< January 25	January 27 >

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 16:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does not match the other disaster categories. Merchbow 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Rename Merchbow 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Josh 08:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Hillel 06:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied along with accompanying templates. Radiant_>|< 13:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:KKK Wikipedians[edit]

Nonsense category created by a troll who's trying to disrupt wikipedia. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete for all of the obvious reasons. --Vizcarra 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy Delete --Revolución (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 16:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To match convention used for other countries and to eliminate appreviation. This nomination includes

Category:U.S. civil aircraft to Category:American civil aircraft

Category:U.S. agricultural aircraft to Category:American agricultural aircraft

Category:U.S. airliners to Category:American airliners

Category:U.S. business aircraft to Category:American business aircraft

Category:U.S. cargo aircraft to Category:American cargo aircraft

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1910-1919 to Category:American civil aircraft 1910-1919

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1920-1929 to Category:American civil aircraft 1920-1929

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1930-1939 to Category:American civil aircraft 1930-1939

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1940-1949 to Category:American civil aircraft 1940-1949

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1950-1959 to Category:American civil aircraft 1950-1959

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1960-1969 to Category:American civil aircraft 1960-1969

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1970-1979 to Category:American civil aircraft 1970-1979

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1980-1989 to Category:American civil aircraft 1980-1989

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 1990-1999 to Category:American civil aircraft 1990-1999

Category:U.S. civil aircraft 2000-2009 to Category:American civil aircraft 2000-2009

Category:U.S. civil trainer aircraft to Category:American civil trainer aircraft

Category:U.S. civil utility aircraft to Category:American civil utility aircraft

Category:U.S. sailplanes to Category:American sailplanes

Category:U.S. sports planes to Category:American sports planes

Category:U.S. ultralights to Category:American ultralights

Vegaswikian 21:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This nominiation should probably include all of the other included subcats for the ones listed above for which there are many. I should note that many of those were renamed on Jan 15 from US to U.S. in the names. Also the naming convention is fooian aircraft. Vegaswikian 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. When we talk about things having to do with the United States, it is usual to say "U.S.", not "American". "U.S. President Bush", "U.S. Forces in Iraq", "U.S. Trade sanctions on North Korea", etc. Remember, the nation whose capital is Washington, D.C, is called the "United States". Guapovia 09:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that the naming convention should not apply here or that I'm misreading the naming convention? Vegaswikian 19:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, since American is an imprecise term, unless these categories could also includes airplanes from other nations in the Americas. --Habap 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename All of Guapovia's examples refer to the U.S. government, and some of them are dubious in any case. Carina22 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Claims that it will cause confusion are invalid. Bhoeble 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. "American" is ambiguous and US-centric (there are other nations in the Americas). Ignorance is not an excuse for conformity. Since non-participants of WP:Air project are eagerly voting for the rename, can I presume you all will take the time to fix the 2,000+ disrupted articles? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bots will fix the articles. Sumahoy 04:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Sumahoy 04:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, since both America and American are disambiguation pages, but not U.S. (redirect) or United States. In fact, quoting from United States#Notes:

America may describe the United States or the Americas—North and South America (including Central America). The latter usage is more common in Latin American countries, where the Spanish and Portuguese word América refers to the pair of continents. United States is a less ambiguous term and less likely to cause offense. American as a noun to describe an inhabitant of America or a citizen or national of the United States, and as an adjective meaning "of the United States," has no straightforward unambiguous synonym in English. Many other words for American have been proposed, but none has been widely accepted.

Based on that, the "naming convention" should be to expand 'U.S.' to 'United States', in which case it should be removed from every single article which contains 'U.S.', and not just civil aircraft. McNeight 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please look at the history of CfD and you will see that has been happening. Also U.S. is being changed to American when the naming convention calls for that usage. Vegaswikian 09:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename Spanish and Portuguese usage is not relevant. Choalbaton 06:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes it is relevant. Wikipedia is a global project. Non-English users are allowed to read the English Wikipedia. As McNeight said, "America=US" is US-centric (and yes, I'm from US). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 08:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is a global project in English. Non-native speakers obviously need to understand the usage of each item of English vocabulary and this is just another one. It is actually the instinct to distort the language in response to outside pressures that is U.S. centric - a result of American political correctness on ethnic issues. Choalbaton 13:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose For the same reasons listed above. --Sylvain Mielot 06:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as per nom. The decision that the nationality of people and things from the United States is "American" has been debated at great length and a working consensus was reached. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American and its associated talk page. (BTW, the users who felt that "American" might be US-centric were almost all Americans; non-Americans in practice seem to have no issues with this usage). Aircraft are named "Fooian plane" - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "nationality x" - this is policy. This is not the place to re-open the American vs. US debate and the naming conventions apply in relation to the thing being categorised and not in relation to the country it belongs to. So this one is virtually undisputable. Valiantis 05:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yet we're disputing it. Go figure. Guapovia 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom, as is policy cited by Valiantis, both as pertains to the 'Nationality X' format and usage of American. Josh 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree per nom, all this political correctness posturing is odd for an encyclopedia, besides which both Mexico and Brazil are "United States"es and are so referred to locally so we should move everything to USA?... don't think so.... Carlossuarez46 22:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as proposed "American" is normal English in the English-speaking world. That is all that is relevant. CalJW 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category contains no articles, only a subcategory (Category:LGBT serial killers). Seems rather pointless, as the Serial Killers category covers everything. --DrBat 21:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete --Revolución (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: the serial killers category covers only serial killers, not one-time murderers. Perhaps the serial killers category should be deleted, and the articles in it moved to LGBT murderers, which has a broader scope and has a more generic name. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Resulting vote: Keep Category:LGBT murderers, delete Category:LGBT serial killers and move the articles in the latter category to the former category. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Delete per Bearcat. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 08:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Used to contain articles. Repopulate. Third nomination I believe, certainly second. Honbicot 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Same as last time. Golfcam 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename without slang acronym. "LGBT" sounds like some sort of sandwich - lettuce, gerkin, bacon & tomato. Use real words; this is an encyclopedia, remember. 12.73.196.151 03:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you can suggest a suitable non-acronymic name that includes gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, I'm all ears. Bearcat 20:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep To counter systemic bias towards non-neutral positive coverage of LGBT issues. Carina22 12:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as redundant, unless someone can find a meaningful way to stock it. Radiant_>|< 13:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete --Thorri 14:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Not redundant. Bhoeble 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary category based on intersection of two unrelated traits. I can't even tell from the category title if this is for people who murdered LGBT people, or LGBT people who happened to be murderers. Postdlf 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment This is the third time in 2 months that this category has been voted on. Previous discussion are here and here . Perhaps we can just copy the previous discussions here every month or so and everyone can say "ditto". -- Samuel Wantman 06:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Postdlf.--cj | talk 14:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality: Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid. I don't personally see that this criterion can be met here — it has nothing to do with positive vs. negative portrayals; it has to do with the encyclopedic merit (or lack thereof) of "LGBT murderers" as a topic in its own right. I'm down with the delete, but I was down with the delete the first two times, too. I find it fascinating that we now have a clear policy that spells out precisely when these kinds of categories are valid and when they're not, and people still feel free to disregard it whenever it doesn't suit their own particular agenda. Policy's policy, people: a keep vote has to be accompanied by proof that a social or cultural phenomenon of "LGBT murderers", as a documentably distinct phenomenon from the non-LGBT kind, exists as a distinct field of cultural study in its own right. If you can't prove that, it can't be kept, period. Bearcat 20:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete unless we're prepared to keep categories like Black murderers, White murderers, Roman Catholic murderers, Left handed murderers, Latino murderers and the like....up for it? not me. Carlossuarez46 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Clearly a list used as a part of an agenda against LGBT people. Keeping this category is bad precidence because it would allow for other categories such as Catholic Priests accused of Child Molestation, Polygamist Mormons, Baptist Child Molesters, Evagngelical Christian Child Molesters, LDS Serial Killers, Left Handed Terrorists, and many more offensive and irrelevant categories. Irrelevant because the horrible actions of people in those categories, are not a part of the way that most people in this societal group live (Hypernick1980 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]
• Conditional strong delete, if and only if Category:LGBT criminals and Category:LGBT serial killers are both also deleted, as should have occurred the very first time they were ever nominated for deletion, which has happened over and over now and will continue to happen until someone finally figures out that WP:POINT is non-negotiable. -Silence 05:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is still relatively free of liberal establishment control compared to Britannica and Encarta, but there are worrying signs. This is as legitimate as category:LGBT actors so nominate them both together. The solo nomination makes the bias clear. CalJW 05:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've said that before, but "sticking it to the liberals" isn't a valid reason. I'm not liberal, but you don't want to start some kind of tit for tat revenge kick with liberals. In time someone may make categories for Christian or conservative serial killers because of this. Is that something you really want? Also there are LGBT films so LGBT actors is a bit more valid. Just as there is Catholic films and Category:Roman Catholic actors. Added to that many of these subcats are to avoid the main category getting too large. The gay categories aren't overfilled with murderers, but they might be filled with actors because Hollywood is full of liberal elite weirdos who make sure of that.(Okay that's slightly sarcastic)--T. Anthony 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That being said there might be some justification to have this for murderers whose story strongly relates to the LGBT community. For example Michael Alig, who was removed from this, could belong as he ran a gay club and Andrew Cunanan could also maybe fit. If this lives though the serial killer one should be ended as it's mostly child molesters and unrelated murderers.(Cunanan was a spree-killer, there is some difference) Ideally both should end until this is shown to be a recognized phenomenon.--T. Anthony 18:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CalJW, the policy on gender/race/sexuality categories is quite explicit in setting out the criteria under which a grouping like this is or isn't valid, and in forbidding the application of POV criteria such as the positivity or negativity of a grouping as a consideration. If you want to assert that Category:LGBT actors doesn't meet with the policy, you're free to nominate it for deletion anytime you wish. In the meantime, however, you will kindly stick to the matter at hand: does Category:LGBT murderers meet with the policy spelled out at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which clearly spells out that a category is only valid if the grouping has already been established as culturally or sociologically significant by others outside of Wikipedia and can have a valid encyclopedic head article written about it? If it does, then it's a keep, and if it doesn't, then it has to be deleted. No other consideration is permissible under the established and binding policy that you had every opportunity to participate in shaping. Bearcat 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat. -- Samuel Wantman 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Lots of reasons but the main one is that it has become a useless category that doesn't contribute anything to an encyclopaedia. David | Talk 10:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I hate that LGBT categories are constantly nominated for deletion. Keep if there are enough murderers who are L, G, B, or T (and publicly identified as such) and whose L-, G-, B-, or T-ness affected their murders. -Seth Mahoney 19:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. - TexasAndroid 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete an invented categorisation (per Bearcat), no articles in the category. --kingboyk 04:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable. Arniep 13:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best to amend to match the higher level categories. Merchbow 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC). Rename Merchbow 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename There's a professorship in there, but that probably doesn't matter. Perhaps it should be converted into a redirect to the school in any case. Carina22 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"players" is the term used for this sort of category. See Category:Footballers by club for a couple of hundred examples. Honbicot 19:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Oppose. Please renominate it together with articles in:
• Category:Footballers in Argentina by club
• Category:Footballers in Denmark by club
• Category:Footballers in the Netherlands by club
• Category:Footballers in Spain by club

...which have some, or all, articles using "footballer" as opposed to "players". --Vizcarra 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. There appears to be a distinction between countries with football only clubs, like England, and countries with multi-sport clubs, like Spain. It's probably best to leave them as they are. Honbicot 23:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I still do think that "players" is better than "footballers" since these are football clubs already. --Vizcarra 19:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 not a thing --Kbdank71 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note from closing admin: I notified nixie on their talk page on Jan 26th to tag these for renaming, nothing was done. Closing discussion. --Kbdank71 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In line with other person from Place, the following categories should be renamed.--nixie 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People of Adelaide to Category:People from Adelaide and so on;

Category:People of Ballarat

Category:People of Broken Hill

Category:People of Canberra

Category:People of Fremantle

Category:People of Geelong

Category:People of Hobart

Category:People of Melbourne

Category:People of Newcastle, New South Wales

Category:People of Perth

Category:People of Sydney

Category:People of Wagga Wagga

• Rename all. Ze miguel 12:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note. None of these were tagged for renaming. I've put them up for another seven days and notified the nominator. --Kbdank71 15:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicates Category:Military of the Republic of Ireland, which complies with the pattern of the parent cat, and indeed the applicable naming convention: this one doesn't. See this earlier discussion. Alai 10:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. Josh 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge Joestynes 10:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a category, list material. Ze miguel 09:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete the name admits as much... Josh 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Hopelessly POV. - EurekaLott 06:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Though not the type of pov I expected - I assumed it would be a collection of articles excessively positive about the EU (and there are some). CalJW 10:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom Josh 10:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep for cleanup efforts for articles with Template:Eurocentrism. If there are articles that are biased towards Europe they should be corrected. --Vizcarra 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep --Revolución (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Isn't this the wrong way round? Shouldn't it be the missing information which is identified rather that that which is present? Carina22 12:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, post the list on WP:CSB. Radiant_>|< 13:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Postdlf 16:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Template:Globalize and Category:Limited geographic scope already exist. This appears to duplicate these in a less productive way. (Also <POV>Americanocentrism seems a more pressing problem than Eurocentrism</POV>). Valiantis 05:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Syrthiss 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge. Duplicate. - EurekaLott 06:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Carina22 20:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moved from speedy to full discussion after viewing discussion on Talk:Traditionalist Catholic Syrthiss 04:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename No problem. Golfcam 05:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 14:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Redundant to Category:Artists. sparkit|>TALK< 02:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: Creative Arts is a term that encompassess both Visual Arts and Performing Arts. --Vizcarra 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete There were enough homes for categories of visual artists and creative artists before this came along. Carina22 12:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary. Bhoeble 00:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:United States Senators from Washington State --> Category:United States Senators from Washington; as per Washington, List of United States Senators from Washington, etc. Matt Yeager 00:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Move category per above. "Washington State" is redundant since it says "United States Senators" and as we all know, Washington D.C. doesn't elect Senators. --Revolución (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Move, on the assumption that when taxation without representation ends, we will have a United States Senator from the District of Columbia] category. The people of Washington, D.C., do elect two "shadow Senators", though these folks have no constitutional role in US Government. --Habap 16:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment, ambiguous: are these US Senators who represent the state of Washington, or are from there??? Al Gore was born in Washington DC, was a US senator representing Tennessee, therefore seems to be a US senator from Washington. Certainly is not a US senator from Washington State, however. Carlossuarez46 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Matches convention in parent, Category:United States Senators. Vegaswikian 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[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.