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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 18:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions-defying duplicate of Category:Air forces. Had only four articles in it (which I've already resorted to Category:Air forces), was (and still is) an orphan, and redirected to Air force. Eligible for speedy deletion. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 18:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggest renaming it to plural Category:Speakers instead --Hooperbloob 20:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 17:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both are trivially obvious subcategories of Category:Popes. Radiant_* 14:03, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I had posted something on their talk pages for an explanation, but haven't gotten one yet. These subcategories add nothing that an alphabetical list of popes couldn't do. --BaronLarf 15:07, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• DELETED I was trying to come up with a quick way to get between popes of the same name, but I'm gonna do it a different way. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Kbdank71 17:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This does seem like pointless sub-categorization, unless someone is willing to explain how a school founded in 1895 is substantially different from one founded in 1905. Radiant_* 07:56, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: While I consider myself a school-inclusionist, I would agree that these categories don't group schools in a meaningful way as suggested in the categorization guidelines. Withhold vote to hear arguments for inclusion. --BaronLarf 15:14, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep', how else am I supposed to find historic schools? and schools established in 1850 are a lot different from those established in 1950. Information wants to be found. Kappa 20:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 1700, 1800, Any school established in the 1800's is historical as this was when the public eduction systems were being established and therefore many new public schools were established during this time. The 1700 and older schools would obviously be quite historical. Except for completeness I don't see any point to the established in the 1900's Delete 1900. Alternatively I would support a category of schools more than 100 years old. However, in the future this would miss the pioneering aspect of the public schools that were founded during the 1800s. -- Webgeer 23:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all of these categories for the sake of completion. Obviously, the older the school the more historically notable it should be. —RaD Man (talk) 01:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that older schools are more notable (which I do agree with) does not lead to the conclusion that categories of schools by century are useful. They're about as useful as Schools that have a football team, Schools founded by a priest and Schools with more than 850 students. My point is that this is information that is useful, but represented in a way that is not. Radiant_* 09:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Radiant. Pointless and arbitrary. Gamaliel 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment': we have Category:Births_by_year, is that also pointless and arbitrary? How is someone born in 1095 different from someone born in 1105? Kappa 12:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's not. We don't have a category Eighteenth century astronomers, because that's that the births by year category is for. I would be very happy with a category Buildings created in the 1920s or 18th century institutitions. But not strictly limited to schools - the problem is that an article shouldn't be in both a cat and its subcat, and by this reasoning the main category schools would have to be empty. Radiant_* 09:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well Category:Schools shouldn't really have individual schools in it anyway, schools should go in "Schools in (place)" and "Schools established in (time)". Kappa 11:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What I would suggest, is something like "Historically significant schools" and the like. -- Natalinasmpf 21:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems no more arbitrary than similar categories (such as birthyear). But why are there no categories for schools founded before 1700? Uppland 22:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep come on now, this is an organization tool that works for both colleges/universities as well as high schools.  ALKIVAR™ 06:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 17:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category created to push POV. Gamaliel 06:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I see several people listed so far, including Pablo Neruda. Neruda never called himself a Stalinist, in fact, very few people would have called themselves a Stalinist. Stalinist was a slur word used by people who hated communists. Paul Robeson was called a Stalinist, and he was also called a nigger. If someone made a category here called "niggers" and listed Paul Robeson, Oprah Winfrey, Colin Powell etc., I'm sure it would be deleted. As should this category be. Ruy Lopez 06:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Viajero 14:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Good old-fashioned Red-baiting. --Calton | Talk 04:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--Plehn 15:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. - Stalinist is a rather neutral label used by Anarcho-Communists to describe the authoritarian model of the Bolsheviks and the later copy-cats (sort of, like Mao, etc.) It isn't created by communist-haters, rather its to create a distinction between anarcho-communists and people like, well Castro. -- Natalinasmpf 21:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. You're suggesting the term used by those opposed to the idea is a neutral one? --Azkar 01:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 17:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's only got one entry at this point, and there really doesn't seem to be much else that would really fit in there. The entry that is there can be put into the parent category (Category:Video game consoles). – Seancdaug 04:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. If this category is deleted, I don't think Category:Video game consoles would be appropriate for a console that doesn't really exist. Perhaps Category:Fictional devices? --Azkar 13:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Theres only one article and that article should probably be put on VFD as it is a device that is merely mentioned in a radio commercial in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Thats hardly notable for an encyclopedia, but I digress. K1Bond007 15:30, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, K1Bond007 15:30, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 'fictional devices' is specific enough for a category. -Sean Curtin 23:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to "for" --Kbdank71 13:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, the CFD discussion on Category:Olympic athletes and the related Category:Olympic <x> of the US didn't really come to a conclusion regarding the general naming scheme for the subcats of Category:Olympic competitors by country.

Now tell me, which of the following is it to be?

• "Olympic competitors for <country>"
• "Olympic competitors of <country>"

I noticed that some categories of the former naming had cropped up as of this writing, but I couldn't find any directions as to whether that had actually been 'officially decided' to be the correct form.

--Wernher 04:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note: There is further discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Olympic competitors by country --Kbdank71 14:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Of For. --Kbdank71 14:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• For. "Competitors of" is bad grammar: You compete for a country, you don't compete of it. Grutness|^hello? 04:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• FOR, people of a country could compete for another country... (see the dual citizenship holders of the world). 132.205.45.110 18:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• For, for reasons already stated by others. Uppland 21:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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