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 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A decidedly bad idea: troll-bait vandalism, serving no educational purpose. Rorybowman 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. This is article subject matter, not category material. Article should include links to relevant other articles, cats, etc. and be categorized where appropriate. Has no meaning as a category unto itself. 12.73.201.133 00:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is 12.73.201.133's second recorded edit, and this user's first edit was today. Thus this user clearly does not have suffrage. Corax 04:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An integral part of homosexuality, one of three principal forms, historically the most important, with examples all over the world from beginning to end of history. There are likely to be several hundred articles eligible for this category, close to one fifty already there. Above criticisms are so far off the mark there is nothing to refute. Why not elimiate categories on Islam and Homosexuality too, if you are concerned about vandalism? Haiduc 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Plenty of research is done on historical forms of homosexuality, and this same argument has been made on several other failed deletion nominations. Dave 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Haiduc, "pederasty" or "age-structured homosexuality," or whatever turn of phrase one chooses to describe it, has been recognized within gay scholarship as not just one of three principal forms, but as the primary form that homosexuality has taken throughout history. So this category makes as much sense as a "masochism" category or a "protestant Christian denominations" category. If we were to judge the legitimacy of an article or category based on how likely it is to be vandalized, we wouldn't have an article about the vagina -- as a cursory browsing of that article's edit history indicates. Corax 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per all above. -- Samuel Wantman 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To suggest that there is no interest in the intellectual community (and what other group could possibly define "educational purpose") in pederasty is a joke. This is by far one of the most ridiculous of these sorts of nominations. I'm guessing that the nominator doesn't quite understand what 'pederasty' is used to refer to (probably they read a couple lines, thought "ohmigod! Child porn!" and moved for a deletion). -Seth Mahoney 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep for reasons above. Anthony 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (see Haiduc's arguments). Fulcher 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons above Carlossuarez46 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 63 articles and two subcategories would seem to indicate some value to the category. Herostratus 07:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is of educational purpose, it is a topic of culture, history and psychology. --Vizcarra 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User:Khalif 13:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to give any reason for that vote, or just "delete"? -Seth Mahoney 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because the "Homosexuality" category is far too general and ambiguous to characterize sexual mores specifically involving men and adolescent boys. Didyme 12:10, 12 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 18:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to rename to eliminate the U.S. but decided to match the category to the main article name. Vegaswikian 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Osomec 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 14:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - choster 15:34, 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another English category which doesn't match up with the real world. We have deleted quite a few so hopefully this one will go too. It is not possible for a charity to be English in a legal sense: the Charity Commission covers England and Wales. It is extremely rare for a charity to be national, but cover England only; they cover the UK, or England & Wales or the UK exluding either Scotland or Northern Ireland. Charities do not lobby the English national media, because it does not exist (which is why we deleted the English media category) or the English government, because no such government has existed since 1707. It is pointless to use this to categorise local charities when around 85% of local charities in the UK must be based in places in England (and we have city and county categories for local categorisation, so that's covered already).
This category has not been taken up by users in the month since it was created, which tends to confirm that it is not necessary. It is just a confusing extra tier to click through and will lead to inconsistent categorisation. It will be particularly confusing for people from outside the UK, who may not understand the underlying issues re UK/GB/Britain/England. There is no need to try to shove everything relevant to England into Category:England, because there is a clear explanation in that category that users should see the UK menu on many topics. The only purpose categories like this one serve is the political one of diminishing the prominence given to the UK/Britishness below that which it has in the real world. The category system is a navigational tool and should reflect the world as it is rather than the world in which some users would like to live. Merge into Category:British charities. CalJW 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Osomec 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge per nom gidonb 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. --BRossow 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A category strategy is needed for all the British charities sub-categories. While the English charities name is awkward and misleading, isn't the correct entry one which is identical with the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission? Thus on the same ground, the Scottish charities category's scope coincides with the developing OSCR. Significant "national" charities do not operate in Scotland - see for example the 1st paragraph of the National Trust, probably the largest charity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AllyD (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 February 2006
• Merge The National Trust operates in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It is British (with an exclusion) not English, which shows why this category is inappropriate. Piccadilly 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Valiantis 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a common-sense category: there is nothing about any of these Charities categories that stipulates that the articles should only be for nationwide organisations. A local or regional charity is still an English charity. --Mais oui! 19:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user created the category. Merchbow 23:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nominator. This is not a common sense category. Most major British charities are British. Merchbow 23:29, 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 --Kbdank71 18:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(For those who may not know Hebrew, "Chazanim" means "Cantors", the clergy who lead the "public singing" part during Jewish services.) User pages should not be classified as Wikipedia Categories that could cause confusion with the valid Category:Cantors. This is a back-handed and backdoor circumvention of Wikipedia's rules against no vanity pages and no-self promotion. These users are not notable in any way (how can they be if they are "anonymous" Users?) and this "category" should never have been created for such a silly purpose. It's another version of the old "cantor-kruft" syndrome, or a poor shot at it at any rate. IZAK 20:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete IZAK 20:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the userbox, delete the category. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yoninah 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category, keep userbox. Like JFW said. Tomer^talk 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category. Yet when a Chazan of little note or more, I support individual articles on artistic endeavours gidonb 23:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (while humming a Jewish tune)[reply]
• Delete category, keep userbox. As per JFW. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category, keep userbox. - Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category, keep userbox.--Pecher 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category, but keep userbox - this will mean editing the userbox as the box creates the category. --Bduke 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an extension of the Wikipedia user categorisation project. It is at least as interesting and far more relevant than such things as Category:Wikipedians by pet or Category:Wikipedians by astrological sign. If people didn't want this kind of thing, then they should never have set up Category:Wikipedians and encouraged people to participate. Either scrap the whole system or keep it. The nominator claims that user pages should not be in categories, but as of yet I don't see that in policy anywhere. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I cannot speak on behalf of or about pets or astrological signs, I can say with certainty that the Jewish world is small enough -- especially that part of it that attends synagogues and concerts where bona fide cantors ("Chazanim") perform and sing -- that it is most definitely able to recognize even the lesser-known cantors. The policy guidelines you ask about, for that please see Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, which this "category" clearly breaches. P.S. I too agree with User:Jayjg (I didn't think of and wasn't aware of his option) that the "user box" is ok, like zillions of other crazy and childish other ones which hopefully will NEVER get their own categories, but this category should be deleted ASAP to discourage "frivolous categories." Thank you. IZAK 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the vanity guidelines: "These Vanity guidelines are intended to assist Wikipedia users in determining exactly what is and what is not to be considered vanity information within Wikipedia, which is not suitable copy material for Wikipedia article pages." So by my reading those guidelines apply to articles, not categories or user pages. The purpose of those guidelines is to prevent people from writing articles about themselves, not to prevent people from expressing who they are on their user page or in the Wikipedia user categorisation project. There are presently no principles forbidding the creation of categories to categorize users, and indeed the practice has been condoned for some time, though it may be becoming unpopular now. There is a principle that categories which are small enough to never amount to anything may be deleted; that may apply here. But the given reasons for deletion: vanity, notability, and users in categories, either are not expressed in policy or specifically apply to article pages. Speaking as a Gentile, I'll say that while the Jewish world may be able to recognize such people, the rest of us aren't, and if we are to have categories for Wikipedia users (as is presupposed by the enormous Category:Wikipedians project) it is certainly interesting to know that somebody is a Jewish synagogue cantor in his off-Wikipedia life, far far more interesting than most of those other categories. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User category. Most user cats would be "vanity" if the vanity rules applied to user cats. But they don't. Valiantis 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Septentrionalis 17:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More populated and significant than most usercategories; meaningful and uncontroversial. Arbitrarily picking this usercategory instead of hundreds of others is bad form and will cause inconsistencies. Additionally, usercategories are, for all intents and purposes, somewhere between the Wikipedia: namespace and the User: namespace; vanity policy does not apply to it any more than it applies to userpages. -Silence 15:00, 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 --Kbdank71 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category of anime released (not produced, not created, not anything) by ADV. It seems to be trivial categorization that is better handled by a list. 65.92.135.221 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Osomec 23:08, 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 18:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, they're synonyms of each other, and Category:high schools has more entries. Foxjwill 19:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• REVERSE MERGE Secondary schools would be less ambiguous. There seems to be a UN definitions for secondary. 65.92.135.221 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge as per 65.92.135.221. They are not really synonyms. It is more of a British/American usage issue. British grammar and public schools are types of secondary school, but referring to them as "high schools" would be an obvious Americanism. CalJW 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with CalJW in that they are different. Maybe the correct solution is to have Category:high schools as a subcat of Category:secondary schools? Several subcat now in high schools could be changed to secondary schools since that seems a more correct classification. Vegaswikian 22:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. The different terms result only from a usage issue; the two things are substantially the same. Just stick with the substantially older category. "High school," though American English, is unambiguous. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I agree with Vegaswikian's proposal. High schools are a subset of secondary schools, and countries should go by their most common designation. Kappa 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge as per CalJW. Valiantis 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry, actually I think Vegaswikian's proposal is better, I still oppose the current proposed merge. Valiantis 15:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom. The Category:Secondary schools has only three articles which would be better placed in a category specific to their country. It's too broad a category for wiki purposes because there are potentially tens of thousands of secondary or high schools in the world. Green Giant 00:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC) On second thoughts I support Vegaswikian's proposal because it makes more sense Green Giant 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per CalJW. --Vizcarra 00:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. High school is a division of secondary school. The term "high school" means grades 9 to 12; while "secondary school" means the grade range 6 or 7 to 12. Georgia guy 00:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. "High school" is just the US (and others) term for the more general "secondary school" (which is also used in the US, actually). Grades 6–8 or thereabouts are middle school, not secondary. (Well, we can have that debate later, I guess.) /blahedo (t) 08:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, make high schools a subcategory of secondary schools per Vegaswikian and others. - choster 15:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Vegaswikian, Georgiaguy, etc.Staffelde 12:19, 11 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 --Kbdank71 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy in the Roman empire continues the tradition of Greek/Hellenistic philosophy, it's not sensible to divide between Greek philosophers and those living in the Roman empire. Many of the latter wrote in Greek anyway. If one wishes to subdivide by timeframe one should add suitable subcategories, such as Philosophers in the Hellenistic era, Philosophers in the late Roman republic, Philosophy in the Julio-Claudian era and so on. "Roman era" isn't used in philology. Pilatus 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't much like this. If this goes ahead please make those subcategories and ensure that they are accessible from both the Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome categories. I have refrained from voting against proposals of this type but I am worried that the current campaign may leave both of those categories threadbare. CalJW 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This categorization is permitted by the Mediawiki software and would be perfectly appropiate. But what is it that you don't like about merging and renaming the two categories? In fact we need more subcategories by era, and the categories that exist need cleanup sorely. Zeno of Elea is a Hellenistic philosopher? Huh!? Pilatus 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: ask User:Mel Etitis for an opinion. Pavel Vozenilek 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If this goes through, I would request that the proposed new subcategories be created immediately. Though I would support making Category:Classical philosophers the parent category for the two categories in question. -Seth Mahoney 17:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Make it the parent and rename "Roman era" --> "Ancient Roman" to have systematic names. Marskell 18:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, on the whole. Most books and university courses make a distinction between Greek and Roman philosophy (though short, introductory books sometimes tuck the Romans in at the end of "ancient" or "classical", and the term "Latin philosophy" is sometimes used instead, as in Oxford). It's true that the Romans were largely unoriginal followers of the Greeks, but that's a matter of content, not of categorisation. "Roman era" may not be used in philology, but it's often used in philosophy. It's not that a great deal depends upon it, but the division is a common and natural one in philosophy. I'm not sure about a host of subcategories, incidentally, many of which would be inhabited by one or two people at the most (unless there are lots of stubs devoted to obscure philosophers about whom we know next to nothing, and who are of little or no philosophical significance). Categories are useful because they bring related subjects together; making ever more specific categories soon begins to defeat the object (the limit being one category for each article). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yes, these need cleanup; but why not just do it? I moved Zeno of Elea myself. Some confusion seems to have been caused by use of Category:Roman era philosophers as both a national and a temporal label; but the right solution to that is Category:Latin philosophers.

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 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlaps with Category:Plame affair. Article Cheneygate now redirects to Plame affair. waffle iron 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Osomec 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --BRossow 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is just another term for Plame affair. -- A human 21:49, 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 keep --Kbdank71 18:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was originally Category:U.S. nuclear history. This was originally CFRed to fix the acronym problem — and to that I have no objection. However somewhere along the line the people nominating it decided that it was not really about nuclear weapons history, but rather was about "Nuclear weapons of the United States". I presume part of this came from the fact that the main article listed in the category is Nuclear weapons and the United States. That article itself has a somewhat weird name history (it used to be United States and nuclear weapons, modeled as a sub-article of United States and weapons of mass destruction, but again people who had not worked on the article at all decided that they had a better idea about what it should be called. I don't really care in this instance, though), but is not simply a "historical" article (it is an attempt to present a comprehensive approach to the entire U.S. nuclear weapons program; the actual "history" section is quite short and abbreviated). In any event, it is the best article for the category, but it is not the best name for the category, which as you can see consisted primarily of articles relating strictly to the history of the U.S. weapons program (i.e. the Einstein-Szilard letter, the Franck Report, the Chicago Pile-1, and the National Defense Research Committee, none of which have any bearing on modern U.S. nuclear relations).

The original voters also thought it would be impossible to separate out the "history" from the "current" state of things — this is a decision which should be left to the editors who work on the articles. I assure you it is not quite as difficult as they thought — in most of the cases (such as those just listed) it is not difficult at all.

Furthermore, the current category name, "Nuclear weapons of the United States" is highly misleading — it gives one not the impression that it is a category full of items related to U.S. nuclear weapons history, but rather that it is a category about nuclear weapons manufactured by the United States, similar to our category Category:American Cold War nuclear bombs.

My suggestion, as not only a person who has done a lot of work on the entire nuclear history section of Wikipedia — including the authorship of Nuclear weapons and the United States, History of nuclear weapons, and much of the content on nuclear weapon itself — but also as someone who does primary research in nuclear history in my "real life" persona as a historian of science (and mind you I am usually loathe to drag my "real life" persona into these sorts of things), is that we rename the category name to the proper form of what it once was: Category:United States nuclear weapons history. It is simple, straightforward, and, most importantly, accurately describes the scope of the articles which are inside of it. You can leave it up to me and the other editors who work on this topic decide about whether certain articles count as "history" or not.

Now I hope I don't sound too testy here but I do get a bit irritated when people concerned about "process" allow that to trample over content-related issues that they don't really have experience with. But hopefully this next change will go smoothly, and I have tried to explain myself up above so that people not acquainted with the subject matter can perhaps understand the difficulty I'm having with it. Thanks. Fastfission 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current name is obviously the correct one for the parent category on this issue. If you have problems with it being incomplete you can populate fully and maybe create a subcategory for history. Category:United States nuclear weapons history is no more appropriate as the main category about the United States and nuclear weapons than Category:history of the United States is appropriate as the main category about the United States.CalJW 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen, I don't care exactly how it is specifically named, but the current category name is both grammatically ambiguous and does not properly describe the articles inside it, not surprisingly because it was originally a history category. I am somewhat amazed that it is "obvious" to you when it is intensely not obvious to me, someone who spent most of the time populating it. --Fastfission 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as suggested. A category entitled "Nuclear weapons of the United States" implies a categorization of actual nuclear weaponry, and that does not seem to apply here. The current name implies a similarity to categories like Category:Nuclear artillery which does not exist. – Seancdaug 05:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my decision to keep, per Sumahoy's subcategorization, with the caveat that Category:United States nuclear weapons history be created as a subcategory, and that most of the articles/subcats previously populating the category be moved there. Ideally, a broader category should have been created to begin with, as opposed to effectively hijacking a preexisting category. – Seancdaug 20:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator's description of the contents is inaccurate as I added some subcategories for weapons. This was intended to be helpful, but it needs to be completed by someone familiar with the subject. Perhaps it could be amended to "and the United States" but certainly not the the proposed name. Sumahoy 14:05, 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 --Kbdank71 18:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. — J3ff 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BRossow 17:29, 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a well known abbreviation. Even as an English football fan I failed to recognise it. Rename without abbreviation Merchbow 17:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. CalJW 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BRossow 17:26, 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 --Kbdank71 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently depopulated when I merged the contestant articles to the main Pinoy Big Brother, Season 1 article. All other articles may go to Category:Pinoy Big Brother. Howard the Duck 17:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Of no lasting value. CalJW 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete, depopulated, also there is another category for the Pinoy BB contestants. --Abögarp 17:06, 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are excessive and can be misleading. It is not appropriate to divide up all the museums in the UK between the home nations because many of them are British national museums. At the very least it is enough to divide them up by location and type. The user who created this category also edited National Waterways Museum to make the incorrect claim that it is an English museum, when the official site makes it perfectly clear that it is the museum of the British waterways system. It may well be that other articles were inappropriately amended as part of the same process. The Scottish and Northern Ireland categories are much too small, with 2 and 1 articles respectively. Merge into Category:Transport museums in the United Kingdom Merchbow 17:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Pleased to see that the cinema categories are following "Transport in England" into oblivion. I will nominate the "English charities" category later. CalJW 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Osomec 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Piccadilly 13:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep they fit in well with their parent categories: if we delete them we will have to add three cats to each article instead of the current one: "Museums in foo", "Transport in foo" and "Transport museums in the United Kingdom" (except of course that we have recently deleted Category:Transport in England, so the people interested in the English articles have one less tool at their disposal).--Mais oui! 20:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user created the categories. Merchbow 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Pimantony 20:48, 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 --Kbdank71 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good precedent when you think of the number of music charts there are in existence. This information already exists as a fairly comprehensive list anyway. JW 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unneccecary category clutter. --Sachabrunel 19:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Osomec 23:08, 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 17:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember we decided not to classify films by star. JW 16:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. CalJW 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -agreed. --Sachabrunel 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; actor's filmography is accessible from his/her main article. Her Pegship 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is list material for article on the person, not separate category worthy. 12.73.201.133 00:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Does it also hold true by director, producer, and/or studio? Carlossuarez46 23:57, 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 --Kbdank71 17:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is directly equivalent to Category:Naval surface-to-air missiles, and is now depopulated. GCarty 16:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Osomec 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Josh 19:23, 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories fulfil the same purpose, and the latter name is the one which follows the established naming convention.

• Merge per policy. Josh 05:03, 13 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 17:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumping actors together because they've been in shows with the same producer or creator is an unusually bad precedent. And without knowing who was in which show, the information is useless anyway. JW 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. CalJW 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This makes it sound like Mr. Kelley owns the actors, and what if they've worked for other producers as well? This way lies madness...Her Pegship 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Osomec 23:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've seen this for a while and never saw any real purpose. --Vizcarra 00:23, 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 --Kbdank71 17:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category (was full of copyvio articles like Professor Rotwood's Thesis). --Melaen 11:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. CalJW 13:46, 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 - --Latinus (talk (el:)) 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has not yet been decided whether Category:Living people should be subcategorized at all, and if so, whether it should be subcategorized by nationality, by year of birth, or by some other factor. This category should be deleted until a general agreement is reached on the talk page of Category:Living people. Kappa 11:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Whouk (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. I need some help ensuring the CFD tag says on the category page. Kappa 11:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ×Meegs 11:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The main category is too large to be navigable. It would be nice to be sorted like in stubbing. Goto: Category talk:Living people#Category:Living people of South Korea. -- Zondor 12:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. And the point of the category isn't to aid in navigation, per every discussion concerning it. - Bobet 13:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subcategorisation of the ridiculous living people category was a disaster waiting to happen. Osomec 13:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Also, if people would keep an eye out for edits changing "Category:Living people" to "Category:Living people of South Korea". --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and make subcategories of living people speediable as they will doubtless keep popping up. CalJW 13:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete use CategoryIntersect.php instead, e.g. South Korean people ∩ Living people. -- User:Docu
• Delete per nom. – Seancdaug 17:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Osomec. Her Pegship 22:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: do any other countries have such a category? Runcorn 22:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'; or any other subcategories based on profession, sex, race, sexual orientation, handedness, disability, feats and defeats, whatever? Carlossuarez46 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually: Category:Living classical composers. Runcorn 20:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The title is misleading - the category page says it's for links to the articles of living Korean voice actors, announcers, and singers. If that's what it's for then the category should reflect that, otherwise we should categorise every living person in South Korea i.e. millions of pages. Green Giant 00:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little extreme; it's for those living South Koreans with articles on Wikipedia. Still, it's a fair point that only a limited range of Koreans is covered. - Runcorn 13:09, 11 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 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over categorization and only one person in cat. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 10:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per nom gidonb 00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. and the one person listed is neither ethnically Lebanese nor a Lebanese national Mayumashu 05:36, 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 --Kbdank71 17:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even necessary? All of the episodes are listed here, which is the only item in the category. Delete. Royboycrashfan 10:48, 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 17:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty, already covered as Category:Naval cruise missiles which includes sub-launched ones as well as ship-launched. Josh 06:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. GCarty 16:39, 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 17:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well as sub-categories Category:Modern air-to-air missiles of the United States and Category:Modern air-to-air missiles of the United Kingdom.

• Delete as modern is an ill-defined era category and for missiles unnecessary as missiles can be adequately categorized by the conflicts they had a role in, and in other categories. Josh 06:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to categorize missiles by era, by country, and by type (air-to-air, air-to-surface, surface-to-air etc). Rename to Category:Post-Cold War air-to-air missiles (and also subcategories). GCarty 12:13, 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 17:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, created months ago. JonHarder 05:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are articles that belong in this category. I have added those which currently exist, but there is potential for many others. RayGates 22:56, 12 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 17:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a small subset of the Graphics software category with little potential. Only one entry. Delete or merge. JonHarder 05:08, 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 to Category:Ancient Roman rhetoricians --Kbdank71 17:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Roman era" isn't used in classical philology or history to denote an era; if one intends to subcategorize by time frame, well-defined current terms like "early republic", "late republic", "Julio-Claudean" etc should be used. The people listed here have in common that they wrote in the Latin language. Pilatus 05:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just Category:Roman rhetoricians? Corax 21:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Category:Ancient Roman rhetoricians, similar to Category:Ancient Greek rhetoricians Pilatus 14:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Corax 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a deeper problem with the category: does it mean "orators" (in which case it should say so) or "teachers of rhetoric" (in which case there should be a note in the cat)? Septentrionalis 17:58, 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 --Kbdank71 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Empty and 'modern' isn't a very useful categorization for missiles. Anything from before 1990 can be categorized by the conflicts they were in (or Cold War at least), so modern is not needed. Josh 04:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no suitable articles to populate it. Otherwise rename to Category:Post-Cold War Indian air-to-air missiles. GCarty 12:15, 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 16:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. 'Modern' was supposed to mean since the end of the Cold War, but any Russian missile would fit this category, so Category:Air-to-air missiles of Russia is just fine. Any from the Cold War would be 'of the Soviet Union'.

• Delete Josh 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization by country should be separated from categorization by era. On the basis that Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union, we should have Category:Air-to-air missiles of Russia, with subcategories by era of Category:Cold War air-to-air missiles of the Soviet Union (merging the existing Category:Soviet Cold War air-to-air missiles and Category:Air-to-air missiles of the Soviet Union, and meeting the naming conventions for weapons) and Category:Post-Cold War air-to-air missiles of Russia. GCarty 12:17, 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 16:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant, one entry, not likely to grow. JonHarder 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Corax 21:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, very fuzzy, unexplained term and the Authoring tool article isn't better either. And even if it would be clear s is missing at the end. Pavel Vozenilek 05:10, 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 --Kbdank71 16:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because at Christ Church, the term 'student' refers to members of the College's governing body (i.e. - faculty) rather than ordinary undergraduates and postgraduates. Lincolnite 01:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all Oxford college former student categories to "Alumni of ...", to be (more) consistent with other English universities (and with all Cambridge colleges) (see Category:People by university affiliation - England—someone really should go through and consistentify those titles). —Blotwell 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. The term "alumni" is an American term, not British, and certainly not used in Oxford. The members of the governing body can be in [[Category:Fellows of Christ Church, Oxford]] which exists. It will be understood in spite of the fact that technically it is wrong. --Bduke 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dictionaries seem to back you up on that. Oppose per Bduke, though I wouldn't object to seeing alternative renaming proposals. We still should rename other UK former students categories for uniformity. —Blotwell 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Bduke. Christchurch's specific use of terminology can be dealt with effectively by a brief note at the top of their category pages. BTW, thinking about consistency, the only Oxford college to use "Alumni" is Lincoln ([[Category:Alumni of Lincoln College, Oxford]]), for no very clear reason; all the other Oxford colleges have "Former students" categories. I wonder therefore if we should be thinking about changing Lincoln to "Former students" also. Staffelde 12:15, 11 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 16:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why someone chose this name, to take into account geographical differences. But the period is usually referred to as "The Stone Age", the lead article on WP is called Stone Age and even the introduction on the category page calls it "the Stone Age", so the category name should be the same. JW 01:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename If there is a need, cats for 'Stone Age in ...' could be created to differentiate geographically. Josh 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. CalJW 13:48, 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.