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 13:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Owls to Category:Strigiformes
• Category:Buttonquails to Category:Turniciformes
• Category:Sandgrouse to Category:Pteroclidiformes (the original should be plural, too)

rename: These three order categories should be made consistent with others in category:Birds by classification Circeus 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all, common names should be preferred where they exist. Renaming these categories would make them substantially less useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and give new parent categories. The proposal looks like a horrible idea at first, until you look at the categories. In some cases it works great; look specifically at Category:Falconidae, where there's a subcategory of Falcons. Individual species of falcons get entered under that (where users will think to enter them), and then the Falcons subcategory and some non-falcon stragglers go under Falconidae. This should be the model for ALL such categories, in my opinion. In a few places (owls, penguins), there is complete overlap between the common name and the scientific name. I would argue that even in those cases, there should be a common subcategory like Owls leading into an otherwise empty parent like Strigidae, and then that into Strigiformes. But if you take out the common categories completely, then this will only serve those literate in taxonomy, and that's not a good idea.--Mike Selinker 08:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: from what I can see in Category:Birds, these categories should be moved to more relevant parents and the more technically named ones created to go into Category:Birds by classification. Category:Falcons is a subcat of Category:Birds of prey, which is really where Category:Owls should be. However, it also seems perfectly sensible to have technically-named categories alongside that can go in Category:Birds by classification. siafu 13:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All cats in birds of prey are cross-referenced to appropriate family/order cats in Category:Birds by classification. Circeus 17:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm suggesting that both sets of categories should exist, and those in Category:Birds by classification use technical names. siafu 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) is fairly clear that where there is a common name, this should be preferred to the scientific name. Of course, this is the guideline for articles, but I see no reason not to extend this logic to category names too. The guidance is also clear that a scientific name is preferable where there is not a common name that unifies all members of the species. This, however, does not appear to be the case here. Also, "grouse" is an acceptable plural form [1] (in fact "grouses" sounds wrong to my ears, though it is apparently correct). Valiantis 14:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hardly anyone will understand those names. Golfcam 15:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet all other orders already work that way without problems (only families feed into orders unless said order has only one family), and many families (typically when the family isnot equivalent to the english, see the proposed change to category:haws: lower on the page) too. Circeus 17:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose They work without problems for experts. Wikipedia is a reference work for the general reader. Choalbaton 20:41, 31 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 keep --Kbdank71 13:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this cat is the only child of category:sphenisciformes and is totally equivalent to it. While we could go the other way, consistency wth the rest of category:Birds by classification is certainly preferable. Circeus 23:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or reverse merge, or move the penguins cat into Category:Birds. But do not simply replace the common name with jargon. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole points of category:Birds by classification is to avoid individual bird articles feeding into category:Birds. asis, the scheme under Category:Sphenisciformes is both ridiculous and inconsistent. Circeus 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistency with a bad standard I would describe as a virtue. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Make penguins a subcategory of Sphenisciformes. See above logic.--Mike Selinker 08:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments above. siafu 13:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Christopher Parham. Valiantis 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep using English is preferable to me. Golfcam 15:05, 29 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 --Kbdank71 13:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, duplicated at Category:Trans-Canada Highway. MeltBanana 23:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Circeus 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MeltBanana, when something like this happens, you don't have to submit it for a discussion. Just list it in the speedy section and an admin will zap it forthwith. Like me, like now. Speedied. Bearcat 08:22, 29 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was the odd man out in the skyscrapers category, so I have created Category:Skyscrapers in London as a subcategory and I'm part way through populating it. A fair number of articles will remain in the parent (transmission towers, clock towers, the London Eye and others) and the proposed name will be more accurate as many of the remaining items will be structures rather than buildings. Rename Bhoeble 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename to Category:Towers in London, which seems to fit most of the remaining articles and matches existing naming conventions. The ones that wouldn't fit (the power station, the stadium, etc.) probably didn't belong in the category to begin with. - EurekaLott 03:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. I had a look and only about three are towers, but there is an article that they are all in, so it is useful to have a category. Golfcam 15:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. A towers category would be too small. Choalbaton 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed to "Tall buildings and structures in London"; "Skycrapers in London" makes no sense - there can't be any 1930s American buildings in London, so... James F. (talk) 15:32, 4 January 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 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 13:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant - Category:Equestrians already exists. Delete CLW 17:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 13:54, 29 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 defer to WP:TFD --Kbdank71 13:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the accompanying template is listed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User NoSanta.

Unacceptable - POV category. --Santa on Sleigh 17:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not because it's a viewpoint, but because it's a silly category. —David Levy 18:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a category linked to a template. The template is up for deletion as well. If I'm not mis-remembering things, linked categories are handled as part of the TFD vote, not given their own separate CFD vote. As such, I beleive this vote is in the wrong place, and the TFD vote should be the factor that decides the fate of the linked category. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • TexasAndroid is correct. Defer to TFD vote. Radiant_>|< 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion is valid. The category will qualify for speedy deletion if the template is deleted, and it will qualify for regular deletion if the template is kept. —David Levy 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a category of Wikipedians. It should not be deleted. The template appears to be staying as well. --Dschor 19:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seasonal silliness. Bhoeble 20:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utter nonsense. Soltak | Talk 22:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — This is a category of Wikipedians. It should not be deleted: It's just a valid a view for someone to hold as Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa. I'm sure you wouldn't want that category to be deleted too, "Santa"? -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I would. It's over-categorization and it's nonsense. Soltak | Talk 00:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Just as POV or NPOV as Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa, to which a certain individual belongs. In other words, this nomination in and of itself is POV. Daykart 23:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm a strong advocate of WP:UB and userboxes in general. But the category situation is getting out of hand. Categories should only be linked to userboxes for a) location, b) schools, c) sports teams, and d) Wikipedia-related groups. Categories for every split of every issue is just pointless and chaotic. The category should not be included in the template. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. It's another non-encyclopedic, juvenile, vanity category, and should be deleted as should all *other* "categories of Wikipedians" that pollute this site. 12.73.194.94 01:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as proposed. -- Ze miguel 09:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am fine with this catagory being deleted, however Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa should also go if this catagory does. I notice also how the nominator is a suspected sockpupet, and is only active in the christmas season, and how he is currently nominating all non-santa items for deletion. I would even support blocking this user as a sockpuppet and distrubing wikipedia to make a point if nessary, however this is probably not the best place to voice this view. Ian¹³_ID:540053 13:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and Category:Wikipedians that believe in Santa too. Serves no goal and makes a immature impression. RexNL 15:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - The number of categories for userboxes should be cut down. I agree with Deano's comments above. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Grand Edgemaster (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I support keeping all categories of Wikipedians, as they I support keeping all categories of Wikipedians that can be used to find users who are well-informed on or interested in a particular topic for the purposes of improving articles related to that topic. It's important for us to have our POVs out in the open where people can see them. This user category doesn't accomplish that, so I vote that it be deleted.- AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't agree more. This is exactly why categories should be linked to userboxes for a) location, b) schools, c) sports teams, and d) Wikipedia-related groups. BUT categories for every split of every userbox template, be it jokes, attitudes or pet peeves, is just pointless and chaotic and trivialises Wikipedia. Keep the userbox, cut the category. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 19:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, you're right; there are useful user categories, but this is not one of them. I have changed my vote above. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' as per AdelaMae. I don't see the problem people have with categories on Wikipedians, as they don't make the content of Wikipedia less encyclopedic in any way. They are completely harmless. Larix 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Hey! Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV right? Isn't telling someone that they can't say they don't believe in santa (which, mind you, is a fictional character) a POV issue? --Shell 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Bad Santa Keep —Locke Cole • t • c 04:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Categories of Wikipedians are POV and harmless. I don't see the purpose of this category, but I also can't see a way to distinguish between "purposeful" and "not useful" categories of Wikipedians. Let people group themselves however they want: it's a natural social instinct. -- Tetraminoe 07:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's really embarrassing that things like this exist. Choalbaton 20:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep (once again) Apparently, we have "this user believes in santa" templates which are just fine but one saying "this user does not believe in santa" is a horrible thing. Extreme POV anyone? --Shell 14:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I really don't see why this should be deleted. --maru (talk) Contribs 02:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure that it matters for trivial user categories like this one, but that should really be "Wikipedians who don't believe". siafu 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as grammatically intolerable - it would be "Wikipedians who don't believe in Santa". And it's also stupid. James F. (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Silly, but since when is that a reason to delete? And has anybody else thought that the nominator might be Willy on Wheels? ~~ N (t/c) 02:54, 5 January 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 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 --Kbdank71 13:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something less factionalizing. "Anti-admin" sounds like the user believes all admins are t3h 3vil. Radiant_>|< 17:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems fine as is. Perhaps your concerns be better brought to the attention of the users who have placed themselves in this category. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course keep. I said rename, not delete. Radiant_>|< 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? It shouldn't be renamed because the name is fine as it is; if you feel that it is sending the message that "all admins are t3h 3vil," you may want to address the people who are in this category. They may want to change the category name to address your concern, or they might not. Either way is fine with me. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I think admins are well able to check what it actually says, instead of just reading the title. Larix 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Radiant. Wikipedians who refuse adminship ? -- Ze miguel 09:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible rename per Ze miguel to Wikipedians who refuse adminship. But only if all category members consent. // NetEsq 17:04, 3 January 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 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 --Kbdank71 12:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians who drink pepsi. Silly. Delete. Radiant_>|< 17:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Crush like an empty soda can. This is getting out of hand. —David Levy 18:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What is the reasoning for deleting this category? --Dschor 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's incredibly stupid. —David Levy 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not reasoning. That is an opinion. What makes this stupid, in your opinion? It seems to be an instantly popular category. --Dschor 19:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What practical purpose does it serve? Categories pertaining to significant classifications (such as those of a linguistic, national, sociopolitical, ethnic or religious nature) enable users to identify one another. A category for "Wikipedians who drink Pepsi" makes roughly as much sense as one for "Wikipedians who live in red houses with street addresses containing prime numbers." Where do you suggest we draw the line? —David Levy 19:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There are plenty of other user categories that are less useful. The Pepsi user category is a complement to the Coca-Cola user category - and both are more useful than categories like wikipedian sport fans. Answering my question with a question is not very helpful. The simple fact that people have been adding themselves to the category seems to justify the category, as this is part of User categorization. Slippery slope arguments don't apply here. --Dschor 19:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. By all means, let's nominate the "Coca-Cola drinkers" category for deletion too. What is it called? 2. Sports fans actually enjoy conversing with one another. Do Coke and Pepsi drinkers frequently discuss their fondness of Coke and Pepsi? Do we also need categories for the hundreds of other soft drink brands on the market? 3. The category is automatically populated upon the insertion of a (relatively harmless) template. 4. This isn't a "slippery slope" argument; it's a "we've already gone down the slope and over the cliff" argument. —David Levy 20:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This category does no harm, and provides a means for users who share a certain affiliation to be categorized. I still see no rationale for deletion of the category. If other users wish to create a User_Jolt or User_DrPibb category, that is fine. If this category is fit for deletion, it will start a chain reaction of nominations, and we will end up with no user categorization at all (see, I can use your argument against you). --Dschor 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that isn't my argument. I'm saying that we should keep the useful categories, and delete the useless categories. Is it your assertion that no category should ever be deleted? As for "no harm," I disagree. Every useless category makes it harder for users to find the useful categories on the lists. And since when is one's soft drink preference an "affiliation"? Are you seriously suggesting that the demand exists to correspond with fellow Pepsi-drinking Wikipedians? —David Levy 21:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this category useful. This category will not adversely impact the use of categories for other purposes. I may be expressing inclusionist tendencies, but I feel that deletion should not be the first response, but rather the last resort. Users should have the ability to create categories, in order to locate and contact Wikipedians with similar interests. Deleting this category would set a precedent that could be applied to many other useful categories. --Dschor 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• "Do Coke and Pepsi drinkers frequently discuss their fondness of Coke and Pepsi?" Maybe it's just a silly joke box, and maybe in the grand scheme of things (there is an overall discussion of what sorts of userboxes should be allowed to remain getting underway, see Village Pump) it's not that critical that this one live. HOWEVER I did want to answer the question. I am a Pepsi drinker and I have a lot of fun with discussing that with friends, and waitstaff. Try ordering Pepsi in Atlanta GA some time, it's good for a pretty good laugh (not that I hit on waitstaff or anything, no no, not me). Is that important to creating the greatest encyclopedia the world has ever known? Probably not. But you asked. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as proposed. -- Ze miguel 19:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant. Soltak | Talk 22:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - once again a perfectly reasonable userbox has been corrupted by a stupid category. File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 00:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as well as template:user cocacola and template:User Coke Pepsi since they should all be grouped together. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There is no real reason why, especially on user pages, to delete a category such as this. I disagree with the argument of "Do Coke and Pepsi drinkers frequently discuss their fondness of Coke and Pepsi?" I have gotten myself into some pretty major debates over the matter, and it can be an interesting conversation piece. If users wish to categorize themselves by what their favorite soft drink is, let them. They aren't hurting you. Zachary Murray 03:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It is another way for Wikipedians to categorize themselves, just as "console of choice" allows Wikipedians to see where they stand. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In addition to all the free advertising Wiki will be giving both parties, a category silly for falling head-over-heels into the very rationale the advertisers are trying to promote. ThePromenader 10:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as well as Template:user cocacola and Template:User Coke Pepsi, silly, irrelevant, advertising. RexNL 15:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Completely harmless. Wether people think they're silly or stupid is no reason, it's just an opinion. Larix 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some usercategories are usefull, this is not. --Sherool (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, eh, lets keep it as long as we have a user|coke for users who drink coke. What harm does this do? --Shell 03:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided. No harm in keeping it, but it is a rather pointless category! --Richard0612 09:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pointless but harmless -- Tetraminoe 06:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Alot of these userboxes are pointless. I dont really care if someone dislikes George W Bush, or if they like chocolate. It's harmless, and isnt morally wrong in any way, so whats the problem? If you thinks its stupid, don't use it on your userpage. Simple as that. - Bourbons3^Talk 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is it pointless? sure. But keep for now pending an overall consensus of what makes sense regarding userboxes. It's harmless and amusing and doesn't incite violence and makes wikipedians more like real people. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep until someone can provide a logical explanation of why useless categories should be deleted. ~~ N (t/c) 03:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And list all more talk of user's boxes and categories at the offical project page - WP:UBP--God of War 07:14, 5 January 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 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 please nominate specific categories and tag them correctly --Kbdank71 12:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename any subcategies that do not include the word "Wikipedia" or "user" to include either of those words, to clarify that these are categories of Wikipedia users. Also, a bunch of categories here have slashes in the name, which is generally frowned upon, so should be renamed to omit the slashes. And I'm sure that some people will find some of the categories objectional or simply ludicrous, but let's not go into that now. Radiant_>|< 17:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Get Rid Of Them All. They make Wikipedia look ridiculously high-schoolish. 12.73.194.94 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, using Wikipedians by. Ze miguel 10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category to "Categories of Wikipedians" (or "Wikipedians by traits") --Nectar 10:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Nectar Larix 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, but I'm mainly talking about the subcats. Radiant_>|< 11:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created tha name specifically to embarass Wikipedians into somehow cleaning up that mess. Plus "by stuff" is easy to remember while I toss dozens of new, junky cats into that grab-bag each week. You wanna rename the sub-cats? Please do so on a case-by-case basis. Most of the time, there are so few users you can just deal with them dirctly and avoid the deleteion log, which is for "serious" W stuff, not all this W community stuff. -- Fplay 12:45, 30 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 --Kbdank71 12:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Users who have left Wikipedia
• Category:Users who will ask a trustworthy administrator to delete this account if they ever make a new account
• Category:Users who left Wikipedia due to being victims of stalking
• Category:Users who left Wikipedia due to being harassed
• Category:Users who were threatened with being banned for helping out others
• Category:Users who tried to make Wikipedia better for everyone

Self-serving category created by Zordrac (talk · contribs) as part of a smear campaign against other editors. See others created by Zordrac. Antaeus Feldspar 15:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - These nominations were originally listed seperately. I have taken the liberty of refactoring them into one nomination, which is why Antaeus's nomination text seems a smidge disjointed. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 16:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily deleted. Note that these categories didn't actually exist until Feldspar put a deletion tag on them. At present, Zordrac has a number of links to non-existent cats on his user page. So do a number of other users. If people believe this is a problem, a DB query could find them all for us. Radiant_>|< 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • With all due respect, I think that these categories should be subject to the regular discussion that any other category nominated for deletion gets -- and if the discussion result is "delete", then it should be subject to the same fate as any other category that is deleted by CfD, which is not just to have the category page, if any, deleted, but to have the category depopulated. Is a populated category really 'non-existent' just because there isn't a category page for it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For articles you'd be definitely right. However, userspace is a bit hazy, and I can think of several other users (e.g. User:SPUI) who have nonexistent cats (or deleted cats) on their userpage. Since Zordrac is just a simple case of WP:POINT, I've removed the cats from his page now, it seems hardly worth the hassle otherwise. Radiant_>|< 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only one that's left, Category:Users who have left Wikipedia, as redundant with Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. --cesarb 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per cesarb. Ze miguel 10:49, 29 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 --Kbdank71 12:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with Category:Opera houses in Argentina. Ze miguel 11:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. - choster 15:32, 28 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 --Kbdank71 12:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with Category:Opera houses in the Czech Republic. Ze miguel 11:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. - choster 15:32, 28 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 12:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The top category should be created, and if needed, additional categories added later. Ze miguel 11:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 13:57, 29 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 --Kbdank71 12:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with Category:Typhoons in the Philippines . Ze miguel 11:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could removal of duplicates be speedied ?

• Speedy delete. - choster 15:32, 28 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 --Kbdank71 12:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with Category:Cities in the United States. Ze miguel 10:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. - choster 15:32, 28 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 categoryredirect --Kbdank71 12:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with Category:Universities and colleges in Ottawa, not enough entries to need a split. Ze miguel 10:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• These existed previously as separate categories, and were merged to create Category:Universities and colleges in Ottawa. If it's okay, I'd like to just slap a ((categoryredirect)) on them since this may well happen again. Bearcat 08:29, 29 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 --Kbdank71 12:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate with Category:Parisians. Ze miguel 10:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Good lord! It is not this category that should be deleted, but "People of Paris" - this was my error! "Population of Paris" was made to englobe and organized the sub-categories "Parisians" and "Demographics of Paris". Sorry! ThePromenader 10:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that Category:Paris and Category:Demographics of France are not populated enough to warrant subdivision. Category:Demographics of Paris and Category:People of Paris should also be deleted. -- Ze miguel 10:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Co-Comment - "Populations of Paris" can contain the quite complete "Parisians" category and the "Demographics of Paris" and "Paris Immigration" articles perhaps - the "people of Paris" category should go though as well as the "demographics of Paris" one. ThePromenader 16:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per ThePromenader. - choster 15:32, 28 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 --Kbdank71 12:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty categories, also made redundant by Category:Rebel Alliance and New Republic characters -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - choster 15:33, 28 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 to Category:True hawks --Kbdank71 12:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've comeback to my taxo-categorization project, which for the most so far has consisted of moving individual bird articles into the tree of Category: birds by classification, and began working through the birds of prey category, cross-referencing everything and keeping only individual bird species in the cat. However, category:hawks proves troublesome. It is pertinent to split species within Accipitridae by subfamilies, but the cross-referencing between category:accipitridae and category:birds of prey, while not troublesomefor, say kites or eagles, forces me to moves a number of species comonly named "hawks" out of category:hawks, so for accurate cross-reference, it would be appropriate to rename it to category:True Hawks. Circeus 05:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:True hawks (standardized capitalization.) - TexasAndroid 18:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Won't you then need to establish a Category:False Hawks? Otherwise, the same people who are sticking "non-hawks" in the current category will go right ahead and do the same with the newly named one, since they must obviously be unaware of the distinction in the first place. Seems like a simple header stating what belongs in the category as it currently stands, plus constant policing, is the best you can hope for in the "Wiki" environment as far as separating true hawks from other species "commonly named 'hawks'". 12.73.194.94 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, "True hawks" is here simply an English name for Accipitrinae. See hawk. Circeus 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but make the distinction clear in the category description. siafu 14:00, 29 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.