< February 1	February 3 >

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 all. Syrthiss 14:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Actors and actresses appearing on Law & Order > Category:Law & Order actors

Category:Actors and actresses appearing on Law & Order: Criminal Intent > Category:Law & Order: Criminal Intent actors

Category:Actors and actresses appearing on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit > Category:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit actors

Category:Actors and actresses appearing on Law & Order: Trial by Jury > Category:Law & Order: Trial by Jury actors

Rename (or Delete all if consensus) as above: current category names much too long (although I am personally against cats by TV series so feel free to vote delete). Arniep 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge guest stars and then rename. - EurekaLott 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge guest stars and rename, indeed. 07:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postdlf (talk • contribs)
• Delete and listify. Not category material; a good cast list as part of the article on the show, URL'd to the actors' articles, is all that's needed. Unless you plan to make a category of every TV program, movie, stage production, radio show, etc., to list the performers, an idea which boggles the mind. 12.73.196.130 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above statement. Guest stars can be handled in the episode articles if there are any. Lady Aleena 11:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename --TimPope 14:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — and change to a list per 12.73.196.130. Not a bad idea for a list, but not category worthy. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
• Delete per above. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 08:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment about this nomination the categories are tagged for renaming, not deletion, so I don't see as the delete votes are valid. A new nomination should be submitted --TimPope 18:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who has gotten frustrated before when his nominations got sidetracked to different results, there still is a well established history here on CFD of the discussion changing the nature of the nomination. As an example, just about any nomination for WP user category renames/merges is likely to draw a "Delete All" vote or two. Sometimes these even succeed. For better or worse, that's how things function around here. - TexasAndroid 18:26, 6 February 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 (merge back in to battles of the war of 1812 if needed). Syrthiss 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Duplicate of Category:Battles of the War of 1812 each War of 1812 battle article has a campaign box associating it with the relevant theatre of operations or campaign. We do not need separate mini-categories for this subject SirIsaacBrock 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Delete.--SarekOfVulcan 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See previous discussion here. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I created that category to gather articles more relivent to canadian military history for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force, please don't deleate it. if this is going to be deleated, please break down the Category:Battles of the War of 1812 by campaings (i.e. lower canada, niagara frontier, northwest frontier, eastern seabord etc.) The purpose of this category is to make navigation easier for any one who may not be as knowlagable as some may be in military history (specifcly the war of 1812). List of conflicts in Canada and Category:Conflicts in Canada, which, it has been suggested coveres these topics, seems to omit battles that happened on the American side of the present border which have historical segnificance to Canada, as parts of wider campaings which did cross over into presentday Canada. Making the distinction between battles which happened inside canada and battles outside canada is somewaht baffiling when you consider that Canadian Military History pre-dates the boarders of Canada. Regarding discussions that campaign boxes on the articles would suffice, you can't use them to navigate the subject if you don't stumble upon the correct article. Also, I don't see how Its redundant If its not a sub-category of Category:Battles of the War of 1812. And, considering this category is more specific to Canadian military history, it could just as easily be argued that this sub-category is more appropriat for the categories Conflicts in Canada, Battles of Canada and Military history of Canada, which are the only categories that this sub-category is linked to... Mike McGregor (Can) 05:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reason why an article can't be in both Category:Battles of the War of 1812 and Category:Battles of Canada; in fact, that's what the guidelines of the Military history WikiProject recommend. —Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At least get rid of the word "Theaters" which is unacceptable bias in a category about a war between Britain and the United States. CalJW 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Within a war, the actual names of a theatre or front should be used if possible to categorize battles geographically. Barring that, using the countries in which they happened would work as well. I can find no reference to a Northern Theatre/Theater in the article War of 1812. I would instead propose something along the lines of Category:Battles of the War of 1812 in Canada or some-such if it was really necessary to make the distinction. Josh 16:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. An article can always have more categories. -- Marvin147 06:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The purpose of the category wasen't only to catch battles within "Canada" but also to catch battles that occured outside the boarders of Canada that have segnificance in the context of a wider campaign that crossed into the Canada, contribute to the context of events within canada, contrubute to subsiquent events in Canada or are partially the result of events in Canada. The reason for this is that Canadian Military history During the War of 1812 reaches beyond the present boarders of Canada and is influenced by events in the present American North East during Colonial times and during the American expantion over the Applacians and into the Ohio Valley and into Michigan and Illinois Country. So bassicly, I feel that a Category to capture battles in Canada, as well as in the United States, from Maine to Illinois is nessisary And not redundent. So, I don't feel that Category:Battles of the War of 1812 in Canada is an accectable substitute. Also, I don't beleave Category:battles of the war of 1812 will suffice, because I purpously ommited battles along the Eastern seaboard (d.c, Chesapeak, etc,) and battles in the South because they have less segnificance to Canadian Military History. perhaps somthing along the lines of category:Battles on the Great Lakes and U.S.-Canadian border reagions would be more appropreat? Mike McGregor (Can) 08:36, 8 February 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. Syrthiss 14:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by musical instrument exists and is well populated. Lady Aleena 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Arniep 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per above. --SarekOfVulcan 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy-D — currently empty. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 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 was speedy deleted. Syrthiss 16:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who support the New South Wales Waratahs exists and is populated. Lady Aleena 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I mistakenly created duplicate categories. Blarneytherinosaur 10:08, 3 February 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. Syrthiss 14:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who support the ACT Brumbies exists and is populated. Lady Aleena 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once again I mistakenly created duplicate categories, as per above. Blarneytherinosaur 10:10, 3 February 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. Syrthiss 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and marked for CFD on 12/19, on the same day as created, by it's creator. Putting it up here instead of for Speedy deletion because it's not actually empty. - TexasAndroid 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Duplicate of correct Category:Railway stations in West Yorkshire. Now empty. Carina22 12:10, 3 February 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. Syrthiss 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for deletion on 12/10, but cannot find it having been listed here. Listing it now. - TexasAndroid 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless you're suggesting that something else serves the purpose better. Delete per Muchness.--SarekOfVulcan 01:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the populated category Category:Puzzle computer and video games already exists. --Muchness 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Muchness and delist from here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:06, 4 February 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 keep. Syrthiss 14:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other categories that can hanlde this Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity or Category:Wikipedians by location.

Lady Aleena 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right... such as Category:Wikipedians with Lunar Citizenship --Vizcarra 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no "American" (or "Canadian", etc.) ethnicity, and one's location != one's nationality. Besides, this is an internal category, please do not interfere with non-harful self-categorization of your colleauges, thx. Herostratus 04:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me there is no difference between one's nation and one's nationality. If one lives in a nation, one is that nationality. For instance, I live in the United States of America which would make me an American. If I were to move to Germany permanently, I would then be German. So, why have two categories that cover the same ground? If I were to move the the Moon, I would be a Lunan more than likely.

Lady Aleena 10:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your logic, as someone who is American but has lived in Europe for a long time I find it inane, no matter how long I live in Germany I will never be a German. Otherwise i Don't give a damn since it seems smarter people than I have already set you straight. User:Darkfred

• Keep Not the same thing as either of the other categories. Bhoeble 11:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nation in which one lives sets that person's nationality. Why duplicate it by having a location category and a nataionality category? A person who claims a nationality that is not where that person lives tells me that the person is only living in the current location temporarily and will one day go home. Lady Aleena 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly a Wikipedian category, as long as its harmless, no reason to fret about it. Josh 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely some overlap, but they are distinct cats.--SarekOfVulcan 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it looks like I am losing this fight, several dictionaries in which I have looked at the definitions for both ethnicity and nationality regard the two words an interchangable. Nationality is in the definition of ethnicity or vise versa. I can not see the difference in the two words. Lady Aleena 12:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a narrow view of english. No two words mean the exact same thing. A synonymous word is simply a word which can replace the other in certain situations. It doesn't imply that the word has the exact same meaning in the logical sense, if it did there would be no need for two different words. In this case there are many places where nationality can simply not substitute. Like the one I iterated above, nationality implies citizenship. Not all people who live in the US are citizens therefor the two cannot be interchanged when refering to this group in general. Simple logic yes? --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a big difference between nationality and residency. My wife was born in Russia, immigrated to the UK, and now lives with me in the United States. She certainly would not call her self "American" until she has US citizenship. She will call herself "British of Russian origin" being that she has British citizenship. Saying you are something simply because you live there is too narrow a view. --StuffOfInterest 20:11, 8 February 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. Syrthiss 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All were tagged for deletion on 1/30, but were not listed here. Listing them now. I can only speculate at the reasons for the tagging/deletion request, but looking through the subcats, most have only one, or at most two entries. - TexasAndroid 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Potential for growth is beyond doubt. Bhoeble 11:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See User_talk:Piotrus#History_of_Poland for reasoning responsible for listing it here. Personally I am abstaining - they will grow, but not anytime soon. In Polish history, we have just reached the ability to manage the divisions into historical eras :) Populating the years is beyond what we can reasonably do atm.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the ones that remain empty. --Kbdank71 21:26, 7 February 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. Syrthiss 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category; obsolete per WikiProject CVG consensus (discussion here). --Muchness 21:37, 2 February 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 speedy deleted by WikiAlf at request of creator. Syrthiss 19:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the WikiGnome entry at the bottom of this date. Similar situation with duplicate user categories. - TexasAndroid 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, and rename the latter because the proper plural of "fairy" is "fairies", not "fairys" >Radiant< 02:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, and rename as per Radiant above. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
• Merge and rename -- Paddu 05:57, 3 February 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 keep. Syrthiss 13:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This category has exactly three entries, and there is already a page about the class at Pocket battleship --Yooden

• Keep Class-based categories exist for completeness, so even a class with only two ships can have a category. This one has four articles. There is some discussion at WP:Ships about whether or not to maintain class-based categories at all, but as long as concensus is to have them, then even the small ones can stay. Josh 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A class-based article exists, so Wikipedia is complete without the category. This category has indeed three entries, not four, as the fourth is an article about the category. This is straight from the Department of Redundancy Department and should go. --Yooden

Maybe I read it wrong, but where does WP:Ships#Categorization demand that ships should be in class categories although a class article exists? --Yooden

No, it is not demaanded, but the fact is that there are dozens if not hundreds of class categories, of which most only have two to four ships. If your goal is to eliminate all of these, then why start with one of the ones that could be argued as a worthy exception to keep, given the class' notoriety.

It's not demanded? It's not even mentioned! What is your reason anyway to even refer to these pages?

I currently talk about these three classes. Existence of similar categories does not make these three righter or wronger.

What has notoriety to do with it? Would it make sense to create a category 'Jesus Christs' with one entry because he's maybe the most well-known person ever? --Yooden

• KEEP What Joshbaumgartner says. 132.205.45.110 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To summarise:
  • This is a category which, according to current guidelines should be deleted.
    • Your link is to the top of the CfD page, what guidelines are you refering to? Josh 20:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "small without potential for growth" --Yooden
  • On top of that, the category is made redundant by an identical article. (Completeness is assured.)
    • First, categories are ideally to have an identically named article to discuss the parent topic in detail. Should Category:Ships be deleted because the article ship exists? Of course, the bigger problem is that you have also nominated the article that supposedly duplicates this category for deletion as well! Josh 20:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be deleted if it has only three entries without potential for growth. Which is of course not the case, so your example seems to be a bit convoluted.

I don't want to delete the class article. That's a gross misinterpretation of my intents, and you know it. Try to be constructive here, please. --Yooden

My apologies for misinterpretation, but I did assume that because you placed the AfD tag on Deutschland class cruiser and because you started the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deutschland_class_cruiser log that you proposal was to have the article deleted. I maintain that to propose an article for deletion while simultaneously citing its existance as part of the justification for deletion of another item is a bit misleading for people. Josh 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't. Pocket battleship is the article that makes this category redundant. Incidentally, this is also the article mentioned in the initial rationale for this CFD. --Yooden

• • WP:Ships#Categorization makes no statement about class-based categories. I also found no discussion about this. --Yooden
    • There is a section for 'Categorization by class'. Josh 20:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not. WTF are you talking about? All I can find about classes and categories is the idea that articles about ship classes should be in Category:Ship classes, which sounds like a good plan to me. --Yooden

Found it. Well, that discussion gives no arguments on whether such categories should exist at all except "class categories are useful". Well, doh. I don't think they are if the class is two or three ships big. --Yooden

Yes, the discussion is pretty minimal, I don't think most people think its that big a deal, I mean its a pretty simple concept, and it is hard to see how it hurts anything to have it, and easy to see how it could be useful to someone looking up info. However, I think if you have a problem with the categorization, you should start by contributing to that discussion fist. Josh 16:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, that goes both ways: If you think it's not a big deal, then why are you defending it? It's redundant, that's why it should be removed. As for looking up info, that's what the article is for, which of course should be put into Category:Ships classes or something equivalent. --Yooden

• Keep What Josh, Joshbaumgartner say.Mike McGregor (Can) 06:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let's take a look at his arguments:

- Wikipedia would be incomplete without this category - There is an article about the class, so completeness is assured. His view OTOH would require a category for every article describing more than one thing.

The concept of a 'ship class' is a specific concept within naval history and the study of ships. Every subject has its own unique ways of organizing its subject-matter. This is as true for ships as for animals or astronomy, and it is absolutely appropriate for Wikipedia to reflect the norms of those disciplines as opposed to bending the traditional organization of a subject around some inflexible wiki-policy. Josh 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Categories should be kept unless consensus is reached - This opens up Wikipedia for all kind of trash to be kept unless consensus is reached to remove them.

If what you are saying is correct, then this very page is pointless. While I understand your frustrations with having your proposal(s) opposed, I don't agree that the system is faulty. I've had proposals shot down before, but the process works well, and as anyone can see by a quick browse, the true 'trash' usually passes through this process with concensus rather efficiently. Without the concensus, all you have are endless edit-wars as people with ideas of what they think is right bully forward against eachother, hardly a constructive environment. Josh 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Similar categories exist in many other cases - That does not make them right. Let's purge them all. Also, this argument would prevent any change.

This isn't merely a case of a few other similar categories existing, but instead a broad system of categories which you are shooting random holes in. The system works when it is uniformly used, not when used arbitrarily or randomly. Anyone editing should feel comfortable categorizing their article in a 'category:class name class type' format. If we start randomly blowing away these categories, we eliminate this ability. Josh 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The ships notoriety make the category useful - Why? Would that mean that categories with one entry would make sense if the item is famous enough?

First, these aren't categories with one item. Second, of course notoriety plays a role. My argument is that they should all be maintained, but certainly if you are going to start blowing away individual ones, then it doesn't make sense to blow away ones that people will look for more oftend while leaving those that are going to be used far less. Josh 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The article which makes this category redundant will soon be gone - It will not, this is a gross misrepresentation.

It won't, because there has been enough opposition to your proposal that it is unlikely to pass, despite your various arguments for the deletion of the class article Deutschland class cruiser. Josh 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Every category should have a matching article - That's not necessarily true the other way round.

True, but having a matching article is not justification for the category's deletion, nor does it negate the value of the category. That they cover the same ground is only natural...if they didn't I'd be concerned. Josh 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I left anything out? --Yooden

• quick suggestion can we group this discussion, and the disscusions for Bismark class and Gneisenau class together into one section? (along with any other similar sections that I missed or may come up?)Mike McGregor (Can) 19:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; how? --Yooden

IMHO, at this point it would be far more trouble than it's worth. There's only 2-3 more days on these things, then it'll all be over, one way or another. Plus, once the voting starts on separate sets, I would think it very difficult to merge the votes with proper consistency. Just let these run out as is, I suggest. - TexasAndroid 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Josh has me convinced. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 7 February 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 keep. Syrthiss 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See very similar discussion about Deutschland above

Delete This category has exactly two entries, and there is already a page about the class at Bismarck class battleship --Yooden

• Keep Class-based categories exist for completeness, so even a class with only two ships can have a category. There is some discussion at WP:Ships about whether or not to maintain class-based categories at all, but as long as concensus is to have them, then even the small ones can stay. Besides all of that, Bismarck was one of the most notable ships of the war, it absolutely deserves to stay. Josh 15:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A class-based article exists, so Wikipedia is complete without the category. This is straight from the Department of Redundancy Department and should go. --Yooden

Maybe I read it wrong, but where does WP:Ships#Categorization demand that ships should be in class categories although a class article exists? --Yooden

There are dozens of classes which onlyhave a couple of ships. If you want to delete all of these, make such a proposal, but even in that case, this class should remain due to its notoriety. Josh 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP What Joshbaumgartner says. 132.205.45.110 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To summarise:
  • This is a category which, according to current guidelines should be deleted.
  • On top of that, the category is made redundant by an identical article. (Completeness is assured.)
  • WP:Ships#Categorization makes no statement about class-based categories. I also found no discussion about this. --Yooden
    • See Deutschland above for my concerns about these arguments. Josh

Agreed, no need to reapeat ourselves. --Yooden

• keep what josh says, here and in entry above.Mike McGregor (Can) 06:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Josh has me convinced. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 7 February 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, after the fact. Syrthiss 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft has a more formal name for their line of server products, Category:Windows Server System. A new category has been made for that, and all the articles that were previously in this category have been moved there. Warrens 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This should have been proposed as a rename in that case. Oh well, done deal now... Josh 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Support above comment, but might as well let this close cleanly. --StuffOfInterest 20:12, 8 February 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 rename to People from Hamburg. Syrthiss 13:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current naming of this category has the potential to be extremely confusing, especially if somebody adds Big Mac or Whopper to it. Or maybe I'm just really hungry at the moment. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:11, Feb. 2, 2006

• Support. But can I add Fatburger to the cat before the rename? :-) Vegaswikian 21:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in favor of a rename. I don't care if it is the 'of' or the 'from' form. So if needed to reach consensus, you can consider this vote to be for the 'from' form. Vegaswikian 01:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may be amusing to some ears, but this is actually how people from Hamburg are correctly referred to.--Mais oui! 21:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not confusing to the ears, it reads like a category to list various types of a hamburger. Vegaswikian 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename; too confusing otherwise. Someone just added it to Hamburglar, and I had to revert. — BrianSmithson 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. It is amusing... and confusing. People of Hamburg is not. --Vizcarra 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Hamburgers (people). If a category for Big Macs and the like is needed, then it can be called Category:Hamburgers (food). No need for a total rename. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. it lists people, comes at bottom of articles on people from Hamburg, is a sub-category of Hamburg and a supercategory of German people - why would anyone think it was a category for food?? if a Category:Hamburgers (food) is started then i d support the rename of Category:Hamburgers (people) Mayumashu 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, too confusing (but very funny this way). >Radiant< 02:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. funny in junior high maybe. proper demonym Brcreel 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- the article Hamburgers is about the food, this is inconsistent with the current category -- Gurch 17:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hamburgers redirects to the correctly named article Hamburger. Valiantis 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. People from Hamburg are called Hamburgers. Valiantis 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to less confusing name Category:People of Hamburg. Golfcam 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "People from Hamburg" - Darwinek 14:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People of Hamburg. It would be a lot less trouble to use that form in all cases. CalJW 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, use the from word. Pavel Vozenilek 21:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Should be "People from Hamburg", should it not? Regardless that people from Hamburg are in fact properly called Hamburgers, get real: in this case it just doesn't work. Rename Category:Frankfurters while you're at it. As a consolation prize, we could create Category:People who have claimed to be a pastry and put John F Kennedy in it.Herostratus 19:42, 6 February 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 rename. Syrthiss 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per convention.

• Rename per policy. Josh 15:34, 3 February 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 rename. Syrthiss 13:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per convention.

• Rename per policy. Josh 15:34, 3 February 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 rename as nominated. Syrthiss 13:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are equivalent, and the latter follows the standard naming convention.

• Rename consistent with policy. Josh 15:35, 3 February 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 keep. Syrthiss 13:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See very similar discussion about Deutschland above

Delete This category has exactly two entries, and there does already exist a page about the Class at Gneisenau class battlecruiser --Yooden

• Keep Class-based categories exist for completeness, so even a class with only two ships can have a category. There is some discussion at WP:Ships about whether or not to maintain class-based categories at all, but as long as concensus is to have them, then even the small ones can stay. Josh 15:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A class-based article exists, so Wikipedia is complete without the category. This category has indeed three entries, not four, as the fourth is an article about the category. This is straight from the Department of Redundancy Department and should go. --Yooden

Maybe I read it wrong, but where does WP:Ships#Categorization demand that ships should be in class categories although a class article exists? --Yooden

• KEEP What Joshbaumgartner says. 132.205.45.110 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To summarise:
  • This is a category which, according to current guidelines should be deleted.
  • On top of that, the category is made redundant by an identical article. (Completeness is assured.)
  • WP:Ships#Categorization makes no statement about class-based categories. I also found no discussion about this. --Yooden
• Keep as per my votes above (what josh said)Mike McGregor (Can) 22:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Josh has me convinced. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 7 February 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 and execute the socks. Syrthiss 13:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category seems to be referring to British military rulers in India. Not only is the category grossly POV, its name is also misleading.

• Comment: The user who created the category did not intend it to be used for British military leaders in India; rather it's supposed to be for people responsible for massacres and other large-scale killings. I suggested Category:Mass murderers should suffice, but he did not agree that this was strong enough. You can see our conversation on the category here. No vote from me. — BrianSmithson 18:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres committed by an occupying army are not in the same category as (for example) spree shootings. British army men responsible for massacres in India would probably be more appropriately placed in Category:War criminals. GCarty 18:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And presumably Indian users would happily add some cruel Indian rulers to that category for balance? Merchbow 19:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as inapropriate POV. Also, pickup Bakers and Candlestick Makers while at it. --StuffOfInterest 18:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per StuffOfInterest Merchbow 19:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete About as blatant as bias can get. Bhoeble 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There are Butchers---the people guilty of brutal and indiscrimnate manslaughter in history. We need a befitting category to Categorise these people. So dont delet. Keep it.

Sze cavalry01 04:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Sze_cavalry01[reply]

• Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are simply no circumstances in which such pejorative categories are appropriate, which is why even Adolf Hitler is not any any categories comparable to this one. Bhoeble 11:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I dont agree that category Butchers is pejorative. Dictinary meaning of Butcher is a brutal killer. If there are individuals in history, we also need category to categorise'm. So Keep it.

Satbir Singh 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Satbir Singh[reply]

• • Comment User's first and only edit. CalJW 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as attack category. Carina22 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Valiantis 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Political category. Golfcam 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont think it's POV; category butchers may be applied to individuals like Sadam who has killed thousands of kurds, sokeep it.

• Keep the Category. It is needed to appropriately categorise mass murderers like Reinhard Heydrich, Michael O'Dwyer, General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer, Ali Hassan al-Majid etc. Following neutral policy does not mean the facts be suppressed.

Lajwantthind1965@yahoo.com 09:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)lajwantthind[reply]

• • Comment User's first and only edit. CalJW 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete we've done just fine without this up until now. CalJW 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Kd4ttc 18:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete. There are better categories to use for these people. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:26, 9 February 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 both. Syrthiss 13:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. All articles are in the combined Category:Television stations in the Yakima/Tri-Cities region. - TexasAndroid 16:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I believe they are considered the same viewing market. If they are not, and someone provides citation, I'll gladly switch my vote. --StuffOfInterest 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should be fine with the combined cat.--SarekOfVulcan 00:04, 3 February 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 rename as nominated. Syrthiss 13:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to more standard form for US states and cities. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose radiojon 06:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Vegaswikian 08:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 13:13, 10 February 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. Syrthiss 13:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here for consensus discussion. Empty category and redundant to one listed for renaming below. StuffOfInterest 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Dual Freq 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Kd4ttc 21:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -Silence 22:42, 5 February 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 rename as nominated. Syrthiss 13:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here for consensus discussion. Trying to fit naming conventions correctly. StuffOfInterest 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom --Dual Freq 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom --Kd4ttc 18:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom --NoelShrum 03:47, 6 February 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 keep, and create other cat as parent. Syrthiss 13:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not primarily being used as a "People" category, but rather as a general subject cat. Std format is "Judaism in foo". It should also be a subcat of Category:Judaism, not Category:Jews by country. Mais oui! 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since two articles in Category:Irish Jews are in fact people... and create Category:Judaism in Ireland with Irish Jews as a child category. --Vizcarra 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. If there's a need for Category:Irish Jews it should be a subcat of Category:Judaism in Ireland, not the other way around. Deborah-jl _Talk 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Vizcarra and Deborah-jl are actually proposing the same structure - a parent cat Category:Judaism in Ireland and a subcat Category:Irish Jews but Vizcarra's suggestion involves less work! Valiantis 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and create the other one. Bhoeble 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nomination. Djegan 15:01, 5 February 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 19:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I really don't believe we need more than 1 category for Dannii Minogue. Only article in this category is Dannii Minogue filmography, which is also in Category:Dannii Minogue. - Bobet 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, since convention was to categorize films by director only. --Vizcarra 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't aware she was an auteur. Delete per Vizcarra. Postdlf 07:31, 3 February 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 rename per nom. Syrthiss 13:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match other categories under Category:Environment by country. Darwinek 12:25, 2 February 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per naming conventions. Darwinek 12:21, 2 February 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 move to WP:SFD --Kbdank71 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated these two stub-like categories at WP:SFD. Not quite sure they belong there, though, please take a look. Conscious 10:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They do belong in stub types for deletion imo. Just because they're worded differently doesn't make them non-stubs. - Bobet 13:38, 5 February 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 Speedily deleted by MarkSweep as unused. - Bobet 13:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shanedidona/CAoW, and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 2.

• Delete. Totally inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Attempt to get around previous AfD decision.--SarekOfVulcan 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per kOfVulcan Bhoeble 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Excommunicate bell, book, and candle. --Doc ^ask? 10:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer. Standard procedure for categories linked to templates, when the template is up for deletion, is to defer the deletion of the category to the result of the template vote to prevent split results. - TexasAndroid 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Recreation of deleted content. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:21, 2 February 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Duplicate. - EurekaLott 04:21, 2 February 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 19:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more appropriate title for the category, see: French Polynesia and List of countries#F — Zyxw 03:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 09:29, 2 February 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 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Category:Airports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I realise now this should have been a rename, but I already created the new one. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/country — Zyxw 03:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The one with the is correct. - Darwinek 12:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge no argument. Josh 15:49, 3 February 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. — WikiGnome has 3 members, wikignomes has 71, `nuff said. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

• Comment - Shouldn't the latter have a name without a slash? Not sure what it's all about, so I'll leave it to others to suggest/not suggest a more proper, non-slashed name. - TexasAndroid 12:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a lot of categories called "User Wikipedia/whatever", "User Zodiac/whatever". Hence removing the slash now might not be worth the trouble. -- Paddu 05:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. -- Paddu 05:54, 3 February 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.