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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to maintain, largely redundant with Category:20th century philosophers. Insofar as it is not, rename Category:21st century philosophers.Septentrionalis 22:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: what do we do with those that lived in both centuries? Is "living" and "dead" easier, with "dead" a parent to the by-century-of-life categories? -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can fairly assign many philosophers to the century they worked in; I do not think Wittgenstein can be counted a 19th century philosopher. For others, use two cats, just as Turkey and Russia should be in Category:European countries and Category:Asian countries. This is no worse than the present situation, and easier to maintain. Septentrionalis 16:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Rename to 21st century as above and below. Personally, I prefer the hyphen, but since cat redirects don't work and it would make it harder to find, I suppose I will live without one. -Splash 23:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:21st century philosophers. I don't see how "living" is a useful distinction—by natural extension would we need, say, Category:Alive or Category:Living people. In fact, after checking several dozen categories of Category:People_by_occupation I couldn't find a single other instance. -choster 03:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename to Category:21st-century philosophers. The trouble with dividing things up by the essentially arbitrary matter of centuries, though, comes with straddlers; are William James, Charles Peirce, Ernst Mach, Gottlob Frege, et al., 19th or 20th century? A quick check shows that Wikipedia thinks that James (d.1910) & Frege (d.1925) are, but Mach (d.1916) isn't (Peirce (d.1914) doesn't get a century at all). That's a clear problem at this stage of the 21st century. At least "living" is clear and unambiguous. (Category:21st-century philosophers was deleted a while back, I think.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis had pointed to structural flaw with this kind of categorisation. Perhaps different structuring of philosophers should be used. E.g. painters are structured as Category:Painters by period. Pavel Vozenilek 02:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to 21st century. Categorizing people as "living" or "dead" is kind of silly. We have the century-border problem with every century, so with this one as well. I believe a philosopher can conceivably be both. Date of birth and death should be irrelevant; date of release of any famous manuscripts should be the criterion. Radiant_>|< 15:27, August 19, 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. ∞Who?¿? 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the volcanoes in this category are not in the United Kingdom, but in the UK's overseas territories. I think it would be much more useful to categorise the current contents under Category:Volcanoes of the Atlantic Ocean. Worldtraveller 21:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. siafu 23:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Well, now the name fits the cat, per Grutness. siafu 22:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it simply needed populating, that's all. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - There has been no volcanic activity in the United Kingdom for millions of years - might be a bit difficult to populate!! Worldtraveller 08:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor in Germany, nor Belgium - yet these long dead volcanoes are in the respective "Volcanoes of" categories. Similarly, Otago Harbour is in the New Zealand category, and that had better not go off (for the first time in 20 million years), since I live in the crater! Grutness...wha? 01:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grutness, but observe that some entries do still need removing. I think. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Many features are classified by country; I don't know how much interest London has in this but those with an interest in one UK island may be interested in neighboring ones. (SEWilco 06:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Renaming to f.e. "Volcanoes of the overseas territories of the United Kingdom" would be quite difficult. :) -- Darwinek 16:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, then all the ones that are not in the United Kingdom will have to come out. Overseas territories of the United Kingdom are simply not in the United Kingdom, any more than India was in England when it was part of the British Empire. Osomec 00:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and split those in overseas territories (and crown territories as well, if there's any) to (a) separate category/ies. — Instantnood 13:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there are other countries where a volcanic eruption hasn't occurred for millions of years, and yet these have "Volcanoes of ..." categories. The active volcanoes may not be in Great Britain or Northern Ireland per se, but are still technically in United Kingdom territory. Andrew 00:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who?¿? 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move Category:Honolulu to Category:Honolulu, Hawaii so as to follow pattern of "CITY, STATE" visible in members of Category:Cities in the United States. Creator of latter category. (SEWilco 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Merge per nom. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge non-controversial change. Courtland 02:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also see CFD: #Washington, D.C. related categories, #Category:New York City, New York (SEWilco 01:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Merge per nom. ∞Who?¿? 18:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Landmarks in the United Kingdom. ∞Who?¿? 02:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created 14 August. Someone's personal list of buildings and structures they think represent the UK. Belongs in a guidebook. Delete. CalJW 15:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tend to agree, it seems POV, however, when I see those particular items, I do think of the UK. Same goes for Category:British cultural icons. It may serve some encyclopedic value for research, but not really sure. ∞Who?¿? 16:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be a good idea to merge these two lists? We still need to satisfy WP:NOR to not delete the result, however. siafu 17:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely don't merge. The icons category is a useful way of categorising things that would otherwise clutter up the main category, but the other one is redundant was we have all the necessary buildings categories for the UK. CalJW 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Landmarks in the United Kingdom. It is a fact, not a POV, that some things are landmarks. Whether an article should go in this cat (or what should be it's several geographical subcats) will be determined by VfD in the marginal cases. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Splash; inclusion criterion is POV. I'd also be interested to learn what a "cultural icon" is exactly, shouldn't that be "British celebrities"? Radiant_>|< 15:41, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment "Cultural icon" is a well known phrase, and not the same as "celebrity" at all. CalJW 12:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Rename to match previous Cfr
2. Although it varies in dictionary terms, Wikipedia has think tank, which think-tank redirects to. ∞Who?¿? 15:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Regardless of whether or not the hyphen is preferred, the current spelling is clearly not. siafu 17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but prefer a hyphen. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, absolutely no hyphen, for consistency with article think tank as well as most common usage (Googling reveals most common usage of term is without hyphen). —Lowellian (reply) 19:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Systemic bias. British English (or at least my English English) would prefer the hyphen. Not important, though. -Splash 23:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually kind of agree with you, but I commented on the previous Cfr about its variations. Google even converts to non-hyphenated version. I just want to standardize, reguardless of the hyphen. The last one didnt use it, so may as well not use it here either. ∞Who?¿? 07:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 02:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, marked for deletion by User:Fred chessplayer on Aug 15, not listed here. --Kbdank71 15:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Empty. I can't fathom what this was meant to refer to. siafu 17:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly to a fictional nation called Dalia which had the old English Hundred as a local division? David | Talk 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That does clear things up. Still, my vote stays the same as it's empty and redundant. siafu 02:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty cat — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete David | Talk 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate - Dalia (now Dalsland) was one of the traditional regions of Sweden, which were further divided into hundreds. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay - I understand now. The nominator emptied this category of its five articles and started to create the more correctly named Category:Hundreds of Dalsland, but didn't finish the job (the category link was red-lined). I've completed the task by creating the new category. Category:Hundreds of Dalia, which uses the Latin name for the province, should be deleted. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article referenced above Hundred (division) explains it all. the term "hundreds" was used in the past to designate some areas in the United States (perhaps also England? and elsewhere) where land was parceled into a particular set of measured lots. I don't know the details, but there are many real geographical areas that are historically "Hundreds of Xxxx" or "Xxxx Hundreds". Courtland 02:54, August 19, 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the United Kingdom economy category, with Economy of the United Kingdom as its head article, so it should be renamed to the standard category:Economy of the United Kingdom. CalJW 14:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, not everything in the cat is economics: it includes some companies and things. Still, with those moved elsewhere, this rename could go ahead. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy does not imply economics. Oftentimes they seem to work independent of each other :). UK companies are certainly part of the UK economy. - choster 22:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a misunderstanding. It is not called "Economics in the United Kingdom". It serves the same purpose as the other National Economy categories. This should be a totally non-controversial change. Anyone who is opposed to it is saying all the others are wrong too. Osomec 00:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match article. ∞Who?¿? 07:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge all as nominated --Kbdank71 13:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An ISP address joined us for a few hours on the 13th August and made a frightful mess of the main United Kingdom menu in the rather unusual cause of publicising the Scottish independence movement and the Welsh independence movement and the English independence movement. (S)he created duplicate categories, made categories parent-categories of their own parents, and overpromoted just about every article and subcategory related to these issues to the main UK menu. I have started sorting out this mess. There are two duplicate categories that need merging:

• category:English politics merge into category:Politics of England and delete
• category:Scottish politics merge into category:Politics of Scotland and delete

The user also created three categories "independence" categories which I believe are pov. They are certainly redundant as they contain the same contents as the matching politics categories, though I have already started to deal with this. They should be merged and deleted:

• Category:Scottish independence: merge into category:Politics of Scotland and delete.
• Category:English independence: merge into category:Politics of England and delete.
• Category:Welsh independence: merge into category:Politics of Wales and delete.

CalJW 14:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all. --Kbdank71 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all -> delete ∞Who?¿? 14:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all and Delete per nom. siafu 17:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete per nom. My personal POV on this issue would lead me to abolish the parliaments and assemblies and merge the cats in Category:Politics of the United Kingdom. But I won't suggest that. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete the following: English Politics into Politics of England / Scottish Politics in to Politics of Scotland. Keep Scottish/Welsh/English independence categories. --Colin Angus Mackay 12:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • I should add that I think the creation of the Scottish, Welsh and English Independence categories is acceptable as a subcategory of the appropriate Politics of X category (although I was previously unaware that England wanted independence) --Colin Angus Mackay 12:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that you are saying that this category has made you "aware" that England wants independence (which is the view of only a tiny minority, though I happen to be sympathetic with it myself, so I'm not trying to suppress views I disagree with here), shows exactly why it is an inappropriate biased pov category. Could the closing admin please take this evidence of the anti-neutrality effect of the name into account. Thank you. CalJW 12:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete as per proposer --Doc (?) 16:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete all as above. Osomec 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 02:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgia dams emptied by Trilobite; new replacement category Category:Dams in Georgia (U.S. state) created. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I thought this looked familiar, I guess that's one way of getting consensus :) Oh well, I am for the dam cat's anyways. ∞Who?¿? 15:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty cat that duplicates Category:New York City. —Lowellian (reply) 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC) Furthermore, inconsistent with article name New York City. —Lowellian (reply) 19:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. —Lowellian (reply) 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate category.--Pharos 12:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to ask, what is the standard? I see both uses in Category:Cities in New York, and some other states have the same cat schema: Category:Cities in Florida, Category:Cities in Tennessee, and Category:Cities in Nevada. I am sure the rest are the same. I propose, to keep consistency, do a reverse merge. Even though Category:New York City was created first, it's not the standard anymore. ∞Who?¿? 15:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse merge: As mentioned below in #Washington, D.C. related categories, Category:New York City, New York follows existing pattern of "CITY, STATE" visible in members of Category:Cities in the United States. Creator of listed category. (SEWilco 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • To the best of my knowledge, "CITY, STATE" (or "CITY, PROVINCE") is usually a dab where there's some possibility of confusion (e.g. Category:London vs. Category:London, Ontario). It's not a necessary format for a city's category name. Really, what other New York City is anyone going to confuse this category with? Bearcat 08:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in reverse per SEWilco. I would prefer to just have "New York City", but consensus seems to indicate the need for CITY, STATE. siafu 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.There has been massive and long-standing consensus on the New York City article (see the archives of Talk:New York City) to keep the article and category at just "New York City".--Pharos 21:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Categories are used differently than articles. The New York City article discussion has been about the article title; search the discussions for "category". (SEWilco 21:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • Comment. There is no good reason for the category name to be different from the article name here. Category:New York City is not even in Category:Cities in the United States but in Category:Cities in New York where ", New York" is hardly extra-useful. The article and category should always have the same name unless there is a compelling reason otherwise; if you really want to change the article title please put that at requested moves, where it would get proper exposure.--Pharos 01:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Category:New York City is in Category:Cities in the United States as a consequence of being in Category:Cities in New York. That's how sub-categorization works. Courtland 02:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment. Obviously, my point is that it's not listed next to cities in other U.S. states where someone might construe that ", New York" might be informative (which it wouldn't be anyway).--Pharos 02:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: The link to Category:Cities in the United States was given to show the pattern used for city names, not that a city name should point to that category. Pick a state category to see names (ie, Category:Cities in California). Or the smaller Category:Images of cities of the United States which contains names of cities. (SEWilco 06:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
        • Comment: Having a name ("New York City") which is dependent upon being viewed within another category ("New York") violates Categorization#General naming conventions: "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.". (SEWilco 06:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
        • Comment. "Category:New York City" completely stands alone, which is why it's the consensus name for the article. There is absolutely no ", New York" context needed.--Pharos 07:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The shorter and simpler Category:New York City is better. - SimonP 16:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; the "CITY, STATE" naming format is not the convention for all city-related categories; it's the convention for city-related categories that need to be disambiguated from other city-related categories. That need isn't applicable here. Bearcat 17:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I must have missed that convention. Where is it described? Or is it only used for major cities? Trying without testing: Category:London, Category:Paris, Category:Rome, Category:Bombay, Category:Tokyo, Category:Rio de Janeiro (SEWilco 01:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • THat's category Mumbai, not Bombay. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also see CFD: #Washington, D.C. related categories, Honolulu, Hawaii (SEWilco 01:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 14:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:GNU/Linux users, Category:BSD users, Category:Linux users, and Category:Wikipedians by operating system

Needless categorization. I shudder to think how large the cat:Wikipedian Windows users would be. Same argument as the above, plus it's overcategorization into tiny details. What's next, "Wikipedians who own a laptop"? Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hey, I wanted to be in "Wikipedians who own a laptop" ;) ∞Who?¿? 10:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Lowellian (reply) 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I think there should be an article (or a few articles) about Wikipedians by insert quality here. There would be a lot of different qualities in one article.CanadaGirl 10:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep there ARE a tonne of lists, they are unwieldy and as such Wikipedia:User categorisation was started to convert them into categoires. Granted the project currently focust mostly on the lists by nationality as they are by far the biggest, but the plan seems to be to move on to the "Wikipedians by interest" list once that is done. Personaly I find this one harmles, and slightly interesing. Besides FAR from everyone will bother adding themselves to such categories so bloat should not be a major issue. This one have been around for a while and still no Windows uers in sight. Anyway IMHO these categories should be "judged" by the same standard as user pages, and I don't often see user pages up for deletion based on vanity or such. --Sherool 13:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. --Kbdank71 14:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. If people want to categorize themselves this way, who are you to say they shouldn't? There are dozens of people in these categories. You're really going to edit all their user pages to remove them from their own categories, in which they chose to be? This is ridiculous. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-18 17:21
  • Delete He's a user with as much right to express his opinion as you. Wikipedia is not a social club and its scarce resources (editing is a nightmare at the moment) should only be used for things that contribute to the improvement of its content. A bot will do the edits. CalJW 17:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. More feedback from the wikiproject would help resolve this ongoing issue, though the analogy made to user pages is specious. siafu 17:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This one is directly useful in solving the recurrent "Your symbol doesn't show up on my browser" discussion Septentrionalis 21:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how this (sparsely populated) category can be of help in solving the issue? Such an issue should require a simple FAQ some place in the Wiki; it is irrelevant with which users precisely it occurs. Radiant_>|< 10:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ALL categories by OS, by age, by browser, by sexual habits, by whatever other garbage. I am in favor of banning /all/ categories that apply only to Wikipedia editors and do not contribute to quality of articles, the other way is what I see now and here. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm getting tired of this. Discussion started on CfD talk page. -Seth Mahoney 01:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. With a few rare exceptions, encyclopedia editors are not encyclopedic enough to deserve their own category. Nandesuka 03:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Potentially very useful for finding other editors about technical issues related to using wikipedia. For example, lately there is a push to introduce "smart quotes" to editing. If those who have an issue with this come from simular platforms, that is usable info. Do not delete. CDThieme 05:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Sherool. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:14:05 Z
• Keep for the good reasons given above. Agree that it would be helpful in discussing and solving technical issues related to reading and editing wikipedia. Jonathunder 04:56, 2005 August 22 (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 no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by web browser, Category:Konqueror users, Category:Camino users, Category:Firefox users, Category:Lynx users, and Category:Opera users

Another needless category scheme. Listify if you must, but per WP:VAIN wikipedians should not create a bunch of arbitrary categories to add more tags to their user pages. Radiant_>|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep why not? Again I ask what possible "problem" does such categories in the User: namespace cause? And I respectfully disagree that lists are better than categories for things like this. Disclaimer: I created this particular "umbrella" a couple of weeks back, so my bias to keep is obvious. --Sherool 12:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all It contributes to the huge problem with server capacity. Editing is once again a nightmare. Wikipedia's overstretched resources should only be used to improve the encyclopedia. CalJW 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Server capacity is fine, the "problem" is probably the number of concurent users, and no amount of deletions will solve that. Besides last I checked official policy was that "Wikipedia is not paper" (ergo space concerns alone are no reason to delete). --Sherool 18:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. --Kbdank71 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. If people want to categorize themselves this way, who are you to say they shouldn't? There are dozens of people in these categories. You're really going to edit all their user pages to remove them from their own categories, in which they chose to be? This is ridiculous.
• Comment. We should probably have a wider discussion on the issue of wikipedian categories. siafu 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this. These categories are getting out of control, IMHO. K1Bond007 21:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please write my talk page if you start one. Septentrionalis 21:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This one is directly useful in solving the recurrent "Your symbol doesn't show up on my browser" discussion Septentrionalis 21:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. What's with today's move against letting people categorize themselves if they want to? Regardless, this one could, as noted above, solve some issues, and could also result in some interesting statistical data. -Seth Mahoney 01:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to Lists. Useful information from a useability standpoint, allowing users to be recruited for cross-browser testing at times when new WikiMedia software releases are pending. Courtland 02:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. This is complete vanity and is not of interest to the users of an encyclopedia.
• Keep. Potentially very useful for finding other editors about technical issues related to using wikipedia. For example, lately there is a push to introduce "smart quotes" to editing. If those who have an issue with this come from simular platforms, that is usable info. Knowing which browsers a fellow editor has access to may help immensely in discussing and solving technical issues or in getting opinions on how symbols, page layout, and other edits look across platforms. Do not delete. CDThieme 05:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Septentrionalis and CDThieme. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:08:13 Z
• Keep for the very good reasons given above. Jonathunder 04:53, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as per nomination --Kbdank71 14:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queer Wikipedians and Category:Bisexual Wikipedians

Propose merging/renaming to "GBLT LGBT Wikipedians" for consistency, NPOV etc. Radiant_>|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Keep the current name which is much more easy to understand; if it were to change, then it should be to 'LGBT Wikipedians' as this order is the usual one, but I still think it an ugly acronym while queer is a fabulous word. I also object to merging the categories of Queer Wikipedians and Bisexual Wikipedians as they are not the same thing. David | Talk 10:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant LGBT, oops. Note that the vast majority of queer-related categories in Wikipedia use 'LGBT'. Also note that 'Bisexual Wikipedians' is empty. Radiant_>|< 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Queer to LGBT, delete Bisexual as empty. --Kbdank71 14:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of these were created by the same user, three days ago - which may explain why they're empty or almost empty. --carlb 17:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not constructive to divide contributors up into camps on controversial issues. I don't want to be told about users' political affliations either, and ideally all their edits would be so neutral that it would be impossible to guess them. CalJW 16:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't appear to have understood the nature of the category. It's not a category of Wikipedians who support a particular issue, it's a category of Wikipedians who share a sexual orientation. The issue here is not that this is an organisation of Wikipedians by POV (the POV is on whether the word 'queer' is an acceptable term and to be preferred to 'LGBT'), and there is no comparison to be made with 'political opinions'. David | Talk 17:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Moreover, it's entirely voluntary. No one is forced to declare their sexual orientation or political affiliation, and no one is forced to investigate the sexual orientations or political affiliations of those who have declared by looking at this category. siafu 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the issue perfectly well and my vote stands. This is also a waste of scarce server resources. Wikipedia is not a dating club. CalJW 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me but I consider that last comment highly offensive. I hope you will withdraw it. David | Talk 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody thinks it is a dating club, and the server resources issue is not related to storage capacity. Bearcat 17:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. siafu 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to LGBT. The basic question is why we would want Wikipedians to voluntarily put ourselves in categories which may seem arbitrary or POV. I can think of several reasons. One is that we can be recruited to work on articles and meet others with similar interests. An LGBT person might be interested in working on an LGBT article, etc. But the best reason I can think of is that it tells other Wikipedians that we have a potential to be biased. I am of the gereration that bristles when I hear the word "queer", so I haven't listed myself in this category. If renamed to LGBT, I will put myself in the category. People editing articles who get to my user page will know of my potential bias, just as I would like to know of theirs. By putting myself in the category I am saying "this is who I am, I will try to edit fairly and in a NPOV way, but let me know if I slip up." -- Samuel Wantman 20:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also agreeable to keeping and adding LGBT as a new category. (I assume "queer" would be a subcategory?) -- Samuel Wantman 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose People have added themselfes to a cat named "Queer" and LGBT is not quite the same thing. This is an identity issue, and renaming this cat would mean imposing an identity on people. How about, say, intersex people, or pansexual or genderqueer ones? All not necessarily covered by "LGBT". -- AlexR 23:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• New proposal: Since we're talking about a category of wikipedians, not articles, why not just create Category:LGBT Wikipedians and let it live alongside Category:Queer Wikipedians in whatever way the wikipedians who use it want? -Seth Mahoney 00:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Queer to LGBT and delete bi-sexual as included in LGBT. Courtland 02:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Note that this was originally created in part because some Wikipedians insisted on adding their userpages to Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people (and refused to remove them when asked). I don't really see any harm in having dedicated categories within Wikipedia namespace for user pages and such; I do see the harm in filing user pages within article namespace categories. If this were deleted, I would not be the least bit surprised to see people start filing their userpages in the article category again — there's still a userpage sitting in Category:LGBT rights activists, frex.) I don't see why it's worth debating — many people on Wikipedia have a pretty strong preference for using categories to note personal affiliations and interests, and I'd much rather see dedicated Wikipedian categories than userpages cluttering up article categories. And it's a voluntary category in which, by definition, a person can't be filed unless they want to be, which means that the most common objection to the GLB people category has no application here. Keep (or rename if necessary) as not really harming anyone or anything. I also wouldn't object to a separate category for people who want to be in an LGBT Wikipedians category but aren't comfortable with the word "queer". Bearcat 17:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to GLBT Wikipedians. Do not delete. CDThieme 05:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:No objection to adding an extra category for LGBT or whatever, but if any non-blank categories are deleted (or replaced with something else), would it be too much to ask that the category tag be simply removed from the affected userpages, not replaced with some other/new tag unless the user specifically wants (or adds) that new tag there? There are many subtle differences in meaning here and this topic is a hot potato. --carlb 17:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to LGBT WP for reasons given above. Jonathunder 04:52, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. ∞Who?¿? 07:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞Who?¿? 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by sexual orientation, Category:Asexual Wikipedians, Category:Homophobic heterosexual Wikipedians, Category:Tolerant heterosexual Wikipedians

This, however, is a joke and this entire category tree should go. Very strange categorization, to say the least. Radiant_>|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. --Kbdank71 14:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. No benefit in this sort of controversial categorisation. (And I don't see much in any Wikipedian categories).CalJW 16:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Homophobic heterosexual Wikipedians and Category:Tolerant heterosexual Wikipedians. Defer the others to broader discussion, if possible. siafu 17:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CDThieme 05:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per siafu. I don't mind the Category:Wikipedians by sexual orientation, as I think its a matter of pride/community, but the other two are quite offensive IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 18:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something more suitable. I am personally opposed to the politics of the third category, but I believe in letting both sides have a voice. However, I believe it should be renamed. -Sunglasses at night 07:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞Who?¿? 02:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by handedness, Category:Left-handed Wikipedians and Category:Right-handed Wikipedians

Ludicrous category. Listify if you really must, but not every physical or mental attribute requires a cat, and certainly not for our users. Radiant_>|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. --Kbdank71 14:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Pointless. CalJW 16:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I started a discussion about wikipedians categories on the talk page. Throw in your two cents. -Seth Mahoney 01:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable attribute? Sometimes, but not when applied in this manner. Courtland 02:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, non-notable. Nandesuka 11:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This one's just a forum for left-handers to show off. Flowerparty ^talk 00:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Ohmygosh, you mean this is a sinister plot? lulz --carlb 17:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I like most of the Wikipedian cats, but these are frivolous. ∞Who?¿? 07:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 02:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory, POV, OR. Also, only used by a heavily self-promoting Wikipedian to list himself. Radiant_>|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, frivolous K1Bond007 21:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vandalism — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, it was created by a blocked user - User:Wikinerd — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedians categories discussion has begun on the talk page. Two cents welcome. -Seth Mahoney 01:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per objections above. Courtland 02:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vandalism. Nandesuka 04:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 15:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Washington, D.C." is the more common name than "District of Columbia" (in fact District of Columbia does redirect to Washington, D.C.), I propose the following deletions or renaming:

• Category:District of Columbia and Category:Washington, District of Columbia
  • Redundant to Category:Washington, D.C.
• Category:Images of District of Columbia and Category:Images of Washington, District of Columbia --> Category:Images of Washington, D.C.
• Category:Cities in District of Columbia
  • Seems to be redundant to Category:Washington, D.C. neighborhoods

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge: Washington, District of Columbia follows standard patterns and it should absorb the older category. Categories are not article names. Also per Naming conventions#States: "Always write these out in full".
  1. Category:District of Columbia fits Category:Subdivisions of the United States better than the city name. Category:Washington, District of Columbia follows existing pattern of "CITY, STATE" visible in members of Category:Cities in the United States.
  2. Category:Images of Washington, District of Columbia fits Category:Images of cities of the United States pattern.
  3. The District of Columbia happens to only have a single city, and neighborhoods are a different category.

  Creator of listed categories. (SEWilco 07:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• A poll at Wikipedia:Category titles expressed a strong opinion towards not using abbreviations in category titles. So oppose. Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge in reverse per SEWilco. siafu 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Category:District of Columbia, it is not equivalent to Washington DC, as the part that was DC in Virginia was never Washington, and it should house this information, and the push for statehood. It's not the city that's pushing for statehood, but the district. ETC... 132.205.3.20 20:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Urgh, I don't what the debate is or which proposal to vote "per". So I vote to expand the acronym and take the relevant consequential action, unless someone points out something wrong with that. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Washington, D.C.. Personally I prefer Category:District of Columbia but this form is at least well-understood. Category:Washington, District of Columbia is the worst of both worlds, long, uncommon, pedantic. Next week you will find me on the losing side of the proposal to rename Category:Los Angeles, California to Category:El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de la Porciúncula, California to rid ourselves of another terrifyingly ambiguous abbreviation. - choster 03:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see CFD: #Honolulu, Hawaii, #Category:New York City, New York

• Merge to Category:District of Columbia, since that can include articles about historical places which were part of the district but not part of Washington (such as Georgetown). CDThieme 05:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Gather under Category:District of Columbia for reasons given above. Jonathunder 04:47, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
• Merge all "District of Columbia" categories into relevant "Washington, D.C." or "Washington, District of Columbia" category. They have been identical for over a century and "Washington, D.C." is much more common in English. --Polynova 01:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • They may have been covered the same area for over a century, but the category will group historical entries before that date, or areas such as Alexandria which were never part of Washington. And even for more contemporary entries, there is a logical distinction between the City and the District. As said above, it is not the City that seeks statehood, it is the District. Jonathunder 02:12, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
    • Actually, the city and the District both seek statehood, though I find it odd to talk about them as if they are seperate things; they aren't. "District of Columbia" redirects to Washington, D.C. as it should. My personal view is that categories should reflect current realities, hence Arlington, Virginia should only be in the Virginia category, not D.C. as this would be misleading. Similary New Orleans should not be in Category:France or Category:Spain. The articles for Arlington, Virginia and Alexandria, Virginia both adequately explain their historical connection to the District. --Polynova 15:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Category:Washington, D.C., for same reasons as Choster. And for all practical purposes, the District and the city are the same. --Mairi

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. ∞Who?¿? 02:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One article was on VfD, which decided to merge to Rathfarnham article. So I merged them all, and the category is now empty. -Splash 00:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete now. Pavel Vozenilek 00:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete don't see much point in the cat to begin with. Unless its some famous strip of pubs, and they all have articles, other than that pointless. ∞Who?¿? 05:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Radiant_>|< 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 17:36, 18 August 2005 (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.