< September 5	September 7 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

category:Darwikinist to category:Darwikinist Wikipedians
category:Delusionists to category:Delusionist Wikipedians
category:Eventualists to category:Eventualist Wikipedians
category:Exopedianists to category:Exopedianist Wikipedians
category:Immediatists to category:Immediatist Wikipedians
category:Incrementalists to category:Incrementalist Wikipedians
category:Metapedianists to category:Metapedianist Wikipedians
category:Wikipediholics to category:Wikipediholic Wikipedians
category:Wikipedists to category:Wikipedist Wikipedians
category:Wikipedian bored reasons to category:Bored Wikipedians
category:Liberal Theist Wikipedians to category:Liberal theist Wikipedians
category:Meaningoflife Wikipedians to category:Meaning of Life Wikipedians
category:Pure Wiki Deletion supporters to category:Wikipedians who support pure wiki deletion
category:Feminist supporter Wikipedians to category:Feminist Wikipedians
category:GPL license to category:GPL licensing Wikipedians
category:Australian Greens to category:Australian Green Wikipedians
category:Wikipedians who follow the teachings of Haruhiism to category:Haruhiist Wikipedians

I bit off more than I could chew in the category:Wikipedians by philosophy mass nomination, so I thought I’d try breaking it out into smaller chunks. These are the ones that just need a “wikipedians” added or adjusted, or something similar.--Mike Selinker 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename all per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename all per nom. --Cswrye 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename but, why not to the reverse? (For example: category:Wikipedian Darwinists rather than category:Darwinist Wikipedians)? I thought the plan was to have "Wikipedian" as the first word in such categories if at all possible? - jc37 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It's more valuable to follow the mainspace convention for whether a concept goes before "people". So nationalities, parties, and named philosophies make sense up front, and occupations, actions, and purchasing preferences make sense in back.--Mike Selinker 14:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename All, though I don't see the point of changing category:Liberal Theist Wikipedians. Seems to me you could just save yourselves the trouble there. Kewlio 00:37, 11 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

category:Stressed Users to category:Stressed Wikipedians
category:User external links to category:Wikipedians who oppose excessive external links
category:User oops to category:Wikipedians who regret their mistakes
category:User Wikipedia Non Commercial to category:Wikipedians against advertisements
category:User Wikipedia/Nice users to category:Nice Wikipedians (or merge with category:Friendly Wikipedians?)
category:User sum to category:Wikipedians who are more than the sum of their userboxes
category:Users who support userboxes to category:Wikipedians who support userboxes
category:Users who think userboxes are cool to category:Wikipedians who support userboxes

These ones from category:Wikipedians by philosophy all switch “Users” to “Wikipedians” I tried to come up with a less jargony name for some, but I encourage people to suggest alternatives.--Mike Selinker 23:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename all per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename all per nom. --Cswrye 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. - jc37 03:23, 9 September 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 regarding 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 --WinHunter ^(talk) 10:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, seems a little too narrow, and not a defining characteristic. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete -- 1 article from a manga? YGBKM. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic. Hawkestone 10:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Not an important characteristic for a category. --Cswrye 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete considering that nearly every superhero could very well belong to this category... : ) - jc37 03:23, 9 September 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 regarding 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 17:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, shameless self-promotion by Brandon DiNovi, User:Bdinovi. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

Delete per nom. Olborne 22:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and perhaps enlighten User:Bdinovi. David Kernow 01:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, and agreeing with David Kernow - jc37 03:23, 9 September 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, After spending the better part of an hour reverting a user who'd decided to add every female superhero to this cat, I checked out this page...only to find out that's what it is. A list of fictional females. No rhyme or reason for pretty much any of them being there. Misleading, and unnecessary. InShaneee 22:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 22:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral as a librarian I would find the category useful if and only if it were limited to feminists. Since that doesn't seem possible, I would acquiesce in its deletion. This lack of education in category analysis and use suggests that category creation and assignment might be considered to be something that editors shouldn't able to do. Of course lots of categories are correctly assigned. Bejnar 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Some categories that would work in a professionally edited encyclopedia aren't viable in Wikipedia because there is no effective means of preventing overuse. This is one such. Hawkestone 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Though I am rather tempted to suggest a Rename to category:Female characters in comics as a sub-category of Fictional female characters. - jc37 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a 'fictional heroines' cat. --InShaneee 16:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that would be a sub-cat of what I was thinking of proposing, since there are many female comic characters which are not necessarily hoeroins (or villainesses, for that matter). I just am not certain if we should be categorizing by gender. - jc37 16:22, 9 September 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 regarding 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 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wikipedian authors of Good Articles was recently deleted per a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 22#Category:Wikipedian authors of Good Articles. The same reasoning could apply to these categories, so I think that either they should be deleted or the other category should be recreated. I don't have a strong opinion either way, so I am remaining neutral, but I wanted to bring this up for discussion. —Cswrye 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The main contributors should get recognized for their efforts. Rlevse 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I agree that contibutors should be recognized, but recognition can be in user space. --Elliskev 22:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete People are expected to contribute to Wikipedia without recognition and not to claim ownership of any content. Olborne 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, although nice, very few articles are written by individuals, and even when that happens, these categories are probably inappropriate encouragement of article ownership.--Dhartung | Talk 01:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. That article ownership guideline convinced me.--Mike Selinker 02:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment – As most pictures are static and non-colaborative, much of the criticism above does not apply to Category:Wikipedian authors of featured pictures. The cat is empty, though. ×Meegs 05:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Encourages article ownership and allowing the photograph category is just the thin end of the wedge. Merchbow 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I will repeat my comments from the previous CfD. I don't like the idea that anyone can claim authorship of an article, even if they were the only contributor to the article. This is a Wiki. To make this project work EVERYONE must buy into the idea that this is a collaborative effort. No individual should ever take authorship credit. I nominated an article for featured article status, but I am not the author. It was a collective effort. I contributed the large majority of effort into creating and editing a list that made it to featured list status, but that still does not make me the author. Even if I was the only editor of a featured or good articles, others will edit them in the future. I think of myself more as a guardian or fascilitator of the article. These categories give people the wrong idea about Wikis. -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete While often there may be a "project leader" (named or unnamed), or even a sole contributor, this just comes too close to WP:OWN. - jc37 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Samuel Wantman and jc37. —Mir l e n 04:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete If someone goes back to some featured article and makes a small edit or makes some small edit to a bunch of proposed featured articles one of which is selected, does that editor get one of these? If so, they're meaningless. Carlossuarez46 06:49, 10 September 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 regarding 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 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circism. Category is for articles relating to a non-notable religion that gets zero Google hits. -Elmer Clark 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 22:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cswrye 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - after reading the article, and then reading the text after clicking the link in the article, I think that the authors are likely the same person. - jc37 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I checked the article and the category. Maybe it will be notable one day, but today is not that day. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All articles in the category have now been deleted at AfD. -Elmer Clark 22:21, 11 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Vector version available. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:10, 6 September 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 regarding 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 18:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, Would be better to listify, many of the articles don't even mention the celeb's connection to the Republicans. Also, why are we singling out celebs?. Note there is also an ongoing discussion on a similar category, Hollywood Supporters of the Democratic Party. I didn't lump this one into that since the discussion was already well under way. Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 10:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and previous discussion. --Cswrye 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. I think if either goes, they both should go (and I think they both should go, between them (excluding supporters of independants), that's everyone in Hollywood : ) - jc37 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 06:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Please — this is something for which I could use a quick reference.

Responses to Delete arguments above:

lack of objective criteria is not all that damning, as long as something on the page details the connection. If these people were being marked for death, then a more stringent standard might be necessary, but we're just tagging articles here.
We're singling out celebs for the same reason my biography is considered "non-notable" by Wikipedia standards. Shannon Doherty's on-camera appearance at the GOP convention was notable because of her celebrity.
I have no opinion on Keeping/Deleting Hollywood Supporters of the Democratic Party. However, I don't believe "if either goes, they both should go" is a fair standard because I consider Hollywood Republicans more notable. We should keep Category:Incidents where man bites dog, even if we delete Category:Incidents where dog bites man. Even if the Hollywood Republicans category swells to 1000 names, it is of interest because of the stereotype of Hollywood (and especially Hollywood celebrities) being overwhelmingly liberal and/or Democrats.

Additional compelling reasons:

If this category were deleted, some ninny would start a list page for it.
Holy cow, Alice Cooper? –edgarde 15:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete non-Objective; what is a "Hollywood supporter" of anything? LaszloWalrus 18:01, 13 September 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 regarding 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 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, Another incompatible with WP:CHILD.I would have put it into the umbrella nom below (birth years), but felt it should be on its own, as the other has a comment added already. Can we make this and the 'by birth year' noms go quickly? Elliskev 19:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As elsewhere: all contributors should be aware that WP:CHILD is a proposed policy, not a current one. Voting 'Delete per WP:CHILD' is arguably premature. The Land 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I noted elsewhere, I chose the word incompatible over per for just that reason. I hope my nom doesn't read as being misleading. I recommend to all that before commenting here, read proposal WP:CHILD. Elliskev 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - It's probably best not to point out children on this site. Also see my reasoning below. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and above. David Kernow 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep does not violate any current policies, nominating and voting per a proposal is premature. Thryduulf 23:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There is no per a proposal. They both stem from the same concern. WP:CHILD is referenced to address that mutual concern. --Elliskev 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I fully understand this, see my comments there for the reasons why it is a bad idea. Thryduulf 02:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result of this CfD should probably be tied in with the results of this TfD for obvious reasons. In support of this idea, I vote whatever the result of the TfD linked is, simply for consistency. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DOH! :) --Elliskev 23:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Thryduulf and insofar as, whilst this CfD does not, as Elliskev well notes, rest on WP:CHILD, it nevertheless incorporates by reference the thinking that underlies CHILD, about the propriety of which thinking a determination ought first to be made at a page at which a discussion in which are involved editors particularly interested in the relevant issues in extant, viz., at Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy, where the identification of a consensus vis-à-vis the overarching issues ought first to be undertaken. There is no pressing need for us to dispose of the broader questions, and, where one location exists at which a discussion is underway, we need not to create a new one (as at the CfDs and TfD that have followed from the CHILD discussion); notwithstanding that, my support of our keeping this template follows also from my opposition to WP:CHILD. Joe 05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep-per norm Hmrox 03:14, 10 September 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 regarding 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 have someone move the articles as requested (I don't know which ones need to go); let me know when that's complete and I'll make the remaining cat rename. --Kbdank71 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Laws into Category:Law

Merge, This category is redundant and seldom used. Its content should be incoporated into the appropriate subcategories of Category:Law. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge due to redundancy. See below. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom (but I note request to fragment Category:Law on its page; anyone qualified...?)
Abstain per apparent need for reorganiz/sation described below. David Kernow 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC), amended 02:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge, almost all laws that have articles will fit into a more explanatory Laws of Country X category. --Dhartung | Talk 02:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not merge. Category:Law is about the kind of law that legislatures and courts deal with. Category:Laws is a hodgepodge, containing two individual articles (both of which belong under Category:Law or one of its subcategories, plus a subcategory Category:Sex laws which also does. However, the two other subcategories under Category:Laws are Category:Eponymous laws and Category:Statistical laws, which have very little to do with the kind of laws that legislatures and courts deal with; those are about scientific laws. (Well, mostly. I see Megan's Law is in Category:Eponymous laws, too.) However, I could support a merger if Category:Laws were cleaned up first to deal with this concern. --Metropolitan90 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a good point. Perhaps we can move all the "legal" laws out of the "Laws" category, and then re-name whatever remains "Scientific Laws" or something similar.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I agree. I think that the purpose of this category makes more sense now, but it's still very ambiguous. How about this: 1) Merge legal topics from Category:Laws into Category:Law and rename Category:Laws to Category:Scientific laws. --Cswrye 17:36, 8 September 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 regarding 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 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, Incompatible with WP:CHILD. Elliskev 18:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Jesus, this is all we need. Incompatible with WP:CHILD per above. Perv magnet. Herostratus 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All contributors to the debte should be aware (as both Elliskev and Herostratus are) that WP:CHILD is a proposal, not a policy; that this debate should not feel bound by it; and that the result of this deletion debate will be seen as indicative of what should happen to the WP:CHILD proposal. The Land 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I think that I created some (but not all) of these categories. I did it for consistency since there were categories for some years but not others, and I figured that people would add themselves to them as they got older. However, protecting children is more important than that, and I support the proposal at WP:CHILD. These categories can go. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. David Kernow 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and delete Category:Wikipedians born in 1992, Category:Wikipedians born in 1991 and Category:Wikipedians born in 1990 as well. There is a story in the British papers today about the jailing of an Icelandic man who was caught in a hotel room with a 14 year old he had groomed on the internet. Hawkestone 10:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
strong keep. None of these categories violate any current policies, nor do they encourage anybody to violate any proposed policies or real-world laws. Voting per a policy proposal that does not yet have common acceptance is premature and possibly trying to stack the debate. Thryduulf 23:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'll ask you to assume good faith in the nomination. The categories may not violate current policy (they likely wouldn't violate the proposed policy, either), but if the idea of the proposed policy is good, then the idea of these categories existing is bad. Elliskev 00:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - If you read my comments on the proposed policy you'll see why I beleive it to be a bad idea. Thryduulf 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've responded to those. Elliskev 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, these categories would be similar to the x-years-old categories... and it would be revealing a person's age (and those of which are under 13 WP:CHILD DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I am in favour of deletion of ALL Wikipedian age categories. - jc37 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongest possible keep consistent with my argument supra at the Child Wikipedians CfD, to-wit, that we ought to reserve judgment as to the rightfulness of the thinking underlying WP:CHILD until a decision is reached at Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy, where a discussion involving interested editors is underway, such that this CfD seems merely to present an additional (unnecessary) venue at which to discuss the spirit of CHILD. Notwithstanding that, if we are simply, per Elliskev, to adjudge this category in the context of the thinking underlying CHILD, I then support our keeping per the objections levelled against CHILD at the proposal's talk page by Radiant. FWIW, I would, as Jc37, support the deletion of all Wikipedian age categories, which I think to serve little community-building and thus encyclopedic purpose, but I don't think it appropriate that some be deleted and some be preserved. Joe 05:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What freaking language are you speking? Can you give a reason that's closer to coherency? Not meaning to be rude, but I can't understand a word of that. --Elliskev 22:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's saying that since WP:CHILD isn't an official policy yet, these shouldn't be deleted D e mos D e mon 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless all Wikipedian's born in... categories are deleted. Thryduulf 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all as unencyclopedic irrelevances. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not a community. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 12 September 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 regarding 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 redirect --Kbdank71 14:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Category:Mountains of Iran, convention of Category:Mountains by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect per WP:NCCAT. --Dhartung | Talk 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Category:Mountains in Iran is correct. Mountains don't move around very fast. (Plate tectonics is slow.) WP:NCCAT does not specify the use of 'of' or 'in'. 'Of', being more generic often leads to ambiguity, while 'in' leads to clarity. If a particular mountain is used as a symbol in Persian literature would that mountain, even though it is geographically in Turkey, be a mountain of Iran? Redirect Category:Mountains of Iran to Category:Mountains in Iran. Bejnar 05:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (categories)#Landforms -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. "of" is used per naming conventions. - Darwinek 22:34, 10 September 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 10:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Important people in rail transport to Category:People in rail transport

Rename, Per WP:NCCAT; presumably only the "important" ones are in Wikipedia. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment First, a quick thanks for the notice on WP Trains. I have no strong preference for (in|ex)cluding "important" in the category name. The nominator is correct that WP Trains has worked to include only the notable contributors to the industry. Slambo (Speak) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename - "Important" is unnecessary in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cswrye (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment The title "People in rail transport" could refer to job roles eg; Signalman, Guard etc. Having said that those people could also be described as "important" I would prefer to see it be called "Famous people in rail transport"Jodywebster 01:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe "famous", "important" and "notable" are adjectives to be avoided, so how about Category:Rail transport personalities...? Regards, David Kernow 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. I don't think David Kernow's proposal solves any of the problems. Hawkestone 10:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. Other wise we will forever be debating who is/is not important! Rgds, - Trident13 16:52, 11 September 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 regarding 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. the wub "?!" 10:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:History of theater to Category:History of theatre

Rename, Supercat is Category:Theatre, subcats all take the spelling theatre. I appreciate this is a US/UK thing, but it should be consistent, and the article is at theatre too. Tim! 17:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename, consistency. Herostratus 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename for consistency. Also, I see the spelling "theatre" frequently used in American English too. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. Some of the U.S. categories use "theatre". Olborne 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom. "Theatre" is usually preferred by US theatre people, to disambiguate from other meanings. --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per all the above reasons. -- the GREAT Gavini 10:55, 10 September 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 regarding 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 --WinHunter ^(talk) 10:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, at least for now. There aren't any articles about egg cartons. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, empty and likely to stay so. Herostratus 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Empty and little potential for growth. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, no eggs, no chickens. This seems like a stub wanting to be egg carton, so I merged it with carton. --Dhartung | Talk 02:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. An article about traditional, pre-plastics ways to store eggs would be most interesting. Pavel Vozenilek 20:21, 7 September 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 regarding 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 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikipedians who play EverQuest II, convention of Category:Wikipedians who play computer and video games. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Rename.--Mike Selinker 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename per nom. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Seven Network shows, policy against current / former distinction due to upkeep issues. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge/delete (empty) per nom. David Kernow 01:38, 7 September 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 regarding 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 redirect --Kbdank71 14:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Category:Germany. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect per nom. David Kernow 01:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per nom. Merchbow 21:49, 7 September 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 regarding 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 listify --Kbdank71 14:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, content should become list article in Category:Ontario Hockey League coaches. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listify, though it could also become a category of the name propsoed by Provelt too.--Mike Selinker 00:19, 7 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:OLIVIA songs, convention of Category:Songs by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Rename to category:Olivia songs. We've been slowly de-capping Japanese artist names, such as category:High and Mighty Color songs.--Mike Selinker 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per Mike Selinker There's also Category:OLIVIA albums. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Tag that one too.--Mike Selinker 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - There's already an Category:Olivia albums, and it's for a different Olivia (singer). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 05:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Well, let's not add complication. Leave the name uppercase in both cases for the Japanese singer.--Mike Selinker 07:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - I agree. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:48, 7 September 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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Romanian communication companies into Category:Telecommunications companies of Romania

Merge, into the standard category. The 5 articles currently in the category are all about telecommunications companies. Brammen 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom. Olborne 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per nom. David Kernow 01:39, 7 September 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, Redundant to our far better-organized system of city transportation categories. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Redundant to Category:Transport by city. No need to merge. - EurekaLott 18:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per EurekaLott. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Olborne 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and above (plus faulty capitaliz/sation). David Kernow 01:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete nom. —Khoikhoi 04:03, 7 September 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 regarding 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, empty --Kbdank71 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, this is currently empty, but if it is populated then I will withdraw this nomination. Brammen 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless content is added to it. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete if still empty at closing time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:54, 7 September 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (recreation/inappropriate category). kingboyk 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, I remember there was a vote to delete all the X-Years-Old categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Pervert magnet. Brammen 14:35, 6 September 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, as this category contains only the main article, about the energy company, and one of its buildings, which are in a number of other categories already. There is no forseeable growth; there are no articles about predecessors, subsidiaries, or key personnel named in the article. choster 13:36, 6 September 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 regarding 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 already deleted --Kbdank71 19:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:WikiProject Sharks, category for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Why is there both Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks and Wikipedia:WikiProject Shark?
Merge. WP:Sharks had been on proposed since April but remained in userspace until WP:Shark was created. There seems to be some contention such as vandalism, and more recently a unilateral announcement that they are "co-projects". Start here. --Dhartung | Talk 16:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also MFD for the project. --Dhartung | Talk 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge as per above if reasonably possible, Delete if more practical. Badbilltucker 17:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per the MFD debate. Might I suggest that in practical terms this CFD is redundant to the MFD? I know strictly speaking in terms of process this is where categories get discussed, but worry ye not if the Project is deleted - which I'm sure it will be - we'll take care of the category/ies too. --kingboyk 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per the MfD debate. As to why, as I said there... See this where we have an example of an article talk tagged with two confusingly similar (and apparently competing) projects, Shark and Sharks. For casual editors (the ones that recent studies suggest provide most of the raw content that more experienced editors like the folk who frequent MfD reshape into polished articles) that has to be very offputting and discordant. This project needs to go, and further, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council should be working to ensure that duplications of effort like this are avoided as early as possible. The amount of effort put into this project is sad, because it's all wasted, but that is no reason not to delete. NOTE: In general I support keeping category and miscellaney deletes separate, sometimes there is reason to keep one but not the other. Not this time, though, this category and all others associated with the project are clearly part of the project and should go if it goes. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yes, it is a little sad. At least by acting now we ensure he won't waste any more time on it. :( --kingboyk 19:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per the MFD discussion. --Cswrye 22:13, 6 September 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. - EurekaLott 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, Already deleted once, same GIPU has restarted it. Please see old discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_25#Category:Heroes_who_turned_evil ThuranX 11:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Brammen 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears that when the previous discussion was closed, there was a bit of an oversight, and the category was never deleted. I'm closing this as speedy delete. - EurekaLott 01:16, 7 September 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an recreation of a category deleted after discussion on June 9. The consensus then was quite strong, but I think it might be worth revisiting as it is now better populated and was likely created without knowledge of the previous cat. The current cat also has a preamble intended to limit the scope to characters who died within the body of their fictional work.

My objection is mostly Postdlf's from the previous discussion: fiction is essentially timeless and the characters that die in chapter ten continue to live for readers in chapter one. ×Meegs 11:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just discovered User:Nohat's comments on the talk page, which express the same problem far more elegantly. ×Meegs 11:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also see that we now have Category:Fictional murder victims. This doesn't bother me as much, but fictional complements for all of Category:Deaths by cause can't be far behind. ×Meegs 12:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I agree, fiction is "timeless". Also I don't see the point of having such a category: who wants to look up dead fictional characters? Besides, this is kind of a "spoiler category", deaths of characters are usually considered spoilers and placing them in a category makes it impossible to include a spoiler warning. MrTroy 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Deceased fictional characters do not all have anything worth noting in common. Brammen 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete delete delete. Not only useless, but doomed to be forever filled with inappropriate entries. This category, as currently named, can only really be legitimately filled with characters who are already dead at the start of a work of fiction. As it is, it is filled with characters who die during the course of the work of fiction, and if there were to be a category of such characters it would have to be called "Fictional characters who die during the course of a work of fiction". As Meegs so elegantly said, "characters that die in chapter ten continue to live for readers in chapter one", so describing them as "deceased" is just wrong. Nohat 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mark as ((deletedcategory)), Category:Protected deleted categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom ThuranX 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fictional characters don't really die. They just fade away. --Cswrye 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. If we can have categories for divorced fictional characters, or Jedi masters, why not this one? It groups together characters in the same way. I don't see what the problem is with this category. To answer a few quieries:
- Re: spoilers - the category is found at the bottom of the page, so users would have to scroll through the article anyway. Perhaps a spoiler tag could be added to the category page though?
- Re: name of category - to me it just suggests "Fictional characters that are deceased", not just ones that were deceased before the book/series etc started. If a character dies, they then become a deceased fictional character.
- Re: "characters continuing to live" - the same could apply with divorced characters for example. Frasier Crane is divorced in Frasier, but still married in Cheers. Does this mean he should not be included in the "fictional divorcees" category?
Delete and mark as ((deletedcategory)), Category:Protected deleted categories. Far too broad. Merchbow 21:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. RobJ1981 04:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created the category, not realising it had been done in the past. I do apologise. :-) ALthough I must add a vote for keep because the user above who suggests keep makes a few good points. If we get rid of this category because the characters continue to live in earlier works, then that makes a lot of categories redundant. Why would we need "Fictional divorcees" if in some past life the characters were still married (such as the Frasier Crane example above) for example? Maybe though the catergory could be renamed though. Perhaps this category should be kept for characters like Harry Potter's parents who were dead before the stories take place, and another category set up for those who die during the series as suggested above, although probably with a shorter name? :-) Hill Valley Telegraph

The temporal issue is a significant problem for me, but if there were a truly interesting characteristic that would make a reasonably-sized category, I might be able to overlook it. Do you want to browse through a category of hundreds or thousands of characters that have nothing in common except that they, at some point, died? Divorcees is a slightly more interesting set, but still not worthwhile if you ask me. ×Meegs 10:32, 9 September 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 regarding 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/merge to Category:Women in the United States military --Kbdank71 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy renaming by Ian Cairns with comment, "US-centric category without the name prefix" but not eligible for speedy renaming to that name. Osomec 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Women in the United States military...? David Kernow 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per David Kernow. Not sure if it should be a subcat of Category:Women in war. Most of what's in there is American, but it includes spies and civilian medics.--Dhartung | Talk 16:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per David K. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:18, 7 September 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Only two articles in category, and they appear to be the same thing (I have put merge notices on them). Doesn't look like there's much potential for growth. —Cswrye 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - And I thought the Web 2.0 was bad. --waffle iron ^talk 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Category:Semantic web. The article might have a reason to exist, because Semantic Web is a rather more rigorous terminology, but there's nothing in this cat that doesn't fit there. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - You call that a category! -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 10:24, 6 September 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 regarding 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 18:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, User:HongQiGong Created it after a link to the category was removed from the Userbox he created. DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Delete, the userbox that uses said category has only one transcoder, leaving the Category empty and pointless (as are most user-grouping categories). DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment, is there a policy against creating Categories that are redlinked? --- Hong Qi Gong 01:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Reply, no not against new categories so I'll retract my original reason for adding it to CFD, but I'll also replace it with a different reason that more suits it being deleted. DemosDemon ^{(Talk - contrib)} 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - If the Category is empty, then wait four days and put Template:db-catempty on it. But it had only been a matter of hours since its creation. Anyway, the Category is no longer empty. Cheers. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - This is a newly created Category that's referenced by Template:User Mongolian, a userbox that's listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/Asia. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Looks fine to me.--Mike Selinker 00:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - They have wikipedians for every other country. I see no need to delete Mongolia.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:44, 9 September 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 regarding 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 really sure what is requested; perhaps renominate at WP:CFDU? --Kbdank71 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Category:Wikipedians with current projects to Category:Wikipedians by collaboration (compare to category:Wikipedia collaborations) and keep as a subcat of category:Wikipedians. (Otherwise, technically this would/should be a group of all wikipedians. : )

Sub-categories:

Rename category:User COTW to category:Wikipedians who participate in COTW
Rename category:User USCOTW to category:Wikipedians who participate in USCOTW (should this be a sub cat of COTW?)

category:Wikipedians who want the xx-s babel box level - probably not a collaboration [1]) Sub-category of category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy (~~How about as a subcat of: category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status?~~ Alternate sub-cat suggestions welcome.)

Merge and Delete existing category:Wikipedians by WikiProject to category:Participants in WikiProjects Note that Wikipedians by Wikiproject is a redirect AND has subcats : )

Rename category:Participants in WikiProjects to category:Wikipedians by WikiProject, and making it a subcat of category:Wikipedians. - jc37 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support all, though I don't think "Wikipedians by WikiProject" needs to move up a level. Thanks for taking this one on. (xx-s could go in category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia philosophy.)--Mike Selinker 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds ok with me, though I am reluctant to see Wikipedians by WikiProject stay within collaborations. As for the rest, thanks for the suggestion! - If only you had read and responded on your talk page... : ) - jc37 05:48, 7 September 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.

September 6

Wikipedians by philosophy (adding "Wikipedians")

Wikipedians by philosophy (changing "Users" to "Wikipedians")

Category:Fictional characters who had changed their birth names

Category:Wellness

Category:Fictional feminists

Wikipedian authors

Category:Circism

Category:SupersededSVG

Category:Hollywood Supporters of the Republican Party

Category:Child Wikipedians

Category:Laws

Umbrella categories:Wikipedians born after 1992

Category:Mountains in Iran

Category:Important people in rail transport

Category:History of theater

Category:Egg packaging

Category:EverQuest II Fan

Category:Current Seven Network shows

Category:German

Category:Ontario Hockey League head coaches

Category:OLIVIA singles

Category:Romanian communication companies

Category:Transportation in Cities

Category:Romanian clothing

Category:14 year old Wikipedians

Category:Williams Companies

Category:WikiProject Shark

Category:Heroes who turned evil

Category:Deceased fictional characters

Category:Military Women to Category:United States military women

Category:Web 3.0

Category:Mongolian Wikipedians

Category:Wikipedians with current projects