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 --Kbdank71 13:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:North District → Category:North District of Hong Kong
• Category:Eastern District → Category:Eastern District of Hong Kong
• Category:Central and Western District → Category:Central and Western District of Hong Kong

A category like "Eastern District" does not make much sense out of context. Also, I wonder about "North" vs. "Northern" for consistency, but it should probably reflect common usage even if inconsistent (I have no idea which is correct). --Tabor 21:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename No contention. siafu 22:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Northern might be better, but do not oppose nom's suggestion. ∞Who?¿? 06:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The official names are indeed Eastern, Southern, Central and Western, but North. :-) — Instantnood 13:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Of course the one I choose is wrong :) ∞Who?¿? 13:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless disambiguation is necessary, which is not the case currently at the present moment. — Instantnood 10:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose unless prove is given that there's another district in the world with the official names "North District", "South District" etc. Deryck C. 12:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment erm...try typing "North District" etc in google and you will discover just how many places in the world uses that term.--Huaiwei 12:37, 21 July 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 13:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not my nomination; just fixing up a ((merge)) tag that was placed on the category page suggesting merge to Category:Hip hop--Tabor 20:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unless something has changed, rap and hip-hop are not equivalent. siafu 22:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with siafu, definately a different style and genre. I see that MakeRocketGoNow placed the merge tag, but did not start a discussion as to why, I'll invite them to this Cfr. ∞Who?¿? 06:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Rap category was sparsely populated; everything was under Category:Hip hop, which I assumed was the preferred Category. I thought someone was sort of unnecessarily re-inventing the wheel. I invite others to determine whether an artist is rap or hip-hop because I sure couldn't tell you. I withdraw my merge tag. MakeRocketGoNow 18:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. People should use more specific categories if possible, but there's basically nothing wrong with this category. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The associated articles might need to be considered. Currently rap music redirects to hip hop music, while rap redirects to rapping. And the rapping article opens, "Rapping is one of the elements of hip hop and the distinguishing feature of hip hop music." I'm no expert in this area but some consistency and/or explanation might help. --Tabor 17:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Good points, if not already resolved, I will view them but can not even begin to pretend I'm an expert on the matter. ∞Who?¿? 03:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the related articles, and am midly concerned about the redirects, but that can be dealt with in the near future. I removed MakeRocketGoNows merge tag, as it was mutually withdrawn, and added this cat to Category:Hip hop. I gained my reasoning from the hip hop article, and added a desc text for source. Please take a moment to view these changes and comment. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 03:48, 20 July 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 13:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. As per talk page, articles were recatted under Category:Hamas. Cfd notice added on July 4 by User:Alphax. --Kbdank71 15:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Splash 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ∞Who?¿? 06:36, 17 July 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 --Kbdank71 13:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One article. Dup of Category:United States musicians Cfd notice added on July 2 by User:Paul foord. --Kbdank71 14:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the one article to that cat, then delete. -Splash 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, but suggest Category:Musicians of the United States. siafu 18:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What about singers? Maurreen 07:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would normally immediately suggest merge, but I had to see what the reasoning was, as it was created farily recently by TUF-KAT. Evidentally works on Wikipedia:WikiProject World music, and I think there either may be more to it, or just didn't do enough research on the current category structure. Will invite them to this CFR. ∞Who?¿? 06:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to American musicians and delete Category:United States musicians. "United States" is not an adjective. Googling "american musician" receives 89,000 hits. Googling "United States musician" gets 554, many of which appear to be derived from this site's own use of that awkward phrase. Postdlf 08:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per KBdank. Categorize by the country (United States), not the continent (America). Radiant_>|< 14:56, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • See above comments under Category:United States painters; the premises of your comment are incorrect. Postdlf 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also the CIA World Factbook table of the correct adjectives and nouns to use in referring to nationality.[1] Anyone have any contrary evidence? Postdlf 18:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm on a wikivacation right now, and don't have anything to add. It doesn't really matter to me which one is used. Tuf-Kat 23:13, July 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 delete --Kbdank71 13:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Dup of Category:Peace organizations Cfd notice added on July 3 by an anon, who created the category 1 hour earlier. --Kbdank71 14:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Splash 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. siafu 18:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, well at least they noticed their mistake and were nice enough to Cfd it :) ∞Who?¿? 06:47, 17 July 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 13:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Cfd notice added on July 10 by User:Paul foord, who created the category 12 minutes earlier. --Kbdank71 14:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty and unused. -Splash 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. siafu 18:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another one? Almost makes me wonder if we need a "self-revert" link, I'm sure I could have used it a few times. ∞Who?¿? 06:49, 17 July 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 13:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Duplicate of Category:Wikipedians of Mexico. Cfd notice added on July 5th but not listed here. --Kbdank71 14:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Splash 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. siafu 18:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete duplicate. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:12, 18 July 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 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A category which will always consist of a single article: Battle of Tampa. Gamaliel 08:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overcategorization. Radiant_>|< 08:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient material for a cat. -Splash 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A single article does not a category make. siafu 18:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 21:55, 16 July 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 13:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every actress has worn a wig at some point, so you'd have to add almost every actress. What's the point of that, and who cares who's wearing wigs? ♥purplefeltangel 02:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or listify, trivial. Radiant_>|< 08:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic. -Splash 15:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not useful, unverifiable. siafu 18:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's crap like this that makes me wish we had a pre-approval process for categories. Postdlf 21:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--The Brain 12:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the nominator. Kaibabsquirrel 01:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not only pointless but incorrect caps. So, since I'm bald, if I wore a wig, I could be categorized somwhere on Wiki? Woohoo. ∞Who?¿? 03:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we need Category:Bald Wikipedians. And of course it would need two subcategories: Category:Bald Wikipedians who wear wigs and Category:Bald Wikipedians who don't wear wigs. Then we'd have to figure out if mere hairpieces or toupees count as wigs. That might require more subcategories... Then perhaps Category:Bald Wikipedians who have considered wearing wigs but don't... Postdlf 03:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't forget Category:Balding Wikipedians who have gotten caught using spray-on hair. Delete. --Kbdank71 14:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. categories. Now to keep it red!! ∞Who?¿? 07:12, 21 July 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 13:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've already gotten rid of categories like "Terrorists" itself, "Left-wing terrorists", etc. The consensus was clear that the issue was about the word "Terrorists". Now this. -- 01:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jmabel | Talk 01:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delte. in order to improve Wiki with a NPOV base. Messhermit 03:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. Kaibabsquirrel 04:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename to less controversial wording. Revolutionary, insurgent, whatever. siafu 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have no problem with a category like Category:Peruvian armed factions; I'd expect it to include paramilitaries, not just leftist factions. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this is a good idea. I can work on it when I get back from vacation. siafu 18:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 14:28, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete w/o question. It's midly concerning that it's cat'd under Category:Peruvian people by occupation. Terrorism an occupation? My guidance counselor was way off. ∞Who?¿? 03:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should have Category:Peruvian people by calling?  ; ) Postdlf 04:24, 20 July 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.