< March 14	March 16 >

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. - TexasAndroid 16:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective 'famous' is unnecessary. All categories about people are about famous people. If we are to have this, we might as well have 'Famous doctors' and 'Famous crime victims'. It seems that someone on the talk page agrees with this. Saforrest 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per myself on the aforementioned talk page. NickelShoe 21:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 07:29, 16 March 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. - TexasAndroid 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes more sense. --- Lancini87 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It doesn't to me. The current form is unambiguous, the proposed form sounds more like it is for fictional characters who are American and work in the comics industry. Hawkestone 20:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's ambiguous. What unifying feature are we trying to capture here? Fictional characters (as opposed to real people), who are American (as opposed to non-USA-an or extraterrestrial, who appear in comics (as opposed to other media). Right? How about Category:Fictional characters from the United States in comics Carlossuarez46 22:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, you don't get it. That's exacly the reason why i proposed the name change, the category is meant for fictional characters who are... American (yes, fictional Americans). However, the way fictional American comics characters sounds, it could also mean "fictional characters" from "American comics"; Not all characters from "American comics" are "American". --- Lancini87 23:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is the less ambiguous of the two options. Scranchuse 14:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The majority of the comic book characters in the english wikipedia are fictional americans. This category won't serve any useful purpose - it will just be one more thing littering the bottom of hundreds of entries. We don't need it, and we shouldn't have it. Ocicat 21:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The adjective "American" is describing the comic. A better title for this category may be Category:Fictional characters in American comics. -- GTWeasel 21:19, 21 March 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. - TexasAndroid 16:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes more sense. --- Lancini87 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It doesn't to me. The current form is unambiguous, the proposed form sounds more like it is for fictional characters who are American and work in the comics industry. Hawkestone 20:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's ambiguous. What unifying feature are we trying to capture here? Fictional characters (as opposed to real people), who are American (as opposed to non-USA-an or extraterrestrial), who appear on television (as opposed to other media). Right? How about Category:Fictional characters from the United States on television Carlossuarez46 22:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, you don't get it. That's exacly the reason why i proposed the name change, the category is meant for fictional characters who are... American (yes, fictional Americans). However, the way fictional American comics characters sounds, it could also mean "fictional characters" from "American comics"; Not all characters from "American comics" are "American". --- Lancini87 23:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as with the comics cat. Scranchuse 14:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think everything under and including the grandparent Category:Fictional Americans is nonsense. Gene Nygaard 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The adjective "American" is describing the television series. A better title for this category may be Category:Fictional characters in American television. -- GTWeasel 21:20, 21 March 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. - TexasAndroid 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pointless category for categorizing Wikipedians. Currently only one person, the categoriy's creator, is in it. The reason I am proposing this deleted is not that political or religious categories are considered harmful, but that this AFD debate concluded that there is no such party in the United States or anywhere else. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category's main article doesn't even appear to exist. David Kernow 16:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes, that is because it was deleted as an unverifiable article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 22 March 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 --NormanEinstein 15:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "by country" subcategories in Category:Caves should be switched to "Caves of XXX" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) because they're natural features. --NormanEinstein 18:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after comment. Vegaswikian 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I've always had doubts about that policy. It is a legacy of the time when "of" was much more widely used and it should changes. In my opinion only features of types which frequently straddle national boundaries should use of. In any case, you should tag all the categories to bring the potential change to people's attention. CalJW 02:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Originally this issue was brought to my attention when I renamed "Caves of Malaysia" to "Caves in Malaysia" to bring it inline with the other subcategories. An editor with a strong interest in caves emailed me to suggest that perhaps it's the other categories that should be changed, and after a discussion I agreed with her. The guideline to have natural features use "of" is a good one, I believe, and it seems to be general practise in this field. For instance, the user I spoke with commented that books are almost always titled Caves of Malaysia or Caves of Thailand. In England there are many caving books eg. Caves of Wales, Caves of the Yorks, Dales etc. All of which use "of" rather than "in". --NormanEinstein 15:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I much prefer "of" for natural features. And this keeps in line with the general feeling that geographical items use "of" whereas manmade ones use "in. On the geography page for Malaysia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography_of_Malaysia the natural features such as lakes, waterfalls, mountains etc use "of". And I reinforce the above comment that caves books always use 'caves of xxx". User:cavingliz 16 March

• Rename per non. "of" sounds better and is common usage, also in wikipedia. Take for example the Category:Waterfalls_by_country . There are 30 subcategories, all written as "waterfalls of country xxx" -Janstu 05:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. In addition to the above, I suppose it's possible for something to belong to a country or nation without physically being within that country or nation's borders. Hypothetically, David Kernow 16:21, 18 March 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. - TexasAndroid 16:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current category name implies that it's supposed to house lists of machinima series, but its current contents suggest that it's supposed to house articles that are actually lists of machinima episodes (compare to the contents of the article named List of machinima series). — TKD::Talk 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Yes that was my intent. Thanks for catching it. --JeffW 08:48, 15 March 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. - TexasAndroid 16:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is no longer populated as a result of a merger of weapons articles into List of Final Fantasy weapons. The two other articles within the category contain information that the aformentioned article already has. ~ Hibana

• Delete per nom. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Flooch 02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just redirected one of the last pages left on that category (Illumina) --HTL2001 (Talk|Contrib) 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — CuaHL ☺ 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — For reasons cited. Ryu Kaze 17:53, 15 March 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. - TexasAndroid 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous, has only one member, not likely to increase very much. "Centenarians" will suffice. --Tothebarricades 00:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 07:48, 16 March 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. - TexasAndroid 16:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely pointless, limited and almost impossible to authenticate. -- Necrothesp 00:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, categories should not be so arbitrarily defined. --Tothebarricades 00:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Plus, the contents would be subject to change, which doesn't make sense. — TKD::Talk 02:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Alan Liefting 06:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to being accurate. Hawkestone 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and preemptively any categories for oldest dead actors as well. - choster 21:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless. --Looper5920 09:09, 22 March 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.