< May 21	May 23 >

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. Vegaswikian 17:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category that should be a list. Also just silly. MakeRocketGoNow 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, otherwise listify. David Kernow 04:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ultra-trivia. Bhoeble 09:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & listify for us HP fans. Her Pegship 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely pointless Caveat lector 19:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, consider listifying only if more appear in the final book in the series. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and put the list in the Chocolate Frog cards article, if there is one.
  -- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 12:30, 30 May 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. Vegaswikian 17:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All contained articles have since been renamed and re-categorized. This category is empty. —Markles 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 04:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Caveat lector 19:33, 24 May 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. Vegaswikian 17:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains subcategories for the three Iowa universities and no articles; there's not much of a reason for this category to exist, as all content is already tagged within Category:Universities and colleges in Iowa. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 20:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (also features faulty capitalization). David Kernow 04:20, 23 May 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. Vegaswikian 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Current name is confusing and badly constructed. Darwinek 20:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Latino is a misleading term imo as it makes me thing of Italy, not Spain. Bhoeble 09:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Latino" seems to be the term preferred by the said community. Her Pegship 22:46, 23 May 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. Vegaswikian 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains articles with "Holy Cross" in the name. This is not a useful categorization. Conscious 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete; charter could be amended but it would be duplicative of Category:Holy Cross universities and colleges.-choster 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not a meaningful category.--Vaquero100 22:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Caveat lector 19:34, 24 May 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 Cat redir. Vegaswikian 17:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monasteries is a better cat and effectively duplicates this cat. Necrothesp 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Category:Monasteries, since someone trying to categorize Foo Abbey would probably start with Abbeys. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone know whether there is a(n extant) substantive distinction between these kinds of institution?  Curious, David Kernow 04:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All abbeys are monasteries, but not all monasteries are abbeys. An abbey is headed by an abbot or an abbess. A priory, for instance (headed by a prior or prioress), is not an abbey. Many abbeys were originally founded as priories, and many orders do not have abbeys at all. Monastery, as the generic term, is therefore the better term. -- Necrothesp 10:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks!  David Kernow 18:54, 23 May 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. Conscious 05:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are really the same with Category:Best lists being the more concise name, which in addition matches the name of the opposing category Category:Worst lists JeffW 17:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the first mentioned name is much clearer. Athenaeum 22:18, 29 May 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. Conscious 06:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limited meaning within French context. Intangible 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Why should we breach the capitalization policy here? Osomec 21:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually "Far Right" here is an proper noun, and thus should be capitalized in the English language. The Far Right is here the identity of certain specific political movements in France. Intangible 00:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources on google use a capital R, but many don't. Almost none of the British sources do, and I'm British so I can vote for British usage. Certainly French usage is not relevant. If foreign language usage was relevant to Wikipedia usage, there would be three times as many capital letters in Germany as there actually are. Osomec 23:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Of no use. Dahn 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm highly suspicious of the neutrality of this term, though I daresay the whole spectrum of French opinion from the centre right to the Trots would say it is fine, but I wouldn't set much store by that. If not deleted, do not rename as it is not a proper noun. Bhoeble 09:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an analogy and example, you can look at the ubiquitous meanings of New Right. Intangible 22:21, 23 May 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 Category:Wildlife of Antarctica and Category:Antarctic animals and merge Category:Fauna of Antarctica to Category:Wildlife of Antarctica. Vegaswikian 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These should be merged. I have no preference which way -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Wildlife of Antarctica and Category:Antarctic animals (net empty). I'd been prepping a mass CFRU for a few of these categories myself, but I got beat to the punch. The Tom 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Fauna of Antarctica and merge to Category:Wildlife of Antarctica. Caveat lector 19:39, 24 May 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. Conscious 05:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Filipino" is for people, while "Philippine" is for other things. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comment at Category:Filipino movies. AmHer Dictionary gives use of Filipino as an adjective meaning "Of or relating to the Philippines or its peoples, languages, or cultures.". Her Pegship 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee guys, aren't you supposed to wait a week before you start moving stuff?? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:53, 25 May 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. Vegaswikian 19:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Filipino" is for people, while "Philippine" is for other things. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; see above. Her Pegship 20:05, 23 May 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. Vegaswikian 19:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Filipino" is for people, while "Philippine" is for other things. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose; see above. Her Pegship 20:05, 23 May 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 category, listify description. Conscious 05:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Roman emperors, should become list. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Roman Empire ≠ Holy Roman Empire. - choster 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have investigated further. It should be merged with Category:Holy Roman emperors, and the text should be listified. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per revised proposal. This could possibly be speedied.- choster 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's only one article in it ... but the text is gigantic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The text illustrates the "PAQUETTE FAMILY LINES" from Charlemagne. Do you wish to preserve it? User:Dimadick
• Merge. I think the text needs serious wikifying and clean-up. It looks like log or transcript of some genealogy program. Monni 17:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If possible it would be good to have an expert review it. It's certainly the biggest category description I've seen. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but fix; unlike the Roman emperors, the Holy Roman Emperors had their own lands which they ruled, sometimes by a different name or a different ordinal number. Carlossuarez46 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who is going to cleanup that mess? It is probably a copyvio. If anything worthwhile can be made of it, let the creator do the work (in article namespace). Osomec 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant with existing Category:Holy Roman emperors. Septentrionalis 05:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant category/illegitimate article. Bhoeble 09:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The text looks like one of the standard descendent reports that comes with most genealogy programs. I suspect that the data is a combination of one of the many royalty genealogy files that is available, along with some text-dumps of Wikipedia articles. All in all, I would suggest deleting, and starting over if required. (There seems to be text relating to modern people in the file as well...) Bluap 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is not the same thing at all. eg, Cesar and Nero were a Roman Emperor - Rome as in classical Rome. Otto III. was Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. (residing in Aaachen or so) Rome as in Holy See. The pope crowned these people, so they became Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Azate 19:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. But keep Category:Holy Roman emperors, which is fully populated. -- Necrothesp 20:38, 28 May 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. Vegaswikian 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the category name does not follow the WP:TV-NC concerning the use of 'TV', nor the ones on the usage of capitals in articles names. The parent is Automobiles, not Car, so this seems more appropriate to me. Also "automotive" is defined as "of, relating to, or concerned with motor vehicles", which leaves the potential for other types of motor vehicles besides cars, which is a broader category, which concerning the amount of TV shows in this area seems appropriate to me The DJ 13:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, but not to Category:Automotive television series. Category:TV/Television shows about automobiles...?  Not convinced, David Kernow 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nominated. Alternative suggestion ignores WP:TV-NC and is less consistent with established practices. Barno 19:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see anything in WP:TV-NC that relates to this nomination. It's all about how to disambiguate when the TV shows have the same name as something else. --JeffW 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, i was mistaken, TV vs. television for categories is not in WP:TV-NC, it's part of WP:NCCAT (see avoid abbrevations). - TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure that David Kernow meant to use either TV or Television in the title, not both. In any case TV is so well established that its silly to try to avoid its use. --JeffW 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes; I meant use either "TV" or "Television", whichever would be acceptable. Sorry not to make that clear. So, if "TV" not endorsed, are there any takers for Category:Television shows about automobiles or the like...?  (Category:Automotive television series suggests something metaphorical to me...)  Regards, David Kernow 03:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.
  -- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 12:35, 30 May 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. Vegaswikian 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post World War II what? Hopefully the proposed new name will be found clearer, and it matches category:Aftermath of war. Bhoeble 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as above. Bhoeble 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom La Pizza11 13:47, 27 May 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. Vegaswikian 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is. --Yossarian 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if the articles listed have clear reason that they're listed there. SushiGeek 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There aren't any articles so there aren't any reasons. Osomec 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Actually, the article in there (Saparmurat Niyazov, I believe) was removed. Also, 'there aren't any articles so therefore' is a very broad generalization. EDIT: I was wrong. However, [1] shows two articles. SushiGeek 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Articles like Adolf Hitler seem to declare definitively that their subjects were considered Dictators. If they say that, why is a category saying the same thing so subjective? --W.marsh 01:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But even Hitler isn't considered dictatorial by some, but that's neither here nor there. The problem with the category is that there are too few Hitlers (if you take my meaning). Someone put Hugo Chavez in there, and I know that there's plenty of debate on him. Any additon that isn't Hitler or Stalin is going to be desputed (and even then...), and it's just going to cause fighting between people with varying political POVs. Edit: Actually that's true, some articles do declare that. But it seems to me that's a seperate POV problem. --Yossarian 02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave this to List of dictators...?  David Kernow 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a better idea. Categories can't really give detailed explanation for inclusion, and the list/article is better developed. --Yossarian 08:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia articles are full of references to dictatorships, dictatorship governments, military dictators etc. The use of the term "Dictator" in these articles is based on History. If History calls you a dictator then you are one. Also dictators are not defined by the way they govern but by the way they came to power and or remained in power. In Hitler's case he came democratically to power but then he abolished the instruments of Democracy so that he can remain perpetually in power; at that point he became a dictator. Dr.K. 15:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not necessarily. You ever got into a political debate around here? ; ) One can't appeal Wikipedia or History as justification. That's an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. But what is history? Something every historian agreed upon (obviously not)? Is it something within the public eye? Which public? It's always, ultimately, going to be someone's personal point of view (or a group of peoples'). It's not neutral. The biggest problem with this category is that it will be abused, most likely inadvertantly. Example: someone puts Hugo Chavez up as a dictator. According to that person, it's perfectly reasonable to do that, and they have no reason to believe they're pushing a POV. Someone else, on the other hand, may see no reason for that label, and not recognize that they indorse the POV that Hugo Chavez is not a dictator. History doesn't play a role in this case. Thus the war begins. For that matter, what is an "accepted form of democracy" (as you mentioned on talk) but, most of the time, a Western one? The Japanese didn't have a democratic ruler, and many worshiped the emperor as a god. His followers would not have even entertained the idea of labeling him a dictator (even if a Western historian might find the issue quite clear). Criteria for a word with such negative connotations as dictator are inherently going to be part of a bias. History labels men dictators. But what about the many Russians who still consider Stalin a hero? Would they label him a dictator, with all it's negative connotations? Is the Russian state the only determiner of who was a hero and who was a monster (or, more specifically, Nikita S. Khrushchof). My problem is that no one has defined History. It seems to me to be an exclusively Western contrast to "accepted" democratic values. Stuff to chew on. --Yossarian 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Something every historian agreed upon?' as a point is nonsense. I'm sure you could say ANYTHING about ANY politic or war related article, and when removed you could say "Does every single historian agree on that?"

Let's go take away any instances in the article on the Civil War (America's, that is) that says that the North won. How do you define "win"? Does every historian agree on your definition of "win"? SushiGeek 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with SushiGeek. We can carry on with this debate ad infinitum but at the end of the day we must move with the majority of the historians. Clearly most historians agree that Hitler was a dictator. Same with most famous dictators. Chavez I'm sure doesn't carry a majority vote yet and he is too contemporary for the verdict of history. As for Stalin his supporters or fans don't qualify as historians. Dr.K. 00:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with W.marsh: If an article establishes, definitively, that the person in question was/is a dictator, then there's no reason for them not to be in this category. If the people in the category are stated to be dictators in their articles, then it should probably be kept. Jude (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I suppose if that's the way the wind is blowing (though I imagine others will weigh in), then that's how it'll have to go. Just so you know, I've got a slightly more detailed response written on the talk page (and I also clarified some things above). I still think this will present point of view problems later on, but, c'est la vie. Cheers all. --Yossarian 04:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Haham hanuka 12:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep Dictator is a very common concept. Like most labels in social science it has a grey area, but in most cases it can be established very well whether a person was a dictator or not. Further, not only can it theoretically be established, but in practice it is established in some of our articles. I see no particular reason not to use that valuable information for categorization. gidonb 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep Maybe I had to make my vote explicit. Dr.K. 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'd entertain possible other names keep it as is. Dictator says it all; '... an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch). ' -- ∞Wirelain 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually that could work, assuming the criteria were followed strictly. I still don't agree with this idea of "History" with a capital H, but dbroadwell's got a good point. Perhaps I've been thinking about the word "Dictator" too semantically/broadly (it can be a rather loaded term). If it gets kept (which looks like the case) perhaps a definition like that one could be appended? It seems pretty neutral. I wouldn't have a problem in that case. Edit: I still support deletion on principle, though: to me, not having it would be better than having it, particularly for the point that LaszloWalrus makes below. --Yossarian 04:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Some people are quite obviously dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Castro) etc., but this category still doesn't quite seem NPOV, and I can see soon degenerating into a place for everyone to list his least favorite head of state. LaszloWalrus 00:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure many categories are like that. And that's what reverting is for. SushiGeek 02:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Although I'm presently engaged in a dispute on the List of dictators article, this is more because of one entry than the existance of the article itself.) Frankly, the whole thing seems unneccessary (in agreement with dictators are usually described as such on their own pages), and creating a situation where leaders (of whatever distinction) can be called by the emotive term 'dictator' just opens the door to politicization (eg: George Walker Bush, Fidel Castro, or my favourite, Alexander Lukashenko), and then later to flames and revert wars. Additionally, regulations surrounding use of the term 'dictator' are not always observed properly... --Oceanhahn 12:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too subjective. Twittenham 19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A textbook "do not have" category. Sumahoy 21:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I object to the inclusion of Napoleon in this company, and the contents could easily become more objectionable than they are now. Honbicot 23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The present selection doesn't look neutral and it probably never will. Athenaeum 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I once voted to keep a similar category, but now I know that this is just too POV to be useful. --Ezeu 19:09, 30 May 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. Vegaswikian 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: most of the other categories use "Haiti", which is standard in English usage. Hawkestone 12:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Caveat lector 19:45, 24 May 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. Vegaswikian 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pointlessly tiny: There have been only two so far (and may be a third one in the summer). Umbrella CDP, wherein they are duplicated anyway, will do better; after all, it is also rather sparse and there will hardly ever be much about this subject on enwiki. Anyway, it should have been "chairmen". Malyctenar 11:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete per nom. David Kernow 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom. Jklamo 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom. Caveat lector 19:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposal. Pavel Vozenilek 19:15, 26 May 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. Vegaswikian 19:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A stupid category, probably aimed to promote firearms proliferation limiting. Millions of people are killed by firearms, dozens of thousands of them are subject to WP. Unlike Deaths by pokemon attack that would be interesting. By the way, a typo (by firearms). Delete category. Ukrained 10:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just one of many type of death categories, so there are no grounds to assume a hidden agenda. And there isn't a "typo" either. Bhoeble 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A fine category that's part of a fine structure. (Though I would like to see the contents of the "Pokemon attack" one.)--Mike Selinker 15:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Answering both posts: gentlemen, all that "structure" is, sorry, stupid (unless some of sister subcats renamed to "Notable deaths of ..."). Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you insist, I'll challenge all cats alike to make a general point. And the anti-guns agenda is clear, not hidden :))). Oh, by the way, I found my first <cfd> tag there just disappeared. Some miracle? Best wishes, Ukrained 18:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no anti-rope agenda in category:Hangings, and no anti-water agenda in category:Deaths by drowning. Similarly, there's no anti-gun agenda here.--Mike Selinker 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bhoeble & Mike Selinker; to answer Ukrained the deaths need not be notable, just the person. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't understand how this category would "promote firearms proliferation limiting". I also don't believe "by firearm" is a typo as "by X" can encompass singular and plural contexts. Regards, David Kernow 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a category by cause of death. Not politicaly charged and actually studying cases across history. User:Dimadick
• Keep. Integral part of a category structure. "And the anti-guns agenda is clear..." What? Utter rubbish, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME to Category:Deaths caused by firearms to avoid some people subcategorizing by firearm (like Deaths by Bofors cannon, Deaths by Glock 19, ...) 132.205.93.90 18:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep death by firearm is a fact not an agenda. Caveat lector 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's interesting and certainly well used, there are hundreds of members ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename to something that doesn't make it sound like the gun did it. They're inanimate objects, and incapable of causing anything by themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguy101 (talk • contribs)
• KEEP I just had a very interesting time perusing different entries in this category. Terrace4 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "Category:Deaths by gunshot". GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:57, 29 May 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 6 support, 4 opposed. Vegaswikian 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will bring this category's title inline with other film category titles. Lady Aleena 10:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Her Pegship 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Caveat lector 19:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment couldn't the Wikipedia software be changed to prohibit putting the word 'movies' in a category name? There are so many of these proposed renames! Caveat lector 19:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This like Category:Road movies is the name of an established genre. If I wanted to find a category of disaster movies that's the name I'd put in the box, not Disaster films. --JeffW 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per --JeffW. They are disaster movies even in British English. Osomec 23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Disaster film"? Come off it. The nominator also moved the lead article, but it's now back where it should be. Piccadilly 23:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please consider.
  • We could argue that every film category we have could be "Foo movies" because of local usage, but the WP naming convention (and the Films WikiProject) prefers "film" over "movie".
  • We can redirect the Disaster movie article to Disaster film, at which point presumably the user can see the Disaster films category and go from there.
  • There are plenty of film articles that use the term "disaster movie" in them, which would be found in a search.
  • We're not requesting that every instance of "movie" should be replaced with "film" - just the category names. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point me to the discussion where it was decided that films was to replace movies everywhere. I poked around the film wikiproject but didn't find anything. --JeffW 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry bout that - it was later moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films) for the discussion. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw a discussion on changing the name of the page from Naming conventions (movies) to Naming conventions (films) but I still don't see the consensus for changing 'movie' to 'film' in every category name. --JeffW 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Throughout the page there are discussion about the use of "film" vs "movie", not only on the naming conventions page, but in any Wikipedia article about a film/movie. The "Movie is a bad choice" and "A ridiculous move" sections focus on this issue. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It is not my understanding that the name Disaster Movies is as established as Road Movies. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Disaster film" makes me think of box office bombs as much as the genre. Twittenham 19:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Both 'disaster movie' and 'disaster film' would be valid terms for the genre, but the term film is preferred to movie everywhere else on wikipedia. There's really no good reason to make an exception here, and would just lead to further confusion. - Bobet 11:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. In this case "disaster film" is a real term, so rename for consistency. Valiantis 18:52, 28 May 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. Vegaswikian 17:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just completing an incomplete deletion listing. The comment added was (which I assume would be his rational for deletion) is "if this had been a worthy category, it would have been made a long time ago." I would add that Category:Capricorns and Category:Virgos could be considered for similar reasons. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete unencyclopedic article. This category, also Capricorns and Virgos, were started by the same person and seem to be limited to only hiphop artists. I feel if such categories were important enough, they would have been already been categories. --Zimbabweed 07:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete An intellectually disreputable classification scheme. I have added Capricorns and Virgos to the original nomination and tagged them both. Please block recreation. Osomec 10:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cancers also added. Osomec 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all It would probably best to block all 12 star signs, as these totally unencyclopedia categories may tempt all too many users. Bhoeble 13:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete It Just because you think that your smarter and have more knowledge then us, dosen't mean you have to delete everyones idea. What, do I have to earn points to make new things and categories? Come on man. Don't delete it. - 22 May 2006/3:19 P.M. - A Different World

• Delete unencyclopedic category Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill all. - EurekaLott 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I feel it is enough to sort people out by year. I don't think that sorting by astrological sign is necessary. If the years are getting too full, then sort by month. --Lady Aleena 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Unencyclopedic. MakeRocketGoNow 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per nom, MakeRocketGoNow, et al. Ask someone programming on the tool server to make this a query there, based on the date of birth. --Pjacobi 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 18:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Please don't delete it. This is new. It's not old. It's new. No one on this earth has ever thought about this. Why delete it? Other peoples profiles are not encyclopedic. You guys are mean. Don't delete anything. Don't. Please. - 23 May 2006/5:18 P.M. - A Different World

• Delete. If we ever categorize people by date of birth, then these might become marginally interesting parent categories for the DOB cats, but they're sub-trivial when applied to individual articles. -Sean Curtin 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm so sure, I've preemptively emptied all the categories of aticles, including Category:Cancers. When I start swingin', look out! - CobaltBlueTony 21:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all. Not encyclopedic. — TheKMan^talk 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, unencylopedic. I just added Category:Libras which was created earlier today. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all. Non noteworthy junk mysticism. Astrology belongs on Xanga, not Wikipedia categories. Kasreyn 23:11, 26 May 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. Vegaswikian 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally a category has to be useful navigational aid and a useful categorization (!) aid. At least one of these. And it should't require the fine print, that a list can provide. Unfortunately, this category is essentially There is some X which says "Y is cult". IMHO this is completely absurd approach to categorization. Also, as secondary issue, this offers just too little cohesion. I can't see, that the Spartacists League and the Moonies have to be in one category. And why isn't the Wikipedia included? Considered to be a "techno-cult of ignorance" by those charming Aetherometrists. --Pjacobi 00:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This category has a clear criteria, and is a complementary category to category:cults. That category includes the clearcut groups, while this category handles the more debatable groups. There's been no discussion on the talk page about this. Wikipedia has been called a cult and could be added to this category. -Will Beback 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't extend this idea to create Category:Purported child molesters... --Pjacobi 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. -- LGagnon 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Will Beback's suggestion. As long as additions are based on info in the articles, this should not be a problem. -- LGagnon 18:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Far too much a matter of opinion. Bhoeble 13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all religions are cults – recall that the word cult has only received its negative (in some POVs) connotation – so if it stays all religions should be added. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with Carlossuarez46. There is no need to have a category listing groups that have had a particular disparaging term applied to them by some detractor. Add every single religion to the category, or remove the category altogether. 20:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not every religion recieves this term. Additionally, articles are only in this category if the article claims they have been accused of being a cult. There is a legit methodology to the choices for this category. -- LGagnon 20:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently biased; Why not have categories like "Stupid belief systems" or "Evil people"?
• Delete POV Caveat lector 19:54, 24 May 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.