that it sends the message that this information is very significant and an important way to categorize people. I think that is the main problem that inspires people to say "delete". Wouldn't making this a list be a win-win solution? -- Samuel Wantman 21:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I voted to keep and I would be willing to accept turning the categories into lists as a compromise. Q0 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all --Josh 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These should still be deleted because there was a consensus at 7 days. The way the "keep" votes arrived in a bunch at the point when the nomination was no longer on the main page makes it near certain that one person gathered up a bunch of meat puppets. Therefore imo the first batch of votes represent community consensus, and the second does not. Golfcam 13:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree with the 7-day argument, but you are correct that after 7 days, editors from the previous polls who voted to "keep" in those polls were notified via their Talk pages to come here. This would appear to be in violation of WP:SPAM, but as that is just a guideline, it isn't binding. (But could be used in the closure consideration by the admin that chooses to wade into this mess.) The relevant part of the guideline is: Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view. So, I agree with your suggested discounting of the votes, but the issue was not meat puppets. JRP 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it becomes relevant to consideration, the editors who voted only after being notified include User:Carlossuarez46, User:SportsMasterESPN, User:23skidoo, User:Arniep, User:Q0, User:Michael David, and User:GilliamJF. Prior to the spamming, there were only three "keep" votes. Again however, this isn't a banned practice, just against a guideline. It should be up to the admin that closes this CFD to determine whether that should be considered. JRP 13:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What time is can spend contributing to Wikipedia in a given period I spend working on Articles. I do not routinely scan the ‘Cats for Deletion’ page. Someone who knows these particular Categories being considered for deletion are of special interest to me called this to my attention. I am grateful for that. That is the reason I was told about the discussion in progress. What, on earth is wrong with that. And, spamming!?! – come on!! Michael David 14:23, 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 both. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable podcast/website/group of covergirls[/networks]. Part of astroturfing campaign, see WP:AN/I. Mak (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete [both] good grief BigDT 05:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete [both], astroturfing, non-notable. Antandrus (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. David Kernow 06:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. ReeseM 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'em, the Covergirls category at least has some virtues, though not "Christian" ones, but my Google searches indicate that Christian30 is NN, and this is astroturfing. --Groggy Dice 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, nn. --Royalbroil 03:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Piccadilly 21:01, 26 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 cat redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:British Columbia actors. I recategorized the only article that was in the category. --Usgnus 04:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect Athenaeum 14:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect Sumahoy 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 18:16, 26 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 cat redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The professor categories were renamed/merged into academics categories. This category contains only one article. Merge into Category:Singaporean academics and keep as a category redirect. Hawkestone 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per nom. David Kernow 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per nom. Choalbaton 14:33, 23 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 (corresponding article has been moved). --RobertG ♬ talk 09:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official website[1] clearly shows that the name is the Charles S. Roberts Awards, and is abbreviated as CSR rather than CR. --Groggy Dice 03:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (nominator) Earlier, I'd put this one in for a speedy to capitalize "award," but I told Stbalbach about it and he inserted the "S." into the proposal, which got it objected to. Nevertheless, I agree with him about what the name should be. (Stbablbach has also started a rename proposal on the main article.) --Groggy Dice 03:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, on the assumption the article rename succeeds. --Dhartung | Talk 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with Dhartung's condition. --Usgnus 04:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have an email from the Prez of CSRA saying the correct name is CSRA in case it's needed. -- Stbalbach 04:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'll back that up with personal experience with the organization.--Mike Selinker 06:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ReeseM 04:58, 26 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the convention used in Category:National symbols by nation. (The only other exception is the Northern Irish category, but that has a much broader range of content than all the others and I am not sure what should be done with it.)ReeseM 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. ReeseM 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Re Category:Northern Ireland symbols, Category:National symbols of Northern Ireland...?  (So far as I'm aware, Northern Ireland is a nation alongside England, Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom...?)  David Kernow 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at the contents. The other categories contain only national symbols, but the Northern Ireland one contains things that aren't national symbols in the loosest possible sense, such as sports club badges. ReeseM 14:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies not to've checked. Perhaps Category:Northern Ireland symbols could be renamed to Category:Northern Irish symbols or the like and placed in an appropriate parent category, to distinguish it from Category:National symbols of Northern Ireland...?  Regards, David 03:06, 21 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very simple and non-controversial rename: the project changed its title, we need the category changed to match. —Mira 01:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Category:WikiProject Catholicism 101 articles to Category:WikiProject Catholicism articles. —Mira 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. What about Category:WikiProject Catholicism 101 articles? --Usgnus 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That one is tied to a template (Template:Project Catholicism 101) that is currently at WP:TFD. I wasn't sure if it should be messed with until the TFD is over. But I suppose if it's okay, then I'll add that one here. —Mira 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom. --Usgnus 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. David Kernow 06:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. --Tim4christ17 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. Piccadilly 21:02, 26 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They contain identical information. Jandek only releases on Corwood Industries, and they don't represent any other artists. Cúchullain ^t/c 01:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wait, you forgot "The Units"! ~ ~ trialsanderrors 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. One (Jandek) is an artist category, the other (Corwood Industries) is a record label category. Merging the two could set a really stupid precedent. --CJ Marsicano 12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Corwood to Jandek. If and when Corwood Industries "diversifies", it can be a supercategory of Category:Jandek albums. siafu 05:41, 22 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 14:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the conversation, albeit short conversation, here, these categories are up for renaming. Please help me find others and add them to the list. As I was tagging these I found out about a template for WikiProject participants to use which automatically generates categories, however, over a half of these were tagged before I found out about it. Hopefully the template can be changed to reflect this new naming convention, which will hopefully be set with this cfr. Thank you.
&#151;Lady Aleena talk/contribs 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Participants in WikiProjects to Category:WikiProject participants

Category:WikiProject Anglicanism members to Category:WikiProject Anglicanism participants

Category:WikiProject Australian sports Members to Category:WikiProject Australian sports participants

Category:WikiProject Avatar: The Last Airbender members to Category:WikiProject Avatar: The Last Airbender participants

Category:WikiProject Blackadder Members to Category:WikiProject Blackadder members

Category:WikiProject British TV shows members to Category:WikiProject British TV shows participants

Category:User WikiProject Business Economics to Category:WikiProject Business Economics participants

Category:WikiProject Catholicism members to Category:WikiProject Catholicism participants

Category:WikiProject Cats Members to Category:WikiProject Cats members

Category:Participants in WikiProject Chemistry to Category:WikiProject Chemistry participants

Category:WikiProject Colorado Members to Category:WikiProject Colorado members

Category:WikiProject Computer and video games members to Category:WikiProject Computer and video games participants

Category:WikiProject Contract bridge to Category:WikiProject Contract bridge participants

Category:WikiProject Cycling Members to Category:WikiProject Cycling members

Category:WikiProject Dad's Army Members to Category:WikiProject Dad's Army members

Category:WikiProject Doctor Who Members to Category:WikiProject Doctor Who members

Category:Participants in WikiProject Education in Canada to Category:WikiProject Education in Canada members

Category:Members of WikiProject Ethiopia to Category:WikiProject Ethiopia members

Category:Users involved with WikiProject FBI to Category:WikiProject FBI participants

Category:WikiProject Fascism members to Category:WikiProject Fascism participants

Category:WikiProject Fawlty Towers Members to Category:WikiProject Fawlty Towers members

Category:Participants in WikiProject Films to Category:WikiProject Films participants

Category:WikiProject Final Fantasy members to Category:WikiProject Final Fantasy participants

Category:User FY to Category:WikiProject Former Yugoslavia participants

Category:WikiProject Graffiti members to Category:WikiProject Graffiti participants

Category:WikiProject Hindu mythology Members to Category:WikiProject Hindu mythology members

Category:WikiProject Hinduism Members to Category:WikiProject Hinduism members

Category:WikiProject Hip Hop members to Category:WikiProject Hip Hop participants

Category:WikiProject Hitchhikier's Guide to the Galaxy Members to Category:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy members

Comment: Sorry to butt in the middle of this list, but this one should be renamed just to fix the typo. It's the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. --JohnDBuell 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Horror members to Category:WikiProject Horror participants

Category:WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy members to Category:WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy participants

Category:WikiProject International development members to Category:WikiProject International development participants

Category:Participants in WikiProject Jazz to Category:WikiProject Jazz participants

Category:Users of WikiProject Lakes to Category:WikiProject Lakes participants

Category:Participants in WikiProject Linkification to Category:WikiProject Linkification participants

Category:WikiProject Louisville Members to Category:WikiProject Louisville members

Category:WikiProject Macintosh members to Category:WikiProject Macintosh participants

Category:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering members to Category:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering participants

Category:WikiProject Mars Spacecraft to Category:WikiProject Mars Spacecraft participants

Category:Members of Team Peerage to Category:WikiProject Peerage members

Category:WikiProject Montenegro Member to Category:WikiProject Montenegro members

Category:WikiProject MusicBrainz members to Category:WikiProject MusicBrainz participants

Category:WikiProject NBL Member to Category:WikiProject NBL members

Category:NC State Routes WikiProject Members to Category:WikiProject North Carolina State Highways members

Category:WikiProject National Health Service members to Category:WikiProject National Health Service participants

Category:New Jersey State and County Routes WikiProject Members to Category:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes members

Category:Participants in WikiProject Opera to Category:WikiProject Opera participants

Category:Participants in WikiProject EastEnders to Category:WikiProject EastEnders participants

Category:Participants in WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities to Category:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities participants

Category:Wikiproject Perth Member to Category:WikiProject Perth members

Category:WikiProject Philadelphia members to Category:WikiProject Philadelphia participants

Category:WikiProject Physics Members to Category:WikiProject Physics members

Category:WikiProject Politics Members to Category:WikiProject Politics members

Category:Members of Project Presidents to Category:WikiProject U.S. Presidents members

Category:Participants in WikiProject Protected areas to Category:WikiProject Protected areas participants

Category:Queen WikiProject members to Category:WikiProject Queen participants

Category:WikiProject Running Members to Category:WikiProject Running members

Category:WikiProject Saints members to Category:WikiProject Saints participants

Category:WikiProject Scouting members to Category:WikiProject Scouting participants

Category:Participants in WikiProject Seattle to Category:WikiProject Seattle participants

Category:User WPSerbia to Category:WikiProject Serbia participants

Category:Participants of WikiProject Soil to Category:WikiProject Soil participants

Category:Members of WikiProject Soviet Union to Category:WikiProject Soviet Union members

Category:WikiProject Star Trek Members to Category:WikiProject Star Trek members

Category:WikiProject Star Wars members to Category:WikiProject Star Wars participants

Category:Participants in WikiProject Stargate to Category:WikiProject Stargate participants

Category:Members of WikiProject Utah to Category:WikiProject Utah members

Category:Wikiproject Vancouver Member to Category:WikiProject Vancouver members

Category:Participants in WikiProject Voting systems to Category:WikiProject Voting systems participants

Category:Washington State Highways WikiProject Members to Category:WikiProject Washington State Highways members

Category:WikiProject Webcomics members to Category:WikiProject Webcomics participants

Category:WikiProject Michigan members to Category:WikiProject Michigan participants

Category:WikiProject Transformers Members to Category:WikiProject Transformers members

Category:Members of WikiProject Yemen to Category:WikiProject Yemen members

Category:WikiProject Zoroastrianism Members to Category:WikiProject Zoroastrianism members

These I put up in Speedy as a capitalization fix, but they are now here in the general pool. - LA @ 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Archaeology Participants to Category:WikiProject Archaeology participants

Category:WikiProject Architecture Participants to Category:WikiProject Architecture participants

Category:WikiProject Arts Participants to Category:WikiProject Arts participants

Category:WikiProject Hersheypark Participants to Category:WikiProject Hersheypark participants

Category:WikiProject Martial Arts Participants to Category:WikiProject Martial Arts participants

Category:WikiProject Novels Participants to Category:WikiProject Novels participants

Category:WikiProject Sports Olympics Participants to Category:WikiProject Sports Olympics participants

Category:WikiProject Roller Coasters Participants to Category:WikiProject Roller Coasters participants

Category:WikiProject Television Participants to Category:WikiProject Television participants

Category:WikiProject U.S. Roads Participants to Category:WikiProject U.S. Roads participants

WikiProject participants discussion[edit]

• STRONG OPPOSE this mass tagging was brought up a mere 3 days ago and decided by merely 3 people who didn't bother to notify the projects. I think the projects should be free to name their own cats how ever they wish. So what if they're different? This is not for some 3-person oligarchy to decide, it's for the projects themselves to decide. Rlevse 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in the case of Scouting. As organized youth movements, one is a member, not a participant. Chris 00:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion. Allow 4 options: WikiProject X participants, WikiProject X members, Participants in WikiProject X, and Members of WikiProject X. --Usgnus 01:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree per nom. Look at the Chemistry and Physics ones. Quite different. There should be uniformity and it really does not matter what uniformity. --Bduke 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least on the part of WikiProject Catholicism. We have members, not participants. As for others, go by what they use on their main page. If the page says members, use members. If it says participants, use participants. —Mira 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Changing to support, see compromise section below. —Mira 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose trying to apply strict one-cat-fits-most description; I would strongly support having several options, such as what Usgnus suggested. --Stephane Charette 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Rlevse, but also, it should be the project's choice and it really isn't worth all the trouble to change it from member to participant, because they are just about the same thing. Don't get all techinical either, with the member means blah blah blah and participant means blah blah blah because in the end it really should be the project's choice. Darthgriz98 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This should be an RfC anyway, not a CfD. --JohnDBuell 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an encyclopedia, and consistency is important even in cases like this. I personally don't care if its "participants" or "members", but all the categories should follow the same naming convention. --musicpvm 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Qualified support The WikiProject template uses "participants," and I think consistency is important. Having said that, I think "members" is a more accurate description than "participants." All who participate in a WikiProject are members, but not all who are members participate. Fishhead64 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Consistency in categorizations in the Wikipedia space, in comparison with the Main space, isn't really that important, as most mainstream users won't ever notice them anyway. Further, this change is pretty much splitting hairs... members or participants... seems like a lot of work to make almost no change. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 05:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'd be willing to be part of the four-person oligarchy. :^) --Mike Selinker 06:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I Oppose force-fitting all "member" vs. "participant" descriptions into one "participant" mold. I'll confess in advance that I have far too many other things to do than to read all the deliberations and rationales that led to this dust-up, but at first AND second glance it looks like silly busywork, distracting many innocent people and sucking up their valuable cycles without adding real value. I believe I wrote in another debate once upon a time that most Wikipedia users are not power users, and the mass of overlapping wiki classification systems such as "categories" is alien, unusable, and irrelevant to anyone but a power user. So now, to that tiny minority who in a previous life argued over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I say: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson) OTOH, I'd support the sponsors if they settled for the rational consistency of simply re-ordering the words in cat titles such that, if the title includes "Wikiproject" and project_name, "Wikiproject" is the first word. (Or else project_name is first. Either method has equally good benefits. Pick one and apply to all.)  --Kkken 06:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild support. While it's not so relevant to be maintained for user-space, consistency is generall A Good Thing. I fail to see a big deal in "member" vs. "participant" naming. Thus, I'm of the same opinion as User:Stevietheman, but I'll support provided someone else does the job :-). Duja 07:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Currently, Category:Participants in WikiProjects is impossible to usefully navigate, due to the lack of naming consistency. It does take some work, sure, but the problem will only grow worse, and the task larger, the longer we let this pink elephant sit in the corner. I say deal with it now, so we can rest easy in the future. I'd be fine with allowing for "Wikiproject (NAME) (participants/members)," but that's probably the only inconsistency I'm supporting. At the very least, we need to get rid of all these "Participants in Wikiproject" and "Name Wikiproject" and other such sore thumbs. Luna Santin 07:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Responses by LA @ 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I only allowed three days of discussion in naming conventions, but after reading the few responses I got, I acted on my own and was being bold.
  • I have been accused of not giving the projects notice, a CfR IS notice.
  • The problem with different naming styles is the fact that they are hard to read, strain the eye, and make the parent category of all WikiProject particpant categories look messy.
  • A CfR is a lot stronger than a RfC. I have put something on RfC and gotten so few responses that I don't feel RfC is worth it. A CfR on the other hand gets a lot more attention, which is what these categories desperately need.
  • Fishhead64 said "All who participate in a WikiProject are members, but not all who are members participate." Shouldn't participation be stressed? Why be part of a WikiProject without participating in it, even if it is behind the scenes cleaning up articles, creating templates, and other general maintenance?
  • Kkken, this may seem to be busywork since it is not part of the article name space, however, this area is where I feel most comfortable. I may have been one who argued over the angles standing on the head of a pin, but it seems that it would probably be a fun arguement.
  • This is also to help with the creation of templates. If we have a firm naming convention that is the same for all of these categories, it will take a few moments less time to think of a name for this type of category in future WikiProjects.
• Support I agree that standardisation is a desirable feature of Wikipedia even if it is 'behind the scenes'. --Mcginnly 11:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Split vote in favour of making the sore thumb changes as a first step, that is: a consistent sequence of words, starting "WikiProject"; and using lower case for "members/participants/whatever". Against standardising members/participants/whatever at the same time, since we can take that up as a separate debate about the merits of options. --Mereda 09:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just don't get it - why is user space such a BIG deal - I can understand the need for consistency across articles and across article categories, but why do so many people want to mold user space to fit what THEY think is necessary? This isn't the only time this calendar year that something like this has come up, and caused a debate to both sides. --JohnDBuell 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this proposal, but would support a more flexible naming scheme of the form "WikiProject Foo [members/participants]" as per the project's own choice. Standard naming is important, but not so important here that it's worth stepping on the projects' toes in a major way. Kirill Lokshin 12:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJohndBuell hit it on the head--this is another case of what is epidemic on Wiki, a few people determing what they think the masses need. Like a few months ago when some category person decided that it's okay for him to decide that having abbreviation ABC in a cat name is okay but not abbrev XYZ when both were equally obscure. I do agree that the cats with things like a captial 'M' in Members, 'Participants in....', etc need fixed. The problem with the way this came is lack of notice and people don't have time to read all the behind-the-scenes stuff on wiki. It doesn't matter how active a member is, they're still a member. As for template making, we make our own. Projects still should be able to pick their own category names. Rlevse 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all Inconsistency makes Wikipedia look amateurish. Landolitan 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWhat makes Wiki amateurish is stupid debates, 2-sentence articles stubs and most of all the vandals and the time spent fighting the vandals. It is not the cat names that do that.Rlevse 22:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIf such were the case, they should be members, not participants. Rlevse 22:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming Strains the eyes? Within the Wikipedia namespace, this is unnecessary and unwanted by several people using the cats. Ziggurat 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose dislike new names. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How am I to create the following with that mess above? It won't work with each project having its own name for the participant category. It would go from 1-10 fields to fill in to 2-20. The following would not only create a small console for users, it would categorize them as well, killing two birds with one stone. - LA @ 02:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{|
|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP1))}|(({WP1))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP1))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
((#if:(({WP2|))}|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP2))}|(({WP2))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP2))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
((#if:(({WP3|))}|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP3))}|(({WP3))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP3))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
((#if:(({WP4|))}|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP4))}|(({WP4))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP4))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
((#if:(({WP5|))}|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP5))}|(({WP5))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP5))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
((#if:(({WP6|))}|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP6))}|(({WP6))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP6))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
((#if:(({WP7|))}|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP7))}|(({WP7))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP7))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
((#if:(({WP8|))}|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP8))}|(({WP8))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP8))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
((#if:(({WP9|))}|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP9))}|(({WP9))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP9))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
((#if:(({WP10|))}|*[[Wikipedia:WikiProject (({WP10))}|(({WP10))}]] [[Category:WikiProject (({WP10))} participants|((PAGENAME))]]))
|}

((Infobox Multiprojectbox
|WP1=
|WP2=
|WP3=
|WP4=
|WP5=
|WP6=
|WP7=
|WP8=
|WP9=
|WP10=
))

Err, you do realize that (almost) every project has its own userboxes anyways? I've never understood the need for the generic userbox to begin with; but we certainly shouldn't change everything else if the only reason is to make that easier. Kirill Lokshin 05:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about those who do not want their user pages cluttered with userboxes, but would use the above because it gives them useful links to their projects in a small little box that includes all of their projects and also categorizes them? It would make it really easy for people to get things done faster on their user pages, instead of having to search high and low for their projects' userboxes and/or their projects' participant category. - LA @ 06:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason to make life difficult for the projects, though. Anyone who wants to do something unusual with their userpage can figure it out on their own; there's no need to force everyone else to change things just for the benefit of creating another convoluted userpage template. Kirill Lokshin 07:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. These are not in the main namespace, and I don't see that the need for consistency is so great. I do, however, support, have "Wikiproject" as the first word for all these categories in order to make it abundantly clear that they are not "normal" categories. Beyond that, however, I think the various wikiprojects should be free to name their categories however they see them to be the most useful/beneficial. siafu 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. Wikiprojects name themselves, so why can't they name their member categories? --Tim4christ17 02:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthur comment WikiProjects are always named Wikipedia:WikiProject (name). So, they do follow a naming convention for the name of their projects. Now, what is the problem with taking that a step further and have the participant categories have the same name structure? There is also a reason I chose the word participant over the word member. I was trying to remove the snicker factor, especially with some projects. I thought this was a no brainer and expected this much resistance from this group nomination top filled with fans, yet those fandom categories were renamed without so much as a whimper. - LA @ 11:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthur commentSo what if the other nom went without a whimper? If you can't see why all the opposition to this one, you need to put on your thinking cap again. This shows a basic problem endemic to Wikipedia--a small handful deciding what they think is best for the masses. The projects should be able to decide they own MEMBER names. If some are call themselves members and others participants, what is the big deal? So what. Rlevse 12:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on WikiProject participants[edit]

As a few others said they wouldn't have a problem with WikiProject (name) (participants/members). I have striken those which already follow that suggestion. The others have been modified on this page only to reflect what the title had in originally with a capitalization or word order fix. Those in bold had neither member nor participant in their title, so participant is being used. I hope this meets with the general approval of all of those who are opposed to this CfD. It is the first step in making the parent category less of an eyesore. - LA @ 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• With this change, I am changing to support. —Mira 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I can live with this compromise too.Rlevse 22:57, 30 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.