< December 12	December 14 >

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. I know several categories of this type were recently deleted but I could not find the discussion MeltBanana 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We've generally not been categorizing movies by actor. - TexasAndroid 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too specific. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,-~-,- 22:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was determined to categorize movies by director and not star. siafu 00:56, 17 December 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 and delete -- Rick Block (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of these duplicates need to go. The adjective form is predominent for media categories and as far as I know "El Salvadorean" is a legitimate form. The other one only contained the music subcategory, which I have moved. Merge/Delete CalJW 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete per nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 15 December 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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hackwrench (talk · contribs) created this to replace category:pseudoscience against consensus below. Anyway, it is pointless with category:pseudoscience and category:protoscience. — Dunc|☺ 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misrepresentation of why I created it. There are some entries that don't really belong in Pseudoscience, such as science that was once mainstream, but now is less valid in light of current experiments, and also various Social Sciences. Studies that "prove" that violent videogames cause kids to commit crimes aren't really Pseudoscience, but they aren't unquestionably valid either, for example. Hackwrench 21:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science that was once mainstream belongs in Category:Obsolete scientific theories The videogame example belongs in Category:Protoscience, its almsot exactly the definition of a protoscience. linas 01:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - for above reasons and will cause later confusion/problems. -- Hard Raspy Sci 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. -Willmcw 20:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and ban User:Hackwrench from creating categories for six months. CalJW 20:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's POV, it goes against consensus, and it's rather pointless otherwise. Sikyanakotik 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's POV, self-contradictory and pointless (oops repetition) Ian Cairns 22:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it self-contradictory? Hackwrench 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't like the capitalisation, but that's minor.

• Delete as per above. linas 01:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. I can think of at least one field that would best go in this category, and there may be others, but probably not many others. It's not worth the possible confusion and POV wars to keep this category. (I was thinking of classical Freudian psychology, you know, with the Id and the Oedipus Complex and all. It's not completely obsolete, it's not fair to call it pseudoscience, it's certainly not protoscience, but it's certainly not undisputed.) Herostratus 09:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recommend a category name that reflects the spirit of what I was trying to do with this category, but better? Hackwrench 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV. --helohe (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is as POV as Pseudoscience. Hackwrench 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Attempt to get round community consensus. David | Talk 10:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to circumvent community consensus, read my misreprensetation paragraph above. Hackwrench 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Carina22 17:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two reasons: (1) title is not consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words and (2) title is too convoluted (clear and concise titles are best). -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you recommend a better name? Hackwrench 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, I don't think this category is needed. It seems like a little too much hairsplitting (which explains why it's hard to nail down a good title). And BTW, I'm a mergist, so when I advocate deleting a category, what I'm essentially calling for is a merge into a parent category—or a merge into a more relevant category. In this case, Category:Science seems like an adequate place for containing Category:pseudoscience and Category:protoscience, IMHO. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:51, 15 December 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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is a major project it will remain a particularly poorly defined and incomplete category. What is a cult figure anyway? Unless anyone can come up with an encyclopedic definition and can maintain the list I say it should go. Sachabrunel 17:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. There is no clear criteria for inclusion. Even if there were it's not clear what purpose this category serves. -Willmcw 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly POV. --דוד ♣ D Monack 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Currently unverifiable. siafu 00:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Osomec 14:08, 18 December 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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation should be expanded and the full title should be used as it is in the article title United States Department of Energy National Laboratories. Rename Sumahoy 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed to remove abbreviation. Carina22 17:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:59, 17 December 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 and redirect -- Rick Block (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a category duplication, as far as I can tell. - TexasAndroid 16:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 00:59, 17 December 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 and delete -- Rick Block (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories are nearly identical, so that most entries and subcategories appear in both, and in fact both are subcategories of each other. I think that "sail" and "sailing" have identical meanings, but I could be wrong about that. I suggest category:Sail be deleted, and all entries that aren't already there be merged into Category:Sailing.--Mike Selinker 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is like Garden, which was merged into Gardening a while ago. CalJW 20:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move All to Category:Sailing. --דוד ♣ D Monack 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Boatman 10:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Joshbaumgartner 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. "Sail" is a more outdated term (Age of Sail), and is potentially confusing. "Sailing" does not have this problem. siafu 01:00, 17 December 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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly defined, inherently POV. We have Category:Comic book awards for this. grendel|khan 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV. Sumahoy 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As you say, inherently POV. --Sachabrunel 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV --דוד ♣ D Monack 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the book has received an award (e.g. Pulitzer) then that category would apply but not if it received praises by a critic (there are thousands of them). --Vizcarra 18:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This sort of thing must always be deleted. CalJW 09:32, 15 December 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 -- Rick Block (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few places named Toledo, in the US and elsewhere. See Toledo (disambiguation). This category needs to be more specific. Ezeu 09:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom, but do the same with Category:Birminghamians. - Darwinek 12:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Toledo, Ohio is by far the most populated Toledo. other smaller Toledoes should take a drawn out name form. -Mayumashu 02:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be geographic bias, contrary to WP:CSB. --Ezeu 04:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no, it s not. geographic bias is about giving more populated places inadequate coverage in comparison to less populated ones - we re talking about what to use to name a page. -Mayumashu 02:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Vizcarra 18:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. More people have lived in Toledo, Spain in the history of the world than in Toledo, Ohio-- this category needs to be more specific. siafu 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Though I don't like prepositional phrases in titles (apparently it's a standard here in Wikipediaville), I have to admit that in this case it lends more clarity.
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 02:37, 18 December 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. K1Bond007 01:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honest mistake: the correct name is "Buffalonians". No significant history. I created a new cat and did the renames. -- Fplay 08:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but to Category:People from Buffalo, ''State''. Right or wrong, both terms are confusing, and give no indication as to which of the fourteen different cities in the Unites States named "Buffalo" it refers to. Sikyanakotik 21:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nom, and use Category:Buffalonians. other far smaller Buffaloes should take cat names like Category:People from Buffalo, Indiana -Mayumashu 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• While it may be obvious to Americans, non-Americans (such as myself) can easily be confused by the name. Even if they recognise it as refering to denizens of a city named Buffalo, the Buffalo in question (I presume the one in New York) is not well-known outside the US for anything other than chicken wings. Sikyanakotik 07:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is confusing, but other sub-sections have already set the precedent. See Category:People from New York for, true, "People from New York City", BUT ALSO Buffaloans, Rochesterians, Syracusians (New York), Yonkersites, Long Islanders. In other words, be consistent and do not just pick on Buffalo alone. You should take all of Upstate New York or none of it. -- Fplay 10:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, that is why it should have been Category:People from Buffalo, New York. --Vizcarra 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't find "Buffalonian" any more objectionable than, say, Category:Mancunians, Category:Shanghainese, or Category:Longueuillois.- choster 03:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "people from Buffalo" or "people from Buffalo, New York". The example of New York is quite relevant-- it's not Category:New Yorkers. Demonyms should be reserved for cases where it's very obvious and well-known, and the objection raised makes it clear that that is not the case here. siafu 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Buffalo, New York. -Sean Curtin 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No one would be against deleting Category:Buffaloans. It was created by mistake, the creator is the nominator, and it is empty (it should have been nominated for speedy deletion). Some admin should close this Cfr and delete that category, then put Category:Buffalonians up for renaming to Category:People from Buffalo, New York as suggested above, so as to avoid the dispute that will arise if Buffalonians is renamed based on the above votes. I believe the "Rename" votes here are a consensus to nominate for renaming. --Ezeu 19:18, 22 December 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 -- Rick Block (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category should be deleted since it isn't self-evident, it's too difficult to maintain, and we already have a list at Fortune 500. Furthermore, "Category:Fortune Global 500" has already been deleted for the same reasons, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Fortune Global 500. Mushroom 08:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It would be impossible to know whether it is up to date or not without checking, which defeats the object. Sumahoy 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Fortune Global 500. --Vizcarra 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A clear example of where a list is preferable to a category. siafu 01:07, 17 December 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 -- Rick Block (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's another category named "Neurological disorders," so one of them had to go. I also googled both and the results: 520,000 pages for "neurological" vs. 67,000 for neurologic. CDN99 17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. --דוד ♣ D Monack 22:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. It's empty. The one in use is Category:Neurological disorders. --Vizcarra 18:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per above. siafu 01:08, 17 December 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.