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 14:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Category:Art museums and galleries in the UK to Category:Art museums and galleries in the United Kingdom

Category:Art museums and galleries in the U.S. to Category:Art museums and galleries in the United States

Category:Asian art museums in the U.S. to Category:Asian art museums in the United States

∞Who?¿? 23:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all CalJW 00:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Jobe6 01:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 22:03, 26 September 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 14:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem very useful; simply adds a category to pages that have the Handbook of Texas as a reference. What links here on the template will do the same. Delete. --SPUI (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ∞Who?¿? 07:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 66.167.253.77 16:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC): There are roughly two dozen sources in Category:Wikipedia sources in addition to this one; is this a proposal to eliminate the whole concept of categories for sources? "HoT citations" is already better utilized than almost all of the other Wikipedia sources listed (e.g. Category:Appleton's Cyclopedia and Category:Dictionary of Australian Biography; one exception is Category:A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature), Having the category allows the category text to add information that template links omits, such as a link to its usage summary. BTW, a Google search shows hundreds of articles in Wikipedia use the Handbook. P.S. Using categories in templates is common practice: even ((cfd)) does it. Doing so and then properly categorizing the new category (this one is a sub-category of three others) help find templates related to a subject.[reply]
• Keep. For similar reasons as 66.167.253.77 (above). jareha 17:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although I'm not a huge fan of the category on the template, I fail to see how it's different from all the other souce categories. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jack Cain 18:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote. It strikes me as non-functional page clutter. If somebody clicks on the "Entry for (({name))}" link, they will soon find far more Texas-related information than would ever be worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. To me, this appears to be patterned more after imdb name template than, say, the encyclopedia britannica one. And I can only assume that an analogous Category:IMDb citations would be considered extremely redundant. However, I abstain from voting on this—merely fulfilling a request posted on my talk page. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused by your comment. What do you mean by "they will soon find far more Texas-related information than would ever be worthy of inclusion"? Right now it seems mostly cities use the template, but on all the biographies I've written I'd have to strongly diasgree with you. — Laura Scudder | Talk 19:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will rephrase this by saying if one browses the external site, one will learn more about Texas-related topics than one will here. This is because the HoT is a specialized reference and wikipedia is an all-purpose one... and some Texans aren't notable outside Texas. This is another respect in which I'd say HoT is more similar to IMDb than to Brittanica. So, I'm sorry to offend you. As I stated by not voting, I don't care if it's kept or not, but base that decision on usefulness rather than proximity. The next question: why do we have a bunch of Texans arguing over something that's not a Texas issue?. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Wikipedia community consists of many sub-communities. It is perfectly natural that some people will care more about a given proposal than others. It is also perfectly reasonable to want to alert those people that the issue is under discussion. In this case, the category is likely to be most useful to people working on articles relating to Texas, and many of those people are Texans. If you are worried that some other set of people (List of people against having source categories for example) are being left out of the discussion, feel free to leave them a message. Johntex\^talk 18:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 66.167.253.77's statements above. Also, the HoT is an extremely valuable resource, it is useful for those working on Texas-related articles to see what articles have used it as a source. The "What Links Here" method is inadequate because (1) just because an article uses HoT as a source does not mean that article links to Handbook of Texas and (2) "What Links Here" is not as dependable as having a category because "What Links Here" sometimes misses articles. Johntex\^talk 18:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, responding as requested. The category doesn't seem useful to me but if other editors find it useful I don't see why it should be scrapped. Kit 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can find no reason to delete it, it is not erroneous information that is not worthy of a category listing and some may find it useful. Jaedza 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per 66.167.253.77. I've written articles that reference the HoT and I find this category to be quite useful for quickly locating related subjects. Thatdog 20:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Categorization is informed by content, not sourcing. siafu 22:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is not a good reason for deleting it. As a librarian, I have used Handbook of Texas, both online and print, countless times. I would put this category under the rubric of "it doesn't hurt anything". Rockhopper10r 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Myles Long/cDc 22:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! What would justify deleting it? As a Texan Wikipedian, I am against this. This links Texas-related articles together. Besides, who is it hurting? You'd be suggesting that this[1] is useless junk that we don't need. It's easier to just look in a category than to go to the template and click "What links here". --Victor 22:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per LauraScudder. A vote to remove all categories for sources across the board (which I don't necessarily support) would be more appropriate than singling out one. EWS23 23:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would have voted for delete because the belief of categorize articles not sources but I until I read the 66.167.253.77's comments. I didn't know there are categories that are made just for sources. In addition, the Handbook of Texas is a really notable source for Texas history/info. --J. Nguyen 00:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm currently using the HoT as main source for a spree of Texas-related articles, namely John Coffee Hays, Samuel Hamilton Walker, Leander H. McNelly, Manuel T. Gonzaullas, John Barclay Armstrong, John B. Jones and more to come, and I believe that a unified category for their source is of utmost importance. I wish potential readers to access easily other related topics and biographies; sometimes, they can't simply be aware of the existence of such information other than by consulting the category. That, not to mention the well-known and respected notability of the HoT. Shauri 02:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ~BRO-co03 06:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the above and think it can be a useful resource. Maltmomma ^(chat) 18:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be no major reasons for deleting it. - Rlvaughn 01:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a "Texas Encyclopedia", the HoT deserves to be a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia sources, as long as some Wikipedians have found it useful as a source (which seems to be the case). Perhaps it should be renamed as simply "Handbook of Texas". —AugPi 18:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep19:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -JCarriker 08:19, 30 September 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 deleted as empty. ∞Who?¿? 08:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, marked for deletion on Sept 13 by User:Oblivious but not listed here. --Kbdank71 16:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ∞Who?¿? 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jobe6 01:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:07, 26 September 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 deleted as empty. ∞Who?¿? 08:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, marked for deletion on Sept 13 by User:Oblivious but not listed here. --Kbdank71 16:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ∞Who?¿? 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jobe6 01:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:08, 26 September 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 deleted as empty. ∞Who?¿? 08:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, marked for deletion on Sept 13 by User:Oblivious but not listed here. --Kbdank71 16:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ∞Who?¿? 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jobe6 01:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant with Category:Maldivian culture. siafu 22:10, 26 September 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 14:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, marked for deletion on Sept 10 by User:Ddespie@san.rr.com but not listed here. Delete. --Kbdank71 15:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What's the point? It is sure to be recreated. CalJW 16:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of having an empty category? If it's recreated and populated, that's fine. Until then, why keep an empty category? Did I mention that it's empty? --Kbdank71 19:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but its empty now. ∞Who?¿? 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Empty now, can be recreated later if it becomes needed. TexasAndroid 21:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I notice that every country except the US uses "Hotels in...", so perhaps this, Category:Hotels of the United States and Category:Hotels of Hawaii all need their names changed anyway... Grutness...wha? 01:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename others as Grutness suggests, but delete this one. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:11, 26 September 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 deleted as empty. ∞Who?¿? 08:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, marked for deletion on Aug 26 by User:Ddespie@san.rr.com but not listed here. Delete. --Kbdank71 15:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ∞Who?¿? 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bhoeble 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 66.167.253.77 16:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:14, 26 September 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 deleted as empty. ∞Who?¿? 08:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, marked for deletion on Sept 14 by User:Snafflekid but not listed here. Delete. --Kbdank71 15:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I thought this was deleted. ∞Who?¿? 16:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I voted Delete last time, too. Thought it was gone. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I poked around, and found that Cat:Cardinals(Birds) was deleted, not this one. --Kbdank71 15:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Still redundant with Category:Cardinalidae. siafu 22:17, 26 September 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 deleted as empty. ∞Who?¿? 08:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redundant and empty subcategory. Lists of municipalities are already located in parent category. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 13:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Rune Welsh --Rogerd 22:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As it's already empty, it may be deleted. Using it would avoid having to populate Category:Lists of municipalities with all the Mexican lists. -- User:Docu
• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's next, categories of lists? siafu 22:18, 26 September 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 14:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very few wars have been seen in Doctor Who (unlike Star Trek or Star Wars) major enough to warrant anything more than a stub article, or have information that cannot be redirected the appropriate episode/story entry (I have redirected the sole other entry, Kaled-Thal war, to History of the Daleks, which has all the same information and more). The only war that has had a major impact on the series, and thus is notable, is the Time War, and that's just the one article, which I have re-categorized under Category:Fictional wars. There is little to no scope for expansion in this category and it should be deleted. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nominator. One article with no expansion likely (saving the BBC doing something unexpected in the future) does not make a category. -Splash^talk 14:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Never seen? Well someone should ship them a dvd set! Delete. ∞Who?¿? 16:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with Khaosworks --TimPope 18:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 66.167.253.77 16:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:20, 26 September 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 with Category:New York City history --Kbdank71 14:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Netherland was the colony, New Amsterdam (present-day New York City) simply a town in the colony. The colony of New Netherland extended from New Amsterdam (present-day New York City) and western Long Island up the Hudson River valley as far as present-day Albany, and also included much of the present-day state of New Jersey. This category should thus be renamed to Category:New Netherland history, because the category should of course be the colony. It looks rather peculiar to see "New Netherland" listed as an article in the category "New Amsterdam history", when it should be the other way around -- "New Amsterdam" should be listed as an article in a category "New Netherland history". I have the feeling that the original creator of this category might have mistakenly thought that New Amsterdam was the colony.

• Merge with Category:New York City history, which already has an article for New Amsterdam. Or you could just create Category:History of the area now called New York City if people want to complain that it's not the history of "New York City" we're talking about, but I think most of us won't be confused. --Kbdank71 15:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE with Category:New York history and not NYC history, because Albany is not part of NYC, and Albany was part of Neu Nederlans 132.205.45.148 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Kbdank71. siafu 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as the proposed Catagory:New Netherland history. This is a more encompassing title and will allow a greater number of relevant topics to be added to it. New Amsterdam was just a small (but important) part of New Netherland.

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 13:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LAUSD and Category:LAUSD schools

• A particularly forbidding pair of abbreviated category names. Rename Category:Los Angeles Unified School District and category:Los Angeles Unified School District schools. CalJW 06:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

converted to ((cfru)) ∞Who?¿? 07:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter makes for a very long name. Could that be a problem? -Willmcw 06:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long yes, but not abbrv. My question is "Unified" a title? If not, should the names be Category:Los Angeles unified school district. ∞Who?¿? 07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It won't use any trees. CalJW 07:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you say so. And yes, it's all a title. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok then, it's a title. Rename per nom. ∞Who?¿? 16:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, including Capitals. -Splash^talk 14:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed, including the capitalisation. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 22:24, 26 September 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 13:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious that the articles will be about dead people, not treasure hoards or dogs' bones, but think renaming to Category:People buried in Kensal Green Cemetery will remove a certain awkwardness. CalJW 05:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, howabout Category:Residents of Kensal Green Cemetery, or not. I see that the Kensal Green Cemetery list exists, and only a few other cemetaries have sub-cats for its "residents". Weak rename per nom, but fine with deletion. ∞Who?¿? 06:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to 'People buried ...' is acceptable to me. Noisy | Talk 09:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm mortified to discover we categorise people by where they are buried! With a few exceptions, that information is not so interesting as to deserve extracting from the article — but I suppose the list can stay. And no, we can't call them residents! -Splash^talk 14:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or weak delete. I agree with Splash that it is odd that such things are categorized, but it would probably be the same with Arlington Cemetary-pretty famous. Kensal looks like it has some famous people there, too. I still think its weird, though ;-). -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Osomec 15:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "People buried in...". James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Most cemetaries lack enough interesting bodies, but this one seems to have quite a few WP-notable individuals. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Jobe6 01:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and list. Where people are buried is, at best, an interesting side note (did you that Karl Marx is buried in London? That Jack Ruby is buried in Chicago?), not a central piece of content. Even with my long-term interest in UE, I can't justify an actual category on such terms. This would be much more appropriate as a list. siafu 22:32, 26 September 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 13:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the categories in Category:British visitor attractions by locality are in the same form except:

• Category:Places of interest in Birmingham, England → rename Category:Visitor attractions in Birmingham, England
• Category:London attractions → rename category:Visitor attractions in London

CalJW 05:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree; rename. Kamezuki 06:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please remember to tag every category included in a discussion, or it will not be changed. ∞Who?¿? 06:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. ∞Who?¿? 06:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, though wonder if the subcats are really necessary: WP:NOT a travel guide. -Splash^talk 14:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are legitimate, or 99% of them are, and the category system is a navigation tool and a tidying up exercise. We don't want dozens of articles floating around in the main London category for example. If you don't have a thorough set of categories at local level you can't clear large categories, and one of the problems with that is that the articles which get left behind would be selected by topic area, not importance. CalJW 16:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Bhoeble 17:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Some of the articles in the Birmingham category - though legitimate in themselves - are scarcely visitor attractions, which is perhaps why the category has its current name. However, this can be fixed by recategorising them more usefully. Valiantis 00:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "London attractions" to "Visitor attractions in London" as proposed; rename "Places of interest in Birmingham, England" to "Visitor attractions in Birmingham" (we're meant to follow the same naming scheme as articles, after all, and the British city has primary status for disambiguation purposes). Agree with Valiantis that some re-cat'ing of the later especially will be required. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In principle I agree that all the Birmingham, England categories should be renamed "... in/of Birmingham" to match the naming policy in the article namespace. However, this was discussed previously - the archive is at Category talk:Birmingham - after Category:Birmingham had been created for articles about Birmingham, Alabama. The decision was to leave Category:Birmingham as a disambiguation cat and create Category:Birmingham, Alabama for that city. Almost all the subcats for Birmingham, England are already called "...in/of Birmingham, England" so the visitor attractions subcat should follow that usage. You'd have to raise a separate umbrella CfR if you want to re-open the whole issue. Valiantis 16:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 22:33, 26 September 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 Speedy deleted as misspelling, see log. ∞Who?¿? 22:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Universities" is misspelled, there's already a Category:Universities and colleges in Turkey, and the one article in this category can be placed into that one. Kamezuki 04:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge. CSD for misspelling. ∞Who?¿? 04:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge and delete. -- Reinyday, 12:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy merge. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted as misspelling CDC (talk) 20:49, 23 September 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?¿? 02:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Inherently POV. - SimonP 02:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling this Inherently POV is inherently moral relativism, as if one person's dictator could be another person's non-violent pacifist. We are not that incapable of making judgements.--Silverback 14:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom. ∞Who?¿? 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I assumed there was a similar cat like Category:Dictators, however there is not. Dictatorship mentions an Absolute Monarchy, but no cat for that either. If you take a look at Category:Forms of government, it shows several forms, but I could not find anything remotely close. It is odd that we do not already have a cat to cover this. So possibly rename Category:Dictators. I do not think that Category:War criminals would cover the rule of a land/governement. ∞Who?¿? 06:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CalJW 05:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:War criminals. There is not a category that accurately groups people like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. There should be some way to do this while still remaining neutral. -- Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 05:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at least rename. There should be a category where we can have these despots. --Ezeu 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV --Jiang 06:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Haham hanuka 07:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete See Talk:List of dictators Wizzy…☎ 07:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No way to make this NPOV. Shanes 08:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As nominator. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,dictatorships can probably be considered totalitarian if they forcefully suppress emigration or if they murder or imprison opposition, or minorities or intellectuals. These actions demonstrate the fascist presumption of total control of individuals lives. This seems quite workable, the main problem appears to be when dictatorial powers are shared by an oligarchy as in the USSR, because dictator, in english at least, is usually reserved for one man rule. Perhaps there should also be a totalitarian oligarchy category.--Silverback 12:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Surely dictator is well-defined enough to not be POV?! I'm thinking that in my understanding, all dictators are by definition totalitarian or they are not dictators, but that's a side issue, really. I specifically oppose the war criminals suggestion: that most dictators are/have been suspected of war crimes is unhappy coincidence rather than part of the job. -Splash^talk 14:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I almost want to agree that the most of them are totalitarian in nature, but it would still seem POV, I think just "Dictator" pretty much covers the ground, as well is broad enough for others. (And it's not a job, its an adventure). ∞Who?¿? 16:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  all dictators are by definition totalitarian or they are not dictators, but that's a side issue, really No, they are not. Look up the definition of the terms in a reliable textbook or sourcebook on politics (not Wikipedia), such as the Oxford Dictonary of Politics. 172 | Talk 19:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Well depending on the dictionary totalitarian and absolute power are synonymous, but they can mean two different things. I think there is POV either way. But the fact that we can define those two terms seperately shows that it is NPOV. There is an inherit problem with populating these type of cats due to POV, but I feel there is a point where some "rulers" would fit w/o disagreement. I see that Category:Dictators has been deleted twice before, which is understandable reading the comments here. However, at one point someone had to have been labeled that or the word itself would be useless and not on Wikipedia. ∞Who?¿? 22:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Totalitarian dictator is a different animal than the ordinary dictator. The ordinary dictator may just be one man rule resulting from a military coup, but not have much control over the populace because he hasn't engaged in terrorism or suppression. I guess totalitarian is to be distinguished from petty corrupt dictatorships that much of the third world used to be famous for.--Silverback 18:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. --Kbdank71 15:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt the earth it once walked upon. There is no way this can ever be NPOV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  As evidence, I added several names who were unquestionably totalitarian dictators (certainly as much as the names previously added). Someone (an anon FWIW), immediately reverted the page of Anastasio Somoza Debayle. I'm not going to edit war over that particular dictator. But the category provably devolves into Category:Totalitarian dictators who do not have active supporters among Wikipedia editors.

  As further evidence, one of the "keep" voters seems to be "gaming the system." S/he put the cat tag on Fidel castro, which is not the same page as Fidel Castro, but a redirect to the correct spelling. I kinda presume the thought here was that regular editors would never let the cat stay on the real page; but it could be snuck into the category through a subtle misspelling. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Why oppose a category because the real problem is a clique or cadre. Let's not avoid the real problem. Fidel Castro fits the definition of totalitarian dictator, and also is one of the totalitarian dictators that has active supporters among Wikipedia editors, strangely a significant part of his support is from those who do not think communism is compatible with a state, and who also object to Cuba being categorized as a communist state instead of socialist. I guess he is a socialist who just happens to try to kill people who try to excape, who puts the opposition in prison, and who won't let the families of those who have escaped join them in their chosen country. As for gaming the system, I didn't do anything there I won't do to the actual page later on. It was a legitimate edit made in good faith. If you reverted it, I hope you can make the same claim. I'd be happy to debate the issues with you.--Silverback 18:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  And this is exactly why the category is so awful. Proponents of specific political positions, like Silverback, are more than happy to game the system to get as suggested criticism of their disfavored figures. (C'mon, sneaking in a cat on a misspelling is "good faith"! I have a bridge I'd like to sell you). There's no hint of a definition underlying category membership. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I gave a hint when I voted.--Silverback 19:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. - Gilgamesh 16:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with above keep comments Gilgamesh he 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) (duplicated?)[reply]
• delete. A category to be useful must have an exact definition. The same problem as with category:villains, which was eventually agreed is good only for fictional characters. While in some cases there could be a consensus, in most cases there will be not. mikka (t) 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reluctantly, and purely for the sake of avoiding the 1001 edit wars such a category will inevitably provoke, and which in itself would be a worse thing for wikipedia than not having the category, SqueakBox 18:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV. Classifying regimes is the business of political scientists, not Wikipedia editors. And political scientists always disgree on what totalitarianism is, when to apply it, and even on whether or not it's a useful concept. This category inevitably leads to original research and POV. 172 | Talk 18:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Until the discussion concludes, would you mind repopulating the category? Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – please do not depopulate the category before the community has made a decision. Thanks. --Kbdank71 19:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Repopulating the category would be a violation of the two most important Wikipedia policies: NPOV and no original research. 172 | Talk 19:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  172 is correct here. Most CfD's concern administrative questions, but are NPOV either way. Whether Category:Songs about cheese is worth having might be debatable, but it's not a POV political agenda to list a song that way. For some cats like this one (and, e.g. the successfully CfD'd "Political correctness") listing an article is inherently "commentary by categorization". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it your contention that zero articles fit in this category? Carbonite | Talk 19:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  We all have our pet lists. There are some we could mutually agree on. But doing so would be esablishing that we both share a POV, and would establish nothing more. This was all thrashed out on Talk:List of dictators. Wizzy…☎ 21:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Carbonite-- yes, zero articles fit in this category in accordance with NPOV. There are a number of influential Soviet experts that even question the application of the concept of totalitarianism to Stalinist Russia, which comes closest to the historical approximation of totalitarianism of any regime. So there fails to be the scholarly consensus holding a single regime to be totalitarian-- even Stalin's Russia, needed to make this categorization from a neutral point of view. I point this out despite my own perspective. I personally think an understanding of totalitarism is valuable in many areas of research. 172 | Talk 17:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with above keep comments Carbonite | Talk 19:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:Dictators has already been created and deleted twice [2] [3]. This category has the same problems and deserves the same fate. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who is and is not a "totalitarian dictator" is not widely agreed-upon, and it is not a binary attribute, so simply isn't appropriate for categories. Basically, what 172 said. CDC (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Controversial and opinion-based. This will never be useful. - Nat Krause 08:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as "hopelessly POV", as we generally call it. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cats shouldn't be used for commentary, as per Lulu; it's also a total (and totally unnecessary) flytrap for vandals. Ziggurat 21:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV RustyCale 22:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Jobe6 01:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is considerably more problematic than Category:Dictators, and should share its fate (as many times as necessary). Alai 12:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In many case it's already contentious to decide when a ruler is a dictator, to decide when a dictator is totalitarian is simply POV Aldux 13:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The combination of two loosely defined terms here has resulted in a very loosely defined category, and this ambiguity lends itself to POV insertions. siafu 22:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: inherently POV. -Sean Curtin 04:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have no idea why people are calling this "inherently PoV" — the notions of totalitarianism and dictatorship are perfectly clear and objective; I wonder if there's some confusion concerning what PoV means, or over the meanings of the terms? Perhaps the problem is that they're often misused (like "fascist" or "Nazi"), but that's not a reason to delete the category. User:172 has claimed (on very thin evidence) that "most political scientists" disagree over what counts as totalitarianism; from my reading that seems simply to be false. Perhaps some people are worried that certain articles shouldn't be in the category; perhaps they're right, but that's a reason to take them out, not to delete the category (I think that a number of people in Category:Philosophers shouldn't be there, but the idea that it should therefore be deleted is absurd). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • the notions of totalitarianism and dictatorship are perfectly clear and objective Pure nonsense. If any country is categorized as "totalitarian," there will be scholarly opposition, and not because some academics like objective truth while others can get PhDs with the intent of distorting truth, but because there isn't even a single definition of the concept, let alone a science for applying it. A good summary of the long-running controversy over the totalitarian model is offered in Shela Fitzpatrick's "Politics as Practice: Thoughts on a New Soviet Political History" found in the Project Muse database. [4] I am not making the case on behalf of the social theorists and political scientists who reject the various totalitarian models of Arendt, Brzezinski, or Kirkpatrick; but I am pointing that given the fact that there is debate, taking one side over another would be a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Further, if professional political scientists can't agree on whether or not even Stalin's Russia was totalitarian, this call is well outside the realm of Wikipedia editors, given the policy against "original research." 172 | Talk 15:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scholars may disagree, but the man on Kampala's streets in 1978 knows what totalitarianism and dictatorship is. Not calling a dog a dog is POV, and refraining from calling a dog a dog for fear of controversy is pusillanimous. --Ezeu 19:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can call a dog a dog. But the problem with the category is a separate matter. The regime that the dog ran might fit into the category of authoritarianism rather than totalitarianism-- social science terms that are meant to be applied carefully in formal sources like encyclopedias. In the final analysis, this hardly makes the authoritarian ruler any less of a dog; so paying attention to scholarly standards does not come with the cost of being pusillanimous, as you seem to be suggesting. 172 | Talk 00:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the cat should go (delete), since from working at Belarusian related articles, many people in the West agree that Lukashenko is a dictator, but people from the CIS nations think he is great or not a dictator. It is a POV laden term, such as terrorist. As my friends use to say, One mans dictator is one man's beloved leader. Zach (Sound Off) 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NPOV first and foremost. --fvw* 00:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not sure if this is still a live vote, but the category is ridiculous - not everyone even agrees that the term totalitarian is appropriate for any regimes. Even for those who feel it is appropriate, only a tiny number of people would actually be universally agreed to fit - maybe as few as 2 (Hitler and Stalin). john k 00:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Total POV. I agree w/ Silverback and many other voters that one person's dictator can be another person's pacifist. Svest 02:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]
• Delete -- It could NPOV, if people would stick to scholarly definitions, However there are too many people adound that won't do this. When I came across it, the only "member" was Suharto. A dictator, certainly not a nice guy, but hardly totalitarian. Str1977 15:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... obviously I agree with the conclusion of "delete". But the example seems weird to me, Suharto was certainly totalitarian by any definition other than Kirkpatrick's "US allies don't count" one. Certainly his inclusion makes a lot more sense than the infinitely absurd listing of Lenin (or Castro), whom the Kirkpatrick anti-Communists want "just because we don't like them." But then, I think of "scholarly" as Arendt or Reich's frameworks, not as the crappola of Feith or Wolfowitz's capriciousness. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suharto is considered authoritarian under Juan Linz's framework. I'm not sure if I know his political leanings, but I'm under the impression that he's a moderate European social democrat, and hardly a Reaganite. Suharto did not have an elaborate guiding ideology and bring all institutions of society under state direction, so I'd learn toward Linz's approach myself... At any rate, we can agree to disagree; this should just go to show everyone why the category is not workable on Wikipedia! 172 | Talk 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, 172, you could write the missing Juan Linz article on WP, so that we can see what this fraemework he proposes is. I confess I don't know his work, since my doctorate is in social/political philosophy rather than political science or sociology. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. I thought there was an article... Good suggestion. 172 | Talk 18:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note please do not depopulate this category until it is properly listed on the Cleanup section. The discussion is closed but remaining listed to allow time for any disputes on the closing decision. ∞Who?¿? 02:56, 3 October 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 13:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category only exists to further the POV-pushing attempts of User:67.124.49.20, User:208.57.91.27, User:Johnski, and User:Samspade. It has been populated only through edits that have deliberately sidestepped the process of reaching consensus on the issue of Dominion of Melchizedek. If we were to keep it, it would be a small category with little potential for growth. Jdavidb 02:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't really see the need for a category that comprises 2 historical governments, 1 current government, and one fraud purporting to be a government.--Isotope23 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...utter nonsense. KHM03 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Attempt to make DoM look legitamate Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 01:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gilgamesh he 05:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT is there a theocratic state/theocracies category? If so, merge into it, if not, rename. 132.205.45.148 18:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:36, 26 September 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) 02:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All its content are articles with out info and probaly going to be deleted those articles in VFD so after that the category is going to be useless Delete --Aranda56 01:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Followup after Vfd, Iff delete or listified, there would be no reason to keep the category. If they are kept, they would be w/o a proper category. ∞Who?¿? 02:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Come back after the AfD is the only correct way to do this. -Splash^talk 14:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for the AfD, then decide. James F. (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer pending AfD. There are plenty of articles in the category, and all of them are specific to this category; if they are not deleted, then the cat should be kept, otherwise, speedy delete as empty with no potential. siafu 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. AfD is closed, episode articles were deleted. Eugene van der Pijll 11:30, 2 October 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.