Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 23 and Shahabad Markanda: Difference between pages

Revision as of 13:24, 31 January 2006

Revision as of 10:16, 19 July 2007

Line 1:

<!-- See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities]] for details -->{{Infobox Indian Jurisdiction |

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">

native_name = shahabad markanda|

{| width = "100%"

type = city |

|-

latd = | longd = |

! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 22|January 22]]

state_name = Haryana |

! width="50%" align="right" | [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 24|January 24]] <font color="gray">&gt;</font>

district = [[Kurukshetra District|Kurukshetra]] |

|}

leader_title = |

</div>

leader_name = |

altitude = 30°9'49"N 76°52'15"E |

population_as_of = 2001 |

population_total = 37,130|

population_density = |

area_magnitude= sq. km |

area_total = |

area_telephone = 01744 |

postal_code = 136135|

vehicle_code_range = |

sex_ratio = |

unlocode = |

website = |

footnotes = |

}}

'''Shahbad''' is a city and a [[Local Governance in India| Municipal Committee]] in [[Kurukshetra District]] in the [[India]]n [[States and territories of India|state]] of [[Haryana]].

=== January 23 =Demographics==

[[As of 2001]] India [[census]]{{GR|India}}, Shahbad had a population of 37,130. Males constitute 53% of the population and females 47%. Shahbad has an average literacy rate of 73%, higher than the national average of 59.5%: male literacy is 76%, and female literacy is 69%. In Shahbad, 11% of the population is under 6 years of age.

<!-- Please do not add new nominations to this page, as this CFD day has concluded. Put any new nominations to the current day page instead. Thank you for your cooperation. -->

==Location==

====[[:Category:Living people]] to [[:Category:*]]====

Shahbad lies 21 kilometers south of [[Ambala]] on the Ambala [[Delhi]] Highway. It is some 30 kilometers to the North of [[Kurukshetra]] city, which is the capital of the district. Shahbad is on the national highway, and has a railway station on the Delhi Ambala line.

It is agreed that it is an administrative category. It was intensensly unpopular when nominated for deletion, but Jimbo Wales will not consider deletion. Therefore the idea of giving it the least noticeable possible name has been floated a couple of times on the talk page. Renaming it to a symbol should reduce the risk of subcategories popping up when they are not appropriate. '''Rename''' [[:Category:*]] [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

It lies on the banks of the river [[Markanda]]- A tributary of the [[Ghaggar]], and supposed to be a part of the ancient/ Vedic [[Saraswati River]] Basin system. There is a large historic temple on the banks of the river with Markendeshwar, the river sage/deity being worshipped there.

There is also a road from [[Panchkula]], via Ramgarh and Dosarka that comes out near Shahbad.

There are also direct roads to [[Ladwa]] and [[Radaur]] as well as [[Yamunanagar]] from Shahbad.All these being east of Shahbad. [[Pipli]], near [[Kurukshetra]] and [[Nilokheri]] are other nearby towns on the National highway.

==Economy==

:I disagree that it was intensely unpopular when nominated for deletion. A handful of AfD regulars voted against it, but that's hardly a community process. I consider this renaming poll to be nothing short of trolling.

It is a significant agricultural market for procurement of agricultural products. The area being on a river bank is fertile and is used for paddy as well as wheat and vegetables. The yield is very high, and the belt till [[Karnal]] has a large number of rice mills to pick up the high quality grain.

==Sports==

:The idea that the category is 'too broad' or 'useless' is directly contradicted by the fact that we have literally dozens of categories which are just as broad or broader.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Of late Shahbad has produced a large number of women hockey players. This is thanks to the efforts of Coach Baldev Singh, who is also a Asst Director in the Haryana Sports department. The current national Hockey team has 12 women from Shahbad. For the last decade Shahbad has produced a large number of women Hockey players who have donned Haryana , [[Railways]] or Indian team colours. It has got the epithet of [[Sansarpur]] of Women's hockey. Current national team representatives from Shahbad are :- Suman Bala, Nutan, Meenakshi, Simarjeet Kaur, Balwinder Kaur, Kiran Bala, Gurpreet Kaur, Jasjeet Kaur, Rajni Bala, Rajwinder, Gagandeep Kaur and Surinder Kaur.

==History==

Just a note: '''DELETE IS NOT AN OPTION'''. Jimbo Wales has specifically vetoed deletion. We're only talking renaming. &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Historically it was a muslim majority town, with references made to a fort during Mughal times, and raids as well as sacking of the fort by [[Banda Bahadur]]. Significantly it also has a historic gurudwara of those times. After partition most of the muslims left, and Punjabi Sikh's and Hindu's from Pakistan were resettled here. The town and surrounding villages hence have a large Punjabi presence.

At the time of partition it was a small village, but has subsequently grown and now even has to urban area sectors planned and developed by [[HUDA]].

==Links==

*'''Rename''' [[:Category:Funct people]], to Wikify against [[:Category:Defunct people]]. [[User:12.73.196.175|12.73.196.175]] 23:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Article on hockey in Shahbad [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040228/spr-trib.htm#1]

*'''Rename''' to *, it takes up minimal space, does not tempt people to try to navigate with it, and because it doesn't actually say "this is a living person" it can be used for other things which equally require monitoring like a band article containing biographical info (or in fact anything we like). Incidentally the CFR tag has been removed from the category [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ALiving_people&diff=36421586&oldid=36420327] , not sure if it was intentional or not. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 00:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

**I found no mention of the tag removal on the talk page so I replaced it. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose renaming'''. Proposed target of renaming is uninformative. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 00:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

**It's supposed to be uninformative. The hope is that casual readers (ie. nearly everyone) will ignore it. When people see it they only need click on it once to find out what it is about, and then they can forget about it again. Much better than having the absurdity of "living people" under your nose all the time. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. If the category must exist, make its meaning transparent. If its scope is changed, ''then'' rename it. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. I'd also agree to [[:Category:Watched bio]]. Nobody is advocating that this is a useful category for browsing, its creation is just for administrative purposes. For this reason I think it should have a very low profile. If it has a longer name, the TALK page should be categorized instead of the article page. At present, that would make it difficult to look at related changes for all the articles, so a compromise is to make this name as unobtrusive as possible. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' [[:category:*]] as the best available alternative to deletion. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose renaming'''. "Living people" is a good category. Nothing wrong with that. -User:Carie

*'''Rename''' or do whatever to make it as invisible as possible. [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 03:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' at least with "living people" one can figure out which articles are in there. A name such as " * ", might be acceptable for a template based category. If one wants to make it disappear, it might be possible to do this on the custom CSS. -- User:Docu

*'''Rename''' as proposed. Keep it out of the way as much as possible. This won't impair its intended use. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. I'm tuning in late on this one, and amn't fully up to date (though I'm vaguely aware of there being an edict in effect) so sorry if this has been covered already. Can't we simply keep the category as-is, but use it on talk pages only, as is fairly usual for "advisory" or "administrative" categories? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 06:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

**I have suggested this several times with no "official" response. I suspect the problem is that currently the category is being monitored using ''Related changes''. Putting the category on the talk page would defeat this. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 06:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

***Ah-hah. Sorry, missed your comment above. So if this is indeed the thinking behind this being a non-negotiable requirement, would be vote of '''delete and replace by a humungous list''' (re-partitioned to taste) still be out of order, then? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 04:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

****Yes, that's still out of order, apparently for technical reasons it has to be a category. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 07:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*****I'm guessing this is to do with article size, hence my comment about partitioning it. Or something else? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 07:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

******I asked about lists [[Category_talk:Living_people#Not_a_list_and.2For_template.3F|here]], apparently a category is the only way to generate the lists without software changes. Note that repartitioning defeats the purpose, because people would have to watch more than one place. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*******But it's not being done automatedly anyway, is it? Subcategorisation of "Living people"'s already been mooted, so it's not clear to me that a ''single'' place to watch is an absolute requirement. Or even that it's a good idea, given the scale of the monitoring task. Splitting by initial letter, or by nationality, would give feasibly-sized pages to watch. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

******Well it's automatic in the sense that editing the article puts it in the category, whereas editors would have to edit the (huge) lists themselves if there was no category. I suppose we should try to get a definite answer on whether partioning is an option. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 08:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. There is nothing wrong with "Living poeple". [[User:Philip Stevens|Philip Stevens]] 07:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. Kappa's arguments are good ones. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. When I saw this category existed it made me twitch a little bit. Far, far too broad a category. Anything to make it less visible. [[User:Baldghoti|Rob]] 13:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' as per Kappa. - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] 14:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''': what kind of stupid name is "*"? Are we trying for the special category in the [[obfuscated code]] competition again? What is the problem with having a biographical article belong to the appropriate category according to the subject's death date, with a handy <del>little</del>&nbsp;<ins>enormous</ins> box for those who haven't yet had the courtesy to drop dead and provide us with a proper date? Stop mucking around and get categorising! HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''': I agree that "Living people" isn't a category that I'd create, but making it ''unobtrusive'' by making it obfuscated is just bad form. Let's keep it as "Living people" and work to make the category invisible using a software change, if it really shouldn't be visable to users browsing. It's not a usable category, but at least we know what it is by looking at it. [[User:Jrp|JRP]] 15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

**I agree with that... when I saw this category, I thought it was way too broad for the average person to really care about, and would be more of an administrative category. I'd say don't rename the category, but make it invisible somehow on the articles about living people. [[User:FreakyFlyBry|FreakyFlyBry]] 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose renaming''', obfuscation is not the way to make this idea more useful. Skin-modifications for hiding/separating administrative categories may be. -- [[User:Nae'blis|nae'blis]] <i>_{[[User_talk:Nae'blis|(talk)]]}</i> 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' -- suggested change is uninformative. Another idea... We've already got a tickbox for indicating a minor edit. What about a similar tickbox like 'this is a living person'? Or something similar to the current image upload system where we choose a licence? The 'living flag' set could be disabled from view via changes to the skin, or enabled for those who want to view it. This idea needs some work but I'd much prefer something along these lines than using a category. - [[User:Longhair|Longhair]] 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

**The whole point of doing this with a category is to avoid using up developer's time with code fixes. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' rename. * is completely meaningless. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose'''. When I first saw this category, I thought it was a rather odd idea (and would become ridiculously large), but per Jimbo, it should be kept, and under an informative name. <nowiki>*</nowiki> is used when we're indexing something particularly important, that a reader would be specifically looking for, into a category - plus the other uses that <nowiki>*</nowiki> has in wiki code. To have a category by that same name would be quite confusing. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont havaname|Talk]]) 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' This really is essential to stop this becoming a massive burden through creation of subcategories. If it is not renamed we should have a policy that all subcategories can be speedy deleted on sight. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 22:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''THIS IS INSANE--A CATEGORY FOR ALL LIVING PEOPLE--DO WE HAVE 6 BILLION WIKIPAGES TO SPARE??!!!

**Technically, yes: [[WP:NOT]] paper. Your next question…? —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

***Technically, yes, but practically, no we don't. [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 15:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

****If we had 30 KB (very large article, in other words, about half the length of [[GWB]]'s page) on each of 6,000,000 people, that would be 180 TB extra. There are about 38.7 million page revisions stored; taking 2 KB from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm here] as a rough mean of page size, that's around 80 GB counting metadata. So yes, I think it may be correct to say that a 2000-fold increase in database size might be impractical. :) &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

**My understanding is that the category is only for noteworthy living people, not all living people, so there isn't a need for 6 billion articles in the category, because only a fraction of the 6 billion people are noteworthy. [[User:Q0|Q0]] 12:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS INSANE!!!! [[User:67.101.192.188|67.101.192.188]] 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)([e-mail])

:Yes, but there are still 100 million people that are noteworthy. <b><font color="darkblue">[[User:Rogerthat| R]]</font><font color="red">[[User:Rogerthat|o]]</font><font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/Rogerthat|gerthat]]</font></b> ''^{<font color="black">[[User_talk:Rogerthat|Talk]]</font>}'' 06:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

::It'll only be 57,000. The thinking is this will allow them to monitor all 57,000 for potential lawsuits. This is supported by the fact that this category has been around ten whole days and there hasn't been a Wikipedia related libel scandal in that vastly long stretch of time. If you don't think this proves the case for it, as I don't, you should bring that up in a more appropriate venue.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 13:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Delete'''.</s> Agree with 67.101 etc. This has to be the most dumbass category outside the various "Wikipedian" cats. It will also require constant monitoring, every time a few hundred thousand people per day pop off, they will all have to be shifted to [[:Category:Dead people]]. Or don't they count? Anyway, it will only draw still more time away from RESEARCHING AND WRITING INTELLIGENT AND ACCURATE ARTICLES on the several billion topics not even yet identified in Wikipedia, not to mention adding all the living people yet to be included in this cat. Wikipedia at the breaking point... [[User:12.73.195.185|12.73.195.185]] 01:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

**"Delete" is not an option, by decree of Jimbo. I've taken the liberty of striking that out, please choose another option. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

***On thinking on it I'm erasing my previous comments. I went to the category talk page and got a sense of its true purpose. The purpose is simply stupid and there's no rename that could really alter that. The purpose intended will inevitably fail for reasons that would take too long to get into. I vote '''Delete'''.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 06:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

****Addendum. I still prefer delete, and consider it the best idea, but the template idea mentioned below is acceptable if delete is not allowed.(Or not allowed right now, it might be allowed later)--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 06:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Delete'''</s> and populate [[:Category:Year of death missing]]. Anybody who is not there or [[:Category:(year) deaths]] should be alive. --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 02:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

**'''Question''': how would you be proposing that we tell the difference between an article on a living person but without a "Death Year" category and an article on an [[cane toad|animal]] or a [[Glubbdubdrib|fictional ___location]] which would obviously not have such a category either? You would have to label all the articles on people, right? So why not put them into this category? HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

**"Delete" is not an option. There has to be an actual category, no just an absense of other categories, so that that the articles can be monitored. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

***And how... and who will monitor tens of thousands of articles this category will eventually have? If I have the answer for this I will be able to give a better opinion. At this point it is still "Delete". --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 07:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

****"How" is by visiting the category page and clicking on "related changes". "Who" is people who want to <s> help wikipedia by monitoring</s> monitor the most potentially damaging pages. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 07:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*****There is no need to be condescending with "... people who want to help wikipedia". The how can be performed just fine by looking at addition/removals of [[:Category:(year) deaths]] and [[:Category:Year of death missing]] without including a category that simply does not look right... not even as [[:Category:*]] --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 09:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

******Sorry if that sounded condescending. I don't follow the "how" part though, under your proposal, what will I click on to see a list of all the most recent changes to articles about living people? [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 09:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*******In the living people category page click on the "Related Changes " link situated on the left side of the page. This will generate a page similar to "Recent Changes" but only showing changes to articles in this category. This can then be patrolled in the same way as the Recent Changes patrol. Look out especially for any edit by anons. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 13:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' per CalJW. -- [[User:Jjjsixsix|Jjjsixsix]] ^{([[User talk:Jjjsixsix|talk]])}/_{([[Special:Contributions/Jjjsixsix|contribs]])} <small>@</small> 05:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Living People is at least informative. "Oh, horrors, 12 whole additional characters in a box at the bottom of the page, whatever shall we do?" Give me a break. Besides, using * for a textual label when it can be avoided? The vast quantities of code that use wildcarding alone make that not even an option under most circumstances. -- [[User:Jake Nelson|Jake]] 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. Very "useful" category. Rename to more invisible variant. Oh and btw. create also "Dead people", to be ironic. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] 10:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. Anything to make this inane category less visible. Perhaps [[:Category:☥]] (see [[ankh|☥]]) would be better, and use [[:Category:†]] (see [[dagger (typography)|†]]) for the dead? &mdash; '''''[[User:Freakofnurture/|<font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F<small>REAK OF</small> N<small>UR_xTURE</small></font>]]'' <small>(<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User talk:Freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK</font>]</span>)</small>''' <small>10:41, Jan. 25, 2006</small>

*'''Oppose''' per Sean Curtin. If the goal is to make maintenance categories disappear, change the MediaWiki software to do that instead of having Category:! and Category:@, etc. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 14:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

**A software fix is not available, that's why we are having this discussion. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 14:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. When I first saw this category, I thought "this is the worst category I have ever seen in my life" until I looked into it a bit. A rename to make the category more obviously administrative and less obviously seen is alright by me. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 16:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. I don't really even see the point of the category (why do admins care?), but if deletion isn't a possibility, definitely rename it to something like '''*'''.

*'''Oppose''' - Keep it simple. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 18:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''', because what the heck is "funct", to the average reader? -- [[user:zanimum]]

**The proposal is to rename the category "*", not "funct people". That was simply the first vote, and likely a joke. [[User:EWS23|EWS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Oppose''' proposal to rename</s>. "Living people" is a straightforward and simple way to describe the category. "*" is not at all descriptive. I don't believe this category will clog up the list of categories for an article because the words "Living people" only takes up about the same amount of space as something like "[[:Category:1984 deaths|1984 deaths]]", and there will never be an article with both "Living people" and a deaths by year category. [[User:Q0|Q0]] 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

**I am changing my vote to '''support rename'''. I suspect that there are articles on Wikipedia that are not frequently watched by informed people. I believe that if the subject of an unwatched article dies, the article might remain categorized as "living people" a period of time after the person has died, and I don't think it would be a good thing for deceased people to be classified as "living people". I therefore believe that this is an "administors need to watch these articles" category rather than a "these people are alive" category. I do believe that if it is renamed to "*", the category's page should explain that it is an administrative category so that the reader is not confused as to what "Category:*" means. [[User:Q0|Q0]] 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' -- How many people are going to look at this category and say, "Gee, this should really be named '*'?" Perhaps an "administrative category" template or something similar would work better --[[User:Fermatprime|Fermatprime]] 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (original author of vote)

*'''Oppose''' -- '''Everyone''' in this category ''is'' a living person. However, '''none''' of them are asterisks. Simple as that. --[[User:CrazyLegsKC|CrazyLegsKC]] 03:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Delete'''</s> - the category is pretty redundant. I have no idea what purpose you are trying to accomplish by changing it to an asterik. ([[User:Ibaranoff24|Ibaranoff24]] 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

**Delete isn't an option; Jimbo runs things around here and says it stays. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]]&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">[[User talk:Spangineer|(háblame)]]</font></small> 07:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' Needs to be made invisible. [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]] <small>[[User_talk:CanadianCaesar|The Republic Restored]]</small> 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' to * or something else small&mdash;this is administrative, and will confuse people and look weird if not renamed. --[[User:Spangineer|Spangineer]]&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">[[User talk:Spangineer|(háblame)]]</font></small> 07:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*This sounds sensible. A very populous category should have a short name. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

**But * doesn't actually '''mean''' anything: it's the "universal wildcard", you might as well categorise '''all''' articles into it. What happens the next time we want to make a big category like this for administrative purposes? We have to name that one '''''[[:Category:**]]'''''? how would we ever tell the difference? HTH HAND —[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 13:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' -- The category is meaningful when placed next to the appropriate year of birth category in an article as it provides confirmation the person is still alive. It will also provide an alphabetic list of all notable living people , a sort of global Wiki ''[[Who's Who (UK)|Whos Who]]''. This is being created to combat possibly expensive and damaging libel suites. It needs to be as plain and open as possible about its function so no coded names please. [[User:Lumos3|Lumos3]] 13:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*If we wanted to hide the category it would be better to do that technically. However, I don't agree it shouldn't be hidden. Why on earth is this debate happening here? [[User:Morwen|Morwen]] - [[User_talk:Morwen|Talk]] 13:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' this is a kludge. Create an option in user preferences to hide this and other administrative categories. As this is not useful to ordinary readers, it should not appear on the article by default. This is not the way to accomplish that. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 15:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. If I could vote delete, I would; however, if it must stay, rename it to something practically invisible. [[User:EWS23|EWS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' s/w should be modified to hide it. In either event someone should create a bot so that any bios without a "died" date get tagged with the category. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' rename - While the category is going to be huge, renaming it to category:* will make it huge and confusing. This way, at least people know who should and shouldn't be part of the category. [[User:Sreed1234|Sue Anne]] 18:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' rename. Too confusing. I'd rather just see it deleted. [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]] 20:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose renaming'''. If the category must exist, then it should have a proper name, just like any other category. [[User:McPhail|McPhail]] 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Make this category visible to administrators only. [[User:The lorax|The lorax]] 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per [[User:CrazyLegsKC|CrazyLegsKC]], [[User:K1Bond007|K1Bond007]], [[User:McPhail|McPhail]]. Would vote to delete if I could. —[[User:Caesura|Caesura]][[User talk:Caesura|^(t)]] 04:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*If my vote counts in this CfD, then: '''Ask Jimbo to reconsider deleting this category''' otherwise, '''rename''' or '''keep, but don't use the category'''. This is a stupid category that doesn't need to exist. Is their a link for Jimbo's reasoning regarding keeping this category, or does he just not want to part with it? It's just an extraneous category that doesn't need to exist, and renaming it is really not going to do much, b/c people are just going to remove the category from articles if the category name makes no sense to the article in question. If Jimbo makes us keep it, then we should just not use it at all, and maybe he'll reconsider if enough people boycott it's use.--[[User:Azathar|Azathar]] 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

:*'''QUESTION''' OK, this is probably a dumb question, but what is an "administrative category"?--[[User:Azathar|Azathar]] 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

::*A category that is used by editors but not by users, for example cleanup and stub categories. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 15:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Delete'''</s> as a category and introduce, if it is really necessary, a new kind of administrative category accessible only to administrators and not to us mere mortals. Then those who wish to use it for administrative purposes can do so to their heart's content, and it can be out of everyone else's hair. Can I point out that I have up for vote (25th January) the deletion of a '''real''' category I initiated (Wagnerites) which even those who don't like it would concede fits Wikipedia criteria rather better than this one does --[[User:Smerus|Smerus]] 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

**Please don't vote "delete", the category is undeletable and this discussion is just about the name. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 09:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' renaming. "*" is unacceptable. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color="brown">note?</font>]])</small> 23:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' rename. If we have to have it, its name needs to make sense so that it's not misunderstood and misapplied. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 23:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' rename. The current category name makes more sense. In case we'll need another similar category, what will we name it, "**"? --[[User:Lbmixpro|LBMixPro]][[User talk:Lbmixpro|^&lt;Sp]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">^e</font>]][[User talk:Lbmixpro|^{ak|on|it!&gt;}]] 05:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Pure silliness. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 06:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*I think the '''rename''' proposal, though bizarre at first glance, makes sense. But I'm wondering if we might do better to consistently do this via a template that will make sense to editors, e.g. {{tl|living-bio}} or some such. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' rename [[User:Trödel|Trödel]]&#149;<font color="#F0F">[[User_talk:Trödel|talk]]</font> 13:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''; either the new name is ''totally'' invisible, or it's better being meaningful. - [[User:Paolo Liberatore|Liberatore]]([[User talk:Paolo Liberatore|T]]) 15:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' '''Support''' Category name "living" is silly. I would prefer deletion but a discreet symbol would be okay. Symbols are not "meaningless". People will understand them [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 15:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Delete'''</s> and use [[:Category:Year of death missing]], or replace 'Year of death missing' with [[:Category:Year of death not yet available]], [[:Category:Year of death not entered]] and [[:Category:Year of death not in historical records]]. Keeping it is stupid; replacing with a symbol is stupid. Do something useful like working on [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] instead. [[User:Noisy]] | [[User talk:Noisy|Talk]] 17:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

**I think it would be pretty creepy to look at an article on a living person and see [[:Category:Year of death missing]], but I guess it would be handy as a kind of ''[[memento mori]]''. [[User:Kappa|Kappa]] 17:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

***I agree, which is why I suggested the clarification of the categories. [[User:Noisy]] | [[User talk:Noisy|Talk]] 18:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

****Only people who are dead but their articles lack a precise year of death are and should be in that category. There are loads of people in this case. Same as the case of year of birth missing.--[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

**"Delete" is not an option, by decree of Jimbo. Didn't you mean "Merge with [[:Category:Year of death missing]]"? Persondata currently can't be searched effectively. &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Oppose''' and '''Delete''' or speedy delete</s> -- silly/unworkable category as above -- [[User:max rspct|<b><font color="#A0522D" face="Cartier Book"><big>max rspct</big></font></b>]]<font size="1"> [[User_talk:max rspct|<font color="Red">leave a message</font>]] </font> 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

**Please read [[Category talk:Living people]] before you call the category worthless. It serves a narrow, technical purpose. Regardless, "delete" is not an option. &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' rename, per LBMixPro. [[User:Jareha|jareha]] 18:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Would it be possible to categorize the talk pages of articles instead of the articles themselves? That way editors can be encouraged to look at the category but non-editors would not be. [[User:Q0|Q0]] 20:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

**The only reason (I understand) for this cat is to monitor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living_people related changes] to the articles. If the cat was placed on the talk pages, we would see which talk pages have changed, but not which articles have change. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''<nowiki>{{Support}}</nowiki>''' the renaming. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Weak oppose''' Neither of these is ideal, hopefully either would simply be a stopgap until something better is implemented. Current name is longer, but has less of a "huh?" factor. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 21:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Oppose'''</s> I think it's a bit rediculous, too much of a broad category, as there are plenty of people alive today I believe. [[User:Jamandell (d69)|Jamandell (d69)]] 00:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

**I'm not sure you understand the parameters of the vote. The question isn't whether to keep the category; this category is being put on every Wikipedia biography page, period, by decree of Jimbo. The only question is what to call it. &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' rename. It's deliberately obscure. And it's more likely to attract attention, get deleted by anon ips if it's not clear what it is. [[User:Megapixie|Megapixie]] 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Weak oppose''', current category name is clearer and hardly takes up a lot of space. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 04:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*Why wouldn't we just have a category for all people that are dead, those that are disappeared, and those that have Year of death missing? <b><font color="darkblue">[[User:Rogerthat| R]]</font><font color="red">[[User:Rogerthat|o]]</font><font color="darkblue">[[Special:Contributions/Rogerthat|gerthat]]</font></b> ''^{<font color="black">[[User_talk:Rogerthat|Talk]]</font>}'' 06:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' If it exists it should have a real name. Not sure why it's not allowed for CfD, not that I particularly care either way. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] ^{[[Wikipedia:Limited administrators|?]]} 06:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Asterisk what? People from the outerspace? Living people is lame enough (I don't get the point how this category helps in administration except if wikipedia were the world government), a star for everyone alive is even more stupid. --[[User:Starryboy|Starryboy]] 12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. The asterisk is meaningless, I think we should strive to be as clear as possible in all matters. Although, that being said, I am not sure why we need to create a category to keep tabs on what is being written on Wikipedia. There are other ways of doing this which are less intrusive to our readers. [[User:Rje|Rje]] 13:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Just get rid of it'''</s>. Pointless, pointless, pointless. [[User:Bigdottawa|Bigdottawa]] 14:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

**Please read the rationale on [[Category talk:Living people]] before you assume it's pointless. It serves a narrow technical purpose and is not intended as navigation assistance. Regardless, Jimbo has decreed that it will stay, so delete votes are invalid. &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' as an improvement, but it's still a kludge. If what we really need is a way to know all people not yet dead, we should build that into wikipedia. If we really need is invisible categories, we should build that into wikipedia. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 07:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Speedy delete'''</s>. Silly. [[User:David Sneek|David Sneek]] 09:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

**Please read the rationale on [[Category talk:Living people]] before you assume it's pointless. It serves a narrow technical purpose and is not intended as navigation assistance. Regardless, Jimbo has decreed that it will stay, so delete votes are invalid. &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Rename''' so that at least we dont have to see the inherently annoying category name. --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 10:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)</s>

:Changing to '''Oppose'''. Replacing something bad with something worse is pointless--[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 22:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' renaming. An asterisk is uninformative. The argument seems to be that the category sounds inane so we should hide it. An asterisk wouldn't hide it, however, and as long as the catgeory is properly explained I don't see what harm is done. [[User:John FitzGerald|John FitzGerald]] 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*I Agree with those who say this is insane - although not to that degree of intensity. Simply put, this is a bad idea because Category:* doesn't really make sense and doesn't really explain anything. I understand, from above discussion, that this is ''intentional'', but it's still a bad idea. Since actually deleting this category is not an option, '''vote to leave it where it is'''. -[[User:155.42.20.241|155.42.20.241]] 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''', I guess. No good solutions, but Rename arguments are slightly better. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Just use a template instead, e.g. [[Template:Living people]], and monitor [[Special:Recentchangeslinked/Template:Living people]]. [[User:Jhs|Jon]] [[User talk:Jhs|Harald]] [[:no:Bruker:Jhs|Søby]] 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

**You know, that's a damn good idea. Why were you the first to think of it? &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' per nom. The purpose is for monitoring, not navigation. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*[[Image:Pinkroundsquare.png|right|100px]]'''Oppose''' renaming strongly. Not only are we proposing to subvert the main purpose of categories, but now we're trying to '''''hide''''' what we're doing by making the name of a category "*"?! Good grief. That's like trying to shove a round peg in a square hole and then painting it bright pink and drawing a smiley face on it in the hopes that nobody notices it ain't fittin' in the hole. [[User:Turnstep|Turnstep]] 01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' rename, support '''deleting''' this category. - [[User:Stoph|Stoph]] 04:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' This is really a technical problem, and isn't amenable to a fix via social mechanisms. Jimbo wants a way to keep track of all articles on living Wikipedians. The community - much of it, at least - finds it silly to have a category called "Living people" that shows up at the bottom of many thousands of articles. What we really need is something like [[Special:Living people]] to be added to the software, either auto-populated via birth/death info or manually populated, but not showing up as a regular category. The current Wiki code just doesn't support what Jimbo wants to do very well. <TT>[[User:Crotalus horridus|Crotalus horridus]] <SMALL>([[User talk:Crotalus horridus|TALK]] • [[Special:Contributions/Crotalus horridus|CONTRIBS]])</SMALL></TT> 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' -- keep it as it is. I like the constant reminder that I am, in fact, alive. [[User:Adrian Lamo|Adrian Lamo]] · [[User talk:Adrian Lamo|<small>(talk)</small>]] · <small>[[Special:Emailuser/Adrian Lamo|(mail)]]</small> · 04:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. If we have to do this, let's make it clear. -- [[User:DS1953|DS1953]] ^{<font color="green">[[User_talk:DS1953|talk]]</font>} 04:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

{{Haryana-geo-stub}}

*'''MOVE'''. There is precedent for this. If a user has something that the community wants deleted we move it to [[User:Jimbo Wales/Whatever]]. That is how you handle this.--'''[[User:God_of_War|God of]][[User Talk:God_of_War| War]]''' 04:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:Cities and towns in Haryana]]

**Um, you do realize that Jimbo Wales is more or less the absolute ruler of Wikipedia, and reserves the right to overrule community consensus on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation at any time? &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:Kurukshetra]]

*'''Oppose'''. I still feel that this entire category is a a misguided and ultimately dangerous placebo cure for a serious problem, and, as a information professional, and I am profoundly unhappy at the way it essentially subverts the navigational usefulness of categories. Obscuring the title isn't going to fix that, and is only going to set a precedent for this sort of thing. I personally suggest '''deletion''', but it seems that option isn't even on the table as far as Jimbo is concerned. Ultimately, we can say that this is for administrative purposes only, but if we're putting out there in the main article namespace, we're exposing it to the public. This needs to be addressed technically: this is not a satisfactory solution, even as an interim measure. &ndash; [[User:Seancdaug|Seancdaug]] 05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[[pt:Shahbad]]

*'''Keep''' name. There's no point in replacing it with indecipherable characters. It will only confuse people. &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 05:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' renaming. Why in heaven's name substitute an obfuscated name for a clear one? In the latter instance, mistakes can be caught by readers, in the latter, this is less likely. [[User:Demi|Demi]] ^{[[User_talk:Demi|T]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]} 06:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' this no-good category no matter who has vetoed said deletion. [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] 07:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Useless category. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 08:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - rename instead to something that makes its intention as a WP administrative cat clearer, such as [[:Category:Watched bio]] or [[:Category:Articles about living people]]. --[[User:Whouk|Whouk]] ([[User talk:Whouk|talk]]) 08:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose renaming'''. Whatever the problems of this category, they won't be improved by changing its name to something meaningless. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 09:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename'''. Living people is a laughable category, so renaming it to * would make it less noticeable and thus less irritating. --[[User:Jannex|Jannex]] 10:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 11:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - If we must have such a category, then it is much better that it should have a meaningful name. Personally I'm not convinced of its utility, but I can live with that. Having a meaningless name is just dumb. -- [[User:Chris j wood|Chris j wood]] 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[:Category:Antisemitism (People)]]====

*'''DELETE''' - duplicate category of [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]], it was already debated here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_29#Category:Anti-Semitic_people 1] [[User:SirIsaacBrock|SirIsaacBrock]] 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', POV template, duplicate. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|^(talk)]] 22:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per above. [[User:Pepsidrinka|Pepsidrinka]] 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per above. --[[User:StanZegel|StanZegel ]] [[User talk:StanZegel|(talk)]] 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Do not Delete''' - This is not a duplicate category. And it has not already been debated. The only related debate has been on the failed POV claim of another antisemtism category. A key difference is that this category is not a list of Anti-Semitic people. It is a list of people whose works have been influential in the history of Antisemitism even if that was not their intention. It allows the WP user to quickly identify and link to the history of the ideas and people related to Antisemitism. For example, Martin Luther is one of the most widely cited theologians among Nazis to justify their anti-Semitism. Luther was even cited as a defense by Nazis at the Nuremberg trials. Therefore, Luther is important in the history of Antisemitism. This category allows the WP user to track the relationships among the history of ideas and people related to anti-Semitism. Those that claim this is a duplicate category are merely making a straw man arguement to push their own POV. [[User:Doright|Doright]] 03:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''DELETE''' Duplicates [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]]. Discussion is underway at that talk page about renaming that page. Suggest the discussion be conducted there as to the appropriate name for such a category and a definition that all sides of this very emotional topic can accept. Creating a new category simply skirts the hard work of achieving consensus. --[[User:CTSWyneken|CTSWyneken]] 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per above. [[User:Mushroom|Mushroom]] 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per the above. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per [[User:CTSWyneken|CTSWyneken]]'s comments. If we want a category as [[User:Doright|Doright]] suggests, it would have to be something like [[:Category:People who have influenced Anti-Semitism]] or [[:Category:People whose writings have influenced Anti-Semitism]] or even (God help us) [[:Category:People whose works have been influential in the history of Antisemitism even if that was not their intention]]. [[:Category:Antisemitism (People)]] is much too vague. [[User:JHCC|JHCC]] [[User talk:JHCC | (talk)]] 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:*'''Comment'''. Vague? Is it more vague than [[:Category:Anti-Semitism]]? Furthermore, the category introduction provides an explicit and quite precise defintion of the category. Your argument does not hold water.[[User:Doright|Doright]] 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::*'''Reply to comment'''. Category names need to be self-expanatory. If you have to read the category description to understand what goes in the category (and what doesn't), then the category is badly named. As for the vagueness (or lack thereof) of [[:Category:Anti-Semitism]], this is irrelevant &mdash; we're discussing [[:Category:Antisemitism (People)]], not [[:Category:Anti-Semitism]]. If you want to criticize people for their logic (see below), don't use ''[[tu quoque]]'' yourself. [[User:JHCC|JHCC]] [[User talk:JHCC | (talk)]] 16:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

:::*'''Reply'''. Self-expanatory? What do you think a category named "Antisemitism (People)" refers to? Your complaint falls on its face when one looks here [[Wikipedia:Browse]] and compares the level of self-explanation of this category to all other existing categories. One can't help wondering why an editor makes such an argument. The additional text provided in the category description is merely a recognition that some editors will delete any association of their beloved person with Antisemitism, just as some editors will attempt to delete such an entire category.[[User:Doright|Doright]] 18:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::::*Well, obviously a whole lot of people think that "Antisemitism (People)" would refer to "Anti-Semitic people". If you want a category for people who are not, were not, may not be, or may not have been Anti-Semites personally but whose life/writings/work/etc influenced or inspired Anti-Semites or Anti-Semitism (and I am ''not'' saying that such a category is a bad idea), come up with a '''unambiguous''' name that does not need to be explained in a category description. "Antisemitism (people)" on the face of it could be '''''anyone''''' associated in any way with Anti-Semitism, whether supporting, opposing, inspiring, or condoning. Do you propose adding [[Jesus]] to this category? His actions (particularly his death) "play an important role in the continuing history of antisemitism". [[User:JHCC|JHCC]] [[User talk:JHCC | (talk)]] 19:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::*'''Reply'''. I will agree that there are obviously a whole lot of people that do not want their beloved person identified as being associated with Antisemitism in any way whatsoever. Plus there may be some that feels this category is an infringement on what they may inappropriately view as their proprietary category. Based upon your argument that such a category is ''not'' a bad idea, but is merely "ambiguously" named, why do you vote for deletion rather than renaming? Why don't you propose a better name, if one exists, and not one that is an absurd caricature of a name like you did above where you say, "''(God help us) Category:People whose works have been influential in the history of Antisemitism even if that was not their intention''"? It would certainly be a well-received good faith gesture. Frankly, since no one has come up with a better name, one might conclude that the current name may be the best name. Then, one is left with the conclusion that those advancing this argument are doing so because they do not want the category to exist by any name. Respectfully,[[User:Doright|Doright]] 21:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nomination. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>A.S. Damick</i></b></font>]] ^{[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]} ^{[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]} 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. In general I agree with [[User:CTSWyneken]]'s arguments here. I think the creation of this Cat was premature before the discussion takes its course. The 2nd word would have to be lowercased as per [[WP:NC]]. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] ^{[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]} 01:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:*'''Comment'''. Humus, Your comment speaks volumes. Since you support the assertion that this category "duplicates" [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]], to be logically consistent you must also accept that [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]] "duplicates" [[:Category:Anti-Semitism]] . The fact is, as explained on the category's page that [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]] is only a partial subset of [[:Category:Antisemitism (People)]]. This is identical to the fact that [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]] is a subset of [:Category:Anti-Semitism]]. Since, it's clear that you will not be supporting the deletion of either of those other two categories, one is left to explain your logical inconsistency. Cheers. [[User:Doright|Doright]] 07:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::*'''Comment on the comment'''. The only way that Humus would have to accept that [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]] duplicates [[:Category:Anti-Semitism]] as the logical consequence of asserting that [[:Category:Antisemitism (People)]] duplicates [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people]] would be if he/she (or anyone that he/she agrees with) had asserted that [[:Category:Antisemitism (People)]] duplicates [[:Category:Anti-Semitism]]. In other words, Humus's assertion that [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people|C:A-Sp]] = [[:Category:Antisemitism (People)|C:A(P)]] is the same as him/her accepting [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people|C:A-Sp]] = [[:Category:Anti-Semitism|C:A-S]] '''if and only if''' he/she asserted ''both'' [[:Category:Anti-Semitic people|C:A-Sp]] = [[:Category:Antisemitism (People)|C:A(P)]] ''and'' [[:Category:Antisemitism (People)|C:A(P)]] = [[:Category:Anti-Semitism|C:A-S]]. He/she did not, therefore he/she does not. [[User:JHCC|JHCC]] [[User talk:JHCC | (talk)]] 17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

:'''Comment on the Comment on the Comment:''' That one is a brain twister :) [[User:SirIsaacBrock|SirIsaacBrock]] 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

:::*'''Reply'''. Wrong and misleading. "Anti-Semitism" contains (but is not limited to) "Antisemitism (people)" which contains (but is not limited to) "Anti-Semitic people." Again, not all people associated with Antisemitism were Anti-Semitic people themselves. Therefore, none is identical to the other. So, if you want to call this category a "duplicate" because some (but not all) of its members may be anti-Semites, following that "reasoning" you would have to call most WP categories "duplicates," since some but not all of their members may be contained in other categories. NB: This category has been purged of its article members which I believe is a violation of WP policy since the category deletion template explicitly says not to. [[User:Doright|Doright]] 22:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per JHCC. [[User_talk:Derex|Derex]] 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[:Category:Norwegian photography]]====

Unnecessary category that will never be populated by more than a handful of articles. Currently it contains one article, namely [[Norwegian photography]], as well as the subcategory [[:Category:Norwegian photographers]] (there clearly is ample precedent for the latter). I don't think the topic of Norwegian photography will ever have more than one or two articles, because there seems to be very little that is distinctive about Norwegian photography, or that would set it apart from, say, Danish photography or Swedish photography. Articles about Norwegian photographers will go into [[:Category:Norwegian photographers]]; then, aside from the overview article on [[Norwegian photography]] (which is rather sparse to begin with), what else is there? --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Vehemently keep''' - in fact this nomination is abusive, and [[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]] has absolutely no way of knowing whether it will be populated by more than a handful of articles. You've got to give editors some time to write articles, and if you'd taken the trouble of reading the articles about Norwegian photographers, you'll see that there is plenty to write about. This is ludicrous. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

**Norwegian photographers have their own category, which is not being contested. What else is there about Norwegian photography that makes it so unique that it needs to be separated from [[:Category:Photography]]? And if there really is such a thing of country-specific photography, how come we don't have categories like [[:Category:French photography]] or [[:Category:Brazilian photography]]? I'm not contesting the overview ''article'' [[Norwegian photography]], but the associated category seems entirely pointless. If and when we more than a handful of uncontested articles about Norwegian photography–related topics, we can consider re-creating this category. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

***There are photography collections, at least one dedicated photography museum, schools of photography, just for starters. As it turns out, the whole field of photography is undercovered in Wikipedia, and I guess it'll stay that way if people like you continue to happily delete categories. You'll note that someone also tried to delete [[:Category:Norwegian photographers]], too, based on a similar rationale. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

****Then the solution is to write those missing articles first and worry about categorization once there are more than a handful of articles. The absence of categories does not stop anyone from writing articles. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*****No, that is '''not''' the solution; that is your renegade interpretation that bears no resemblance to anything Wikipedia-related. It doesn't even follow a deletionist mindset. As for country-specific articles on photography, that would be a valid argument if you didn't find country-specific articles on any other expressions of art, say painting, sculpture, drama, etc. This nomination is frivolous. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' Has starter-level content and growth potential. There is little point in deleting a populated category which is sure to be needed one day. After all, just about every topic which could conceivably have an article is probably going to get one of the next few years, especially for countries with the internet access and English language skills quotient of Norway. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 23:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

**The category is not populated at the moment: it contains one article that is more or less redundant with the category. I personally don't see the growth potential, but if you do, please share. Also keep in mind that deletion is not permanent: if and when we see an explosion of articles that are clearly and unmistakably appropriate for this category, we can recreate it. This said, I don't see that it has a distinctive purpose. We don't have [[:Category:Swedish photography]] or [[:Category:Norwegian electrical engineering]] either, and for good reasons. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:::For all I know, there will be a category about Swedish photography in the future if someone makes the effort to start it - this applies to any body of knowledge within Wikipedia. Photography, by the way, is an art form much like painting, composition, etc., is. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 00:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Upmerge & delete''', overcat. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:On what basis? Your expertise on the vastness of knowledge about Norwegian photography? --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 20:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::You seem to assume that a detailed knowledge of Norwegian photography is a prerequisite for voting here. This is not the case. Rather, a basic familiarity with Wikipedia style guidelines, policies, and precedents is expected. --[[User:MarkSweep|MarkSweep]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]]</small> 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:::In order for you to determine that a field of knowledge is too small to justify its own category, you need to make some kind of assumption. The fact that a limited amount of it has been captured in Wikipedia so far provides no proof that the body of knowledge is small, or this whole enterprise would never have gotten off the ground. There is no basis in Wikipedia style guidelines, policies, and precedents for what you have done. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 00:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' Defend small but accurate categories. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. Leifern makes a good case for the category, and I see no reason to delete it. [[User:Tupsharru|Tupsharru]] 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' Appropriate as a ''works by nationality'' category. Even if the number of articles remains small, it is worthy to remain. [[User:Joshbaumgartner|Josh]] 22:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' Seems useful, don't see the problem. On a side note take a gander at the subcate to[[:Category:Racecar drivers from Liechtenstein]] called [[:Category:Formula One drivers from Liechtenstein]] to get a sense of an odd "by nationality" category. The subcat has only name and it's also the only name in the main category.--[[User:T. Anthony|T. Anthony]] 13:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

====[[:Category:Lute players]] to [[:Category:Lutenists]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Lutenists category predates the Lute players category, and lutenist is the term used consistently throughout the [[Lute]] article. [[User:Aitch Eye|Aitch Eye]] 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' It's the normal term. [[User:Osomec|Osomec]] 02:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*It is? (boggle) Hm, google concurs with you. '''Rename'''. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''', completely sensible--[[User:Smerus|Smerus]] 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Controversial Films]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy recapitalisation by [[User:Longhair|Longhair]] earlier today but [[User:Valiantis|Valiantis]] pointed out that it is a recreation of a recently deleted category and suggested deletion. [[Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005_December_26#Category:Controversial films]]. Point of view. '''Speedy delete'''. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. POV. Recreation of recently deleted cat. [[User:Valiantis|Valiantis]] 18:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''' -- important category; the first one never should have been deleted. ([[User:Ibaranoff24|Ibaranoff24]] 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

*'''Keep''' per Ibaranoff24 and '''Rename''' to [[:Category:Controversial films]]. --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 22:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] & [[User:Valiantis|Valiantis]]. [[User:Pegship|Her Pegship]] 23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' -- whilst this category could (and previously, has) become a collection ground for articles on films ''considered'' to be controversial, I feel it's still a valid category. Many films meet controversy upon release, be it on religious, political or whatever grounds. If an article on a film cites sources detailing the controversy, I don't see a problem. All this category needs is a little monitoring to keep out those seeking to hype or talk up films in this way. It certainly doesn't deserve deletion. -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]] 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' for the reasons included in the last CfD. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Speedy delete''' as recreation of deleted content. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Speedy delete''' [[User:Pavel Vozenilek|Pavel Vozenilek]] 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Speedy'''--[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 05:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' [[User:DeansFA|DeansFA]] 17:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''SD''' as recreation, inherent POV and systemic bias. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Speedy delete'''. User who recreated it should be blocked. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] 10:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as proposed. Is the capital F an attempt to evade the recreation radar? It has that guilty look about it. [[User:Bhoeble|Bhoeble]] 12:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Seems only useful for pushing a POV agenda. [[User:Tskoge|Tskoge]] 12:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' and rename. Categories are for navigation, not information. Lots of films are considered controversial in some form of another (from any POV). There isn't a problem categorizing them as such. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 17:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Speedy delete''' as recreation of deleted content. The "keep" votes are irrelevant because the only way to undo a deletion vote is through a consensus on [[WP:DRV]], which has not occurred. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 16:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Speedy delete''' as per above. Also not much of a worthwile category to begin with. [[User:Zookman12|Zookman12]] 05:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per above. [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per all above. I hope the information can be saved and put into a list. With text and citations this POV subject could be made into an interesting NPOV article about what makes films controversial and a historic overview of films that have been controversial. A category does none of this, so delete. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:U.S. Representatives from Puerto Rico]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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, since cat is empty. if BDAbramson or others decide new name, feel free to create a new cat and populate'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Should be [[:Category:Resident Commissioners of Puerto Rico]]. &mdash;''[[User_talk:Markles|Mark Adler <small>(markles)</small>]]'' 17:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Support'''. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 00:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)</s>

*'''Oppose'''. Why? What about "delegates"; isn't that the normal term within the House of Representatives? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::Of course, you could probably help your case for making the change if you put the article [[Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico]] into this category. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 00:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*In looking at this again, it seems that this is one piece in a naming issues for three populated categories. We really need to decide which one is correct. We have [[:Category:United States Representatives from American Samoa]], [[:Category:Resident Commissioners of Puerto Rico]] and [[:Category:U.S. Delegates from the Virgin Islands]] and I'm not sure which is the right choice, maybe all three are correct. I am going to support '''Delete''' of the empty category above since it is not the correct name (U.S. vs United States). Then we can decide on how to deal with the three categories that have articles and rename as required. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 22:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Currently there is no one listed, but I would think that U.S. Representatives from Puerto Rico differs from people representing Puerto Rico in the U.S. Congress. A person born in Puerto Rico is a U.S. citizen; he or she may move to any state and be elected to the House. He or she is then a U.S. Representative from Puerto Rico. Is there one? Are there enough to make a category? dunno... [[User:Carlossuarez46|Carlossuarez46]] 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - Puerto Rico uses a different designation than other territories (and their representative is elected to a 4-year term, rather than for 2 years). I'll look it up when I have the appropriate references available, but they are inherently notable and should have a category that matches the title. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Scouting and Guiding members]] to [[:Category:Scouting Wikipedians]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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, tho this has apparently been done already out of process'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Per the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting and Guiding members|misplaced and orphaned afd]]. Target category has already been created and populated. Neutral. &#8212;[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 15:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:The Velvet Revolver albums]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct name of the band is [[Velvet Revolver]], not The Velvet Revolver, and the one album at that category has been moved to [[:Category:Velvet Revolver albums]]. --[[User:GVOLTT|G VOLTT]] 14:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nominator. [[User:Barno|Barno]] 02:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom. -- [[User:Mikeblas|Mikeblas]] 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Mushroom|Mushroom]] 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:MaTrIx|MaTrIx]]

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Dallas Texans (1960s) players]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This category has been completely replaced by the newer [[:Category:Dallas Texans (AFL) players]], which matches all of its new peers in [[:Category:American Football League players by team]]. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 11:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 01:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' this "(1960s)" version per nominator. "(AFL)" version contains good disambiguation for this special case, and its naming matches similar articles. [[User:Barno|Barno]] 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''', per Barno. [[User:Jareha|jareha]] 18:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (football) players]] to [[:Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) players]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Previously this category serviced two unrelated American football teams, the [[Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL)]] and the [[Brooklyn Dodgers (AAFC)]]. All the players for the latter team are now in their own category, [[:Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (AAFC) players]]. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 01:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*I support the proposed '''rename'''. Nominator's reason is appropriate. [[User:Barno|Barno]] 02:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Transportation of New Orleans]] to [[:Category:Transportation in New Orleans]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Rename''' to match parent and siblings. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 08:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

*'''Rename''' per nom. - [[User:EurekaLott|EurekaLott]] 00:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' per nom., consistent with policy [[User:Joshbaumgartner|Josh]]

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Defunct U.S. state constitutions]] to [[:Category:Defunct United States state constitutions]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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 with mod'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from speedy after comments - [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 07:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I prefer [[:Category:Defunct state constitutions of the United States]]. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' [[:Category:Defunct state constitutions of the United States]]. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' [[:Category:Defunct state constitutions of the United States]]. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' [[:Category:Defunct state constitutions of the United States]] per [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]]. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 20:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:U.S. state parks]] to [[:Category:United States state parks]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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 with mod'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from speedy after comments - [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support.''' see my note above regarding [[:Category:State supreme court judges in the United States]]. &mdash;''[[User_talk:Markles|Mark Adler <small>(markles)</small>]]'' 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I prefer [[:Category:State parks of the United States]]. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*<s>'''Support''' [[:Category:State parks of the United States]]. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)</s>

*Per Choalbaton. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' [[:Category:State parks in the United States]] as [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects|official naming convention policy]] lists parks as being ''... in country'' format. [[User:Joshbaumgartner|Josh]] 22:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' [[:Category:State parks in the United States]] per [[User:Joshbaumgartner|Josh]]. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:U.S. state forests]] to [[:Category:United States state forests]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from speedy after comments - [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support.''' see my note above regarding [[:Category:State supreme court judges in the United States]]. &mdash;''[[User_talk:Markles|Mark Adler <small>(markles)</small>]]'' 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I prefer [[:Category:State forests of the United States]]. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' [[:Category:State forests of the United States]]. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' [[:Category:State forests of the United States]]. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' [[:Category:State forests of the United States]] per [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]]. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:U.S. State court systems]] to [[:Category:United States state court systems]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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 with modification'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from speedy after comments - [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support.''' see my note above regarding [[:Category:State supreme court judges in the United States]]. &mdash;''[[User_talk:Markles|Mark Adler <small>(markles)</small>]]'' 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I prefer [[:Category:State court systems of the United States]]. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' [[:Category:State court systems of the United States]]. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' [[:Category:State court systems of the United States]]. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 03:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*I '''oppose''' the original proposal because I prefer the later suggestion [[:Category:State court systems of the United States]]. [[User:Barno|Barno]] 02:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' to [[:Category:State court systems of the United States]] per [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]]. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 20:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:U.S. state constitutions]] to [[:Category:United States state constitutions]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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 with modification'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from speedy after comments - [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support.''' see my note above regarding [[:Category:State supreme court judges in the United States]]. &mdash;''[[User_talk:Markles|Mark Adler <small>(markles)</small>]]'' 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I prefer [[:Category:State constitutions of the United States]]. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' [[:Category:State constitutions of the United States]] to avoid having state and states adjacent. [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' [[:Category:State constitutions of the United States]], per above. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Northern Ireland music venues]] to [[:Category:Music venues in Northern Ireland]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 13:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Rename''' to match parent. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 06:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

*'''rename''' as per nom. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 22:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Schools in Conservative Judaism]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page. ''

The result of the debate was '''rename to Conservative Jewish schools'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Rename''' category to --> [[:Conservative Judaism schools]] similar to [[:Category:Jewish schools]]; [[:Category:Chabad schools]]; [[:Category:Orthodox yeshivas]] and [[:Category:Jewish seminaries]]. This will keep things consistent. Thank you. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' to [[:Conservative Jewish schools]] for parallelism. Conservative Judaism is a noun, Orthodox is an adjective, Chabad is usually a noun but can be either, Jewish is an adjective. [[User:Example|Deborah-jl]] _{[[User talk:Deborah-jl|Talk]]} 17:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

**Deborah: "Orthodox" is short for [[Orthodox Judaism]] so that makes it a noun. You are confusing it with the English term "orthodox" which can be used as an adjective... Anyhow, "Orthodox" alone can be used the same way you note about "Chabad." Furthermore, [[Conservative Judaism]] is a form of [[Judaism]]. BUT the word "Jewish" is not exclusively for the Jewish religion, because "Jewish" often refers to the [[Jew]]ish people as an [[ethnicity]] which need not have any connection with the Jewish religion i.e. [[Judaism]] or one of it's "streams" or "denominations": [[Conservative Judaism]]. Your suggestion is thus imprecise and would create confusion. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] 09:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

***'''Comment''': "The Orthodox" doesn't parallel "Conservative Judaism"; "Orthodoxy" or "Orthodox Judasim" parallel "Conservative Judaism", and "Orthodoxy" would be extremely misleading in that sense. And while "Jewish" refers to the Jewish people as an ethnicity, "Conservative Jewish" clearly refers to a specific stream of the religion, and not to, say, members of the ethnic group who vote Republican or Tory. I disagree that my suggestion is imprecise (and in that case, [[:Category:Jewish schools]] is probably imprecise -- are there really schools in that category that have an ethnic and not a religious affiliation?). I'm not wedded to [[:Conservative Jewish schools]], but I ''am'' wedded to parallelism. If you keep [[:Conservative Judaism schools]], then rename the other to [[:Orthodox Judaism schools]]. [[User:Example|Deborah-jl]] _{[[User talk:Deborah-jl|Talk]]} 23:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

***'''Comment''': Per [[Categories for deletion#Schools_by_establishment_year_and_subcategories|this Cfd below]], "schools" is an inappropriate usage for a category that includes seminaries, anyway. Though whether that should be answered by creation of a higher education category or renaming of the entire cat is another question. [[User:Example|Deborah-jl]] _{[[User talk:Deborah-jl|Talk]]} 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

****'''Comment''': As discussed on the category's [[Talk:|talk page]], I dislike the current title (though I came up with it), but I don't like ''Conservative Judaism Schools'' better, because it's awkward English - it either needs an adjective or a preposition or a verb construct to be meaningful. The long version would be [[Schools associated with Conservative Judaism]], but that may be wordy, not to mention [[Educational Institutions associated with Conservative Judaism]]. [[Conservative Jewish schools]] is, I agree, a misnomer, because one might think that it means conservative with a lower-case "c," which is a subjective term. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 02:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' per Deborah-jl's suggestion. - [[User:EurekaLott|EurekaLott]] 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Firefly planets]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Category was recently emptied and blanked. - [[User:EurekaLott|EurekaLott]] 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''rename''' [[User:Sumahoy|Sumahoy]] 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

**To what exactly? If it's empty, delete it. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<font color="orange">&gt;|&lt;</font>]] 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' [[User:Bhoeble|Bhoeble]] 12:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Churches of North America]] to [[:Category:Christian denominations of North America]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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 per nom'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This category takes "churches" to refer to denominations, whereas the rest of the churches hierarchy is for church buildings. '''Rename''' to remove unnecessary confusion. Also probably needs to be subdivided by country. I've tidied [[:Category:Religion in the United States]] a little, but that only makes it look more likely that it is far from being fully populated. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

*'''Support''' per nomination, plus to match parent [[:Category:Christian denominations]]. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 11:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Spelling error in denomination {{unsigned|Paul foord}}

::I fixed the spelling here and on the article's tag '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 12:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*change to '''Support''' denomination is separate from churches - there is already a [[:Category:Churches in the United States]], Canada, Mexico -- [[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] 11:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

**Originally support, but '''Oppose''' create new category - use current for churches etc. -- [[User:Paul foord|Paul foord]] 03:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

::If you are talking about church buildings, there's already [[:Category:Churches in the United States]], [[:Category:Churches in Mexico]], etc. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 03:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' -- The term "church" can mean denomination (Reformed Church in America), a congregation (The Marble Collegiate Church in New York), or the building (Marble Collegiate Church as architectural site). The category should be specific enough not to need disambiguation itself. {{unsigned|Amherst5282}}

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Religious sites in Singapore]] to [[:Category:Places of worship in Singapore]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Rename''' to match the other subcats of [[:Category:Places of worship by country]]. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

*'''Rename to [[:Category:Religious buildings in Singapore]]'''. Not all religious buildings are places of worship. - [[User:Choster|choster]] 06:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

**Care to give an example? I see nothing in the category which presents any such problem. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 06:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

***Nothing in this particular category at present, but a monastery or convent, for instance, is a place of religious living, not of worship per se. - [[User:Choster|choster]] 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

**Strict speaking, a religious site is not neccesary a place of worship. Sites of religious significance are not neccesarily buildings, for entire cities can be religious sites too. While this category in question may not include such sites yet, I would still think the distinction need to be explained.--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---'''Note from closing admin''' - I have put a note in the category that says it shouldn't be used for religious sites. There is one muslim shrine in the category I believe, but the goal in this rename is to make the categorization standard. The subcats are "buddhist temples" and "mosques" and "churches", which look to me like places of worship and not religious sites. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Religion by state]] to [[:Category:Religion in the United States by state]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Another example of an American user forgetting to take into account the existence of the rest of the world. '''Rename'''. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

*'''Rename''' per nominator. --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' per nominator. [[User:CalJW|CalJW]] 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' per nom. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Real World Cast Members]] to [[:Category:The Real World cast members]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Simple capitalization/reformatting issue. --[[User:FuriousFreddy|FuriousFreddy]] 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Speedy''' -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 01:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Speedy''' I was afraid it was going to be deleted as nn -- [[User:170.35.208.22|170.35.208.22]] 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Baseball by country]] to [[:Category:Baseball outside the United States]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a follow up to the nomination below. I am not American and this is a practical suggestion based on [[:Category:Australian rules football outside Australia]]. [[:Category:Baseball in the United States]] cannot be populated accurately with making many edits to divide all the categories into between the vast amount of U.S. info and the small amount of non-U.S. info, and I don't think that would be a good idea because it would still leave most of the general articles in limbo as they are mainly about the U.S. but not always entirely so. Thus [[:Category:Baseball]] is a better place to find out about "Baseball in the United States" than [[:Category:Baseball in the United States]] could ever be, and if there is to be no U.S. category as I recommend it will be appropriate to '''rename''' this [[:Category:Baseball outside the United States]]. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

:'''Comment''' See my comments below. However, leaving these aside, it would appear baseball is organised on a North American-wide basis with Canadian teams (or it may be '''a''' Canadian team) involved in the same leagues as the US ones. In which case the name [[:Category:Baseball outside North America]] might be preferable. (I make no claim to any knowledge of baseball. Is it like [[rounders]]? :-) ) [[User:Valiantis|Valiantis]] 05:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::<s>I've amended it to baseball outside North America. Don't know why I didn't think of that before. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 06:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)</s>

:::There is a category called [[:Category:Baseball in Canada]] so either that has to go or the proposal can't be changed to "outside North America". The Canadian category only contains two articles, presumably because the Canadians don't care about splitting it up any more than the Americans do. After all they play their baseball in the same shared leagues. But I'm reverting to the orginaal proposal. None of these options are ideal, but I just don't think carving out the American articles makes sense. It means splitting up the leagues, and what do you do about Canadians playing in the U.S. or Venezualans playing for a Canadian team in a mainly U.S. league? The person who started the U.S. category didn't make a serious effort to populate it, I'm not going to, I don't think many U.S. baseball fans would want to, and all in all I don't think it should be done. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 06:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Original category is more conventional. --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' [[User:DeansFA|DeansFA]] 17:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' Even if [[:Category:Baseball in the United States]] has a hundred times as many articles as any other country, it would still be appropriate to fit within the ''in country'' standard as per [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Sport|naming convention policy]], which specifically lists ''baseball''. Sub-categorize the U.S. if the category is too big. [[User:Joshbaumgartner|Josh]] 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Baseball in the United States]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> 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, keep'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There just isn't enough point. Set up over 2 months ago and populated with a tiny fraction of the relevant content. I looked into populating it, but apart from [[:Category:Baseball by country]] every single subcategory of [[:Category:Baseball]] (which used to be a subcategory of [[:Category:Sports in the United States]] and which I will reinstate) is mainly about American baseball. I'm not an American and this isn't an American arrogance thing, just practical. [[:Category:Australian rules football]] is directly in the Australian sport category, with a subcategory called [[:Category:Australian rules football outside Australia]]. With basketball there is enough non-U.S. material for it to make sense to have a U.S. subcategory, but I just don't think it helps to have one for baseball. I will add a note to basketball by country directing people to the main category. On a practical point, even if this were to be populated once, American baseball fans will probably mostly go direct to [[:category:Baseball]] so it is unlikely this would be adequately maintained. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

*'''Delete''' [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 00:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' Are you sure? I've had a quick look and I'd estimate a significant minority of the subcats are on general baseball issues e.g. [[:Category:Baseball rules]], [[:Category:Baseball positions]], [[:Category:Baseball teams]] (which includes non-American teams), [[:Category:National baseball teams]], [[:Category:Baseball equipment]]. The issue with Australian Rules football is that no-one plays that at any serious level except in Australia; baseball is much more widely played at a serious level (for example, unlike Australian rules football, it has been an Olympic sport). It's not your intention, but your suggestion would pander to systemic bias. You might want to raise this at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball]], which at first glance reeks of systemic bias - I can see no mention of non-US baseball. [[User:Valiantis|Valiantis]] 05:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

**I'm going to change it to North America. I'm aware of the general categories and I include them. I don't think systemic bias comes into it. The percentage of users who are interested in baseball who are in North American will not be much less than for Australian Rules. I think the system I am proposing will work - the alternative isn't. The category system is a navigational tool, and I would say that slicing up the baseball category damages navigation. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 06:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

***Changed back again - see above. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' I'm sure [[:Category:Film]], [[:Category:Actors]] and many other categories contain mostly US-related articles, which is not a good reason go get rid of [[:Category:American films]] and [[:Category:American actors]] --[[User:Vizcarra|Vizcarra]] 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' and populate, as it is consistent with naming policy for baseball categories. There are likely many articles that relate particularly to baseball in the U.S. [[User:Joshbaumgartner|Josh]] 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Set up by an Englishman and no one over here out of about a hundred million baseball fans has added anything to it. I'm an American baseball fan, and I can tell you, chances are no American will. Therefore useless. [[User:Golfcam|Golfcam]] 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

====[[:Category:Minor league baseball stars]] to [[:Category:Minor league baseball players]]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page. ''

The result of the debate was '''rename as nominated'''. [[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 12:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Stars" is subjective and not the way things are done. '''Rename''' [[:Category:Minor league baseball players]] [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 00:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

*'''Oppose'''. I agree that the category could be named better, but the proposed renaming would mean that nearly every Major League Baseball player should be added to the category. {{unsigned|EurekaLott}}

**It's for '''''Minor''''' league players. Not that it would be any less pov if it was for major league players. [[User:Choalbaton|Choalbaton]] 06:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

***I think EurekaLott's point is that most other categories for sports teams and leagues are not limited to current players (e.g. [[:Category:Detroit Tigers players]]). A category limited to current minor league players should probably have a name to match, since it breaks this convention. I'm not sure such a category is such a good idea, though, as its membership would be highly transitory.'''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 11:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

***Actually, this category has several non-current minor leaguers in it too, most of whom also had long careers in the majors. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 11:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

****Sorry I wasn't more clear. Nearly all Major League players in recent history spent time in the minors, which would make them eligible to be listed in the renamed category. The new name makes little sense unless we are also prepared to start creating categories like [[:Category:Toledo Mudhens players]] and [[:Category:Harrisburg Senators players]]. - [[User:EurekaLott|EurekaLott]] 13:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*****I agree. The pattern seems to be that all of these league categories are broken-up into teams when they get too large to be useful — and I think this one would get there really quickly. Especially considering most major leaguers played on at least as many farm teams as major league clubs. I have concerns about the usefulness of the category, whether it's divided or not, as well as the interest-level among editors to fill and maintain it/them. I actually recommend deleting the category unless it can be recast as a reasonably-sized project (maybe for AAA-all stars, or players that never made the majors [who're probably notable for something else]). '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. This one's bugged me for a while. The key article to categorize here is [[Koby Clemens]]. He's not on a major league team, yet he deserves inclusion in some way in [[:Category:Baseball players]]. I would like a category name that could include him and not include anyone ever in the majors. I think the proposal is the best name I can think of, and the text in the category should be clear that no one in the majors should be here. (Note that this logic puts [[Michael Jordan]] in this category.)--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 02:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. As long as it's limited as in Mike Selinker's suggestion, such a category would be quite useful. I wish there were a better name, but I can't think of one at the moment. Not everyone visits the category and reads such disclaimers, though, so it might require regular policing to remove major leaguers. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 10:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Rename''' to '''''Current Minor League Players''''' and root out as the players progress. In agreement with EurekaLott that just ''Minor League Players'' would result in every baseball player having to be added. -- [[User:Jjjsixsix|Jjjsixsix]] ^{([[User talk:Jjjsixsix|talk]])}/_{([[Special:Contributions/Jjjsixsix|contribs]])} <small>@</small> 06:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' per nom. ''Current'' is an unnecessary qualifier unless we are also going to create categories for historical players. If it is a problem, a note can be added that players who only touched down on their way through to the majors need not be put in the minors category. [[User:Joshbaumgartner|Josh]] 23:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

<!-- Please do not add new nominations to this page, as this CFD day has concluded. Put any new nominations to the current day page instead. Thank you for your cooperation. -->