Login
Login

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 6#Category:Id and Category:Jv

width = "100%"
width="50%" align="left" | < July 5

! width="50%" align="right" | July 7 >

=July 6=

==[[:Category:Greco-Roman agricultural writings]]==

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Contains five articles; three are writers, one is a work on multiple topics, one is a work on agricultural topics. Is this a useful category? Is there any potential for expanding it? --Tabor 6 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

  • Delete, too narrow. Merge content somewhere. Radiantmeta:mergist July 7, 2005 09:13 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename by changing "agricultural" to "agrarian." Add Xenophon, and
  1. Oeconomicus (Xenophon)
  2. On Horsemanship
  3. The Cavalry General
  4. Hunting with Dogs
  5. Ways and Means
  6. and maybe Vergil's Georgics.

Release zee artikul. Shoot zee deletioniste. (Adapted from a line spoken by "Colonel Hessler" in the Battle of the Bulge) --Jpbrenna 05:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep but do not rename. Agree with Jpbrenna in general, but do not believe Ways and Means belongs in cat. Septentrionalis 22:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If kept, 'agricultuarl writings' should probably be 'texts on agriculture' instead. Radiantmeta:mergist 14:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Births]]==

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Useless category that resulted from bad cate tags. Also had a loop.

JYOuyang 6 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

  • Delete, redundant with all categories on (year) births. Radiantmeta:mergist July 7, 2005 09:13 (UTC)
  • Delete, so we include all biographical articles in this category? just joking =PPeregrineAY7 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 20:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:One-hit wonders]]==

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

There is already a category for "One-hit wonders in the United States," which this basically is. Carolaman 6 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

  • Delete both of them, this is more comprehensively covered in lists. Radiantmeta:mergist July 7, 2005 09:13 (UTC)
  • Delete. A one-hit wonder in one country could be immensely popular in another. Category, by itself, provides no such context. -Sean Curtin July 7, 2005 22:55 (UTC)
  • Don't delete both of them. If OHW is deleted (OK by me) then keep "OHW in the US" Bubba73 July 8, 2005 18:10 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Murdered politicians]]==

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

CfD tag added to category on 12 June by User:Haham hanuka but not listed here. --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

:Why, I wonder? Not my cup of tea, but it seems like a reasonable set of categories. -- Visviva 6 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

  • Keep, sounds reasonable. Radiantmeta:mergist July 7, 2005 09:13 (UTC)
  • Keep. I forgot to vote keep here, despite saying merge to it below! -Splash 7 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
  • Keep, also look at assassinated politicans/prime ministers/mayors/kings, murder victims, murdered kings, murdered kings..... PeregrineAY 7 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
  • Rename to "Assassinated politicians". James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
  • Keep, not sure about renaming to assassinated, as not all politicians are murdered for political influence. <>Who?¿? 22:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would recommend to reserve this category only for modern politicians (say from last 200 years). The term politician may not fit well with medieval/ancient people, violent deadth was common fate and they would clutter the category. With this restriction I would prefere to keep subcategories presidents/prime ministers/etc as they are quite informative and relatively precise.

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

==[[:Category:Murdered presidents]]==

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

CfD tag added to category on 12 June by User:Haham hanuka but not listed here. --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Murdered prime ministers]]==

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

CfD tag added to category on 12 June by User:Haham hanuka but not listed here. --Kbdank71 6 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Apple Macintosh games]]==

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

The result of the debate was keep, but delete Mac OS games --Kbdank71 14:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Tagged as VfD but not listed there, I'm moving it here. no vote--Nabla 2005-07-06 16:22:00 (UTC)

:BEGIN moved text

Redundancy with :Category:Mac_OS_games Hillel 18:16, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

:END moved text

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

==[[:Category:Military of Hong Kong under British rule]]==

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Military_of_Hong_Kong_under_British_rule&action=history created] this category while discussion at :category talk:Military of Hong Kong is in progress, and there was no proposal to split any category. This category is redundant as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Military_of_Hong_Kong&oldid=17269473 Category:Military of Hong Kong] already exists for military-related articles during pre-colonial era, British colonial rule and under administration of the PRC; and as a subcategory of both :category:Military of the People's Republic of China and :category:Military of the United Kingdom. Huaiwei has moved several articles to populate the category he created, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AMilitary_of_Hong_Kong&diff=18253981&oldid=17269473 delinked] the original category with the UK category. — Instantnood July 6, 2005 12:21 (UTC)

:The :category talk:Military of Hong Kong category is misleading, especially when it meshes together articles related to military concerns prior to and post 1997 HK (as opposed to a category only populated by articles on colonial HK as misleadingly suggested by instantnood above). This brings it in line with the way several other former British colonies are treated, such as :Category:Military of British India and :Category:Military of Singapore under British rule, both of which are subcategories of :Category:Military of the United Kingdom. This is technically much more accurate then the existing arrangement, which suggests that there is still British military control over HK, which is not the case. Having a seperate category also suggests the existance of a seperate militaty in HK, which does not exist. As an additional note, the so-called "military of HK" is actually a garrison of China's People's Liberation Army. In this sense then, I would rename :Category:Military of Hong Kong as :Category:Military of Hong Kong under Chinese rule if a category is justified. Otherwise, it will be deleted too, so the problem of "redundancy" can be solved as well.--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

  • Delete both "Military of Hong Kong" and "Military of Hong Kong under British Rule". Hong Kong has never had more than a police force to call it's own. I've read every article there, and a collection of museums, a hill, and the local garrison of the PLA do not need their own category. SchmuckyTheCat 7 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)
  • Addition to the nomination, my vote is to merge into :category:Military of Hong Kong. — Instantnood July 7, 2005 18:26 (UTC)
  • As stated above, my stand was to keep. Should this category be deleted, then naturally, the next category due for deletion is :category:Military of Hong Kong. This applies whether this category is deleted or merged into :category:Military of Hong Kong since the result is essentially the same.--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)
  • Sub-category would be my wish. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 9 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
  • Comment: Huaiwei's proposal is to create this category for articles related to the British colonial period, and, if possible, delete the original category, as she/he argues that military of Hong Kong does not exist. — Instantnood 11:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to say it does exist? That HK has authority to commit troops somewhere? Regardless of anyone's intentions, the Military of Hong Kong article does make it quite clear, as does consensus on the talk page, that the military of Hong Kong does not exist. It is a local barracks of the national army, not it's own military. SchmuckyTheCat 14:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The existence of for the military article and category of a country does not depend on whether it has its own defence force or not. — Instantnood 15:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Then its about time we change this perculiar situation. Why do we have articles/categories on nothing?--Huaiwei 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case in my opinion you should have started doing so at the talk page of the military WikiProject or equivalent, instead of pinpointing at Hong Kong. — Instantnood 16:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Notable Latter Day Saints]]==

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Almost complete overlap with :Category:Latter Day Saints. Move anything in this category to that one, then delete this. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 05:21 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Harvey Comics cartoons and characters]], [[:Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios cartoons and characters]]==

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename, replacing "cartoons" with "series". -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 05:12 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Humorous cartoons]]==

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Misleading, as it actually lists magazines that have cartoons in them. Delete. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 05:09 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Game Characters]]==

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense, empty, no obvious need to redirect. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 04:50 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Centaurs]] and [[:Category:Centaurs (mythology)]]==

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

The result of the debate was double rename --Kbdank71 14:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

:Category:Centaurs should be about mythological centaurs, but instead it's about planetoids. The mythological creatures are at :Category:Centaurs (mythology). The latter should be moved into the former, with the planetoids getting a new category of their own. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 04:39 (UTC)

:Rename :Category:Centaurs → :Category:Planetoids :Category:Centaurs (minor planets) (see Centaur (planetoid) as it plainly states they are a form of plaentoids and would fit current schema of :Category:Minor planets)

:Merge :Category:Centaurs (mythology) → :Category:Centaurs. The less parenthesis we have in category names, the better. <>Who?¿? 22:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

::"Centaur" does not equal "planetoid". "Planetoid" is a sort of vaguely defined term, more or less synonymous with "minor planet". Centaurs are a type of minor planet or planetoid, just as asteroids are. Asteroids are in fact often called "planetoids". Hence, :Category:Centaurs (minor planets).--Pharos 02:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:::Ok, I see your point, very vague distinctions with size and class. I would not object to :Category:Centaurs (minor planets). <>Who?¿? 07:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:::Rename to :Category:Centaurs (minor planets). Also suggests :Category:Minor planet eponym for the articles Chiron, Vesta (mythology) etc., but what is it a subcategory of? Septentrionalis 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Animanga]]==

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

The result of the debate was delete, there are already categories for Anime and Manga. --Kbdank71 14:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Little-used term, little more than a tautology and a neologism. Delete. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 04:34 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism. Radiantmeta:mergist July 6, 2005 09:57 (UTC)
  • COMMENT not a neologism, since animanga survived a VFD where it is clearly shown not to be a neologism. 67.68.67.71 8 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
  • KEEP, appropriate parenting for subtopics. 67.68.67.71 8 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)
  • COMMENT what does tautology have to do with a category name? IT's not like it's an article, it's a category. I should think that a tautological name would be a good thing to have for a category. BTW as the previous anon stated, it's not a neologism, there are 250,000 hits on google for it, Google Groups shows it already in use by 1990. 132.205.94.174 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:List of WVBA Boxers]]==

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong namespace. Recreated with attribution at list of WVBA boxers. Delete. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 04:20 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Major_cities_in_North_Dakota]]==

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Define "major". Or just delete. Redundant with :Category:Cities in North Dakota. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 03:53 (UTC) Or population, as noted below. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:For a definition: How about the cities currently in :Template:North Dakota for Major? --Alexwcovington (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

::As you've stated elsewhere, the major cities there are defined as "major" only by an arbitrary level of population. The sections in the template are fine, but without proper context the category is useless. Note that most states' templates note the most populous cities, but no other states' categories are divided by arbitrary population levels. -Sean Curtin 00:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

::Is it really POV to create a category where Minto and Minot are not treated equally? --Alexwcovington (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

::* (I meant 'merge and delete', by the way). Okay, sorry if my comment was too short and snappy. My opinion is that establishing the threshold for what counts as a 'major' city is arbitrary (i.e. POV). It would be more useful to create a list of Cities in North Dakota by size. Radiantmeta:mergist 19:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

:See vote and comments below. <>Who?¿? 06:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

::Don't be an ass. It is the people on Categories for deletion who have insisted that :Category:Cities in North Dakota should have 361 entries, while :Category:Cities in Massachusetts 50 entries and :Category:Cities in New York 65 entries, etc. It's those old hangups about the existence of "official" names for the type of municipality. Breaking the "cities" category down into a "major" subcategory makes more sense for the state of North Dakota than for most other states; however, the convention appears to be to make categories dealing with individual cities subcategories of the "Cities in (state)" category, and that should be done for North Dakota as well. Gene Nygaard 8 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

:::WP:CIVIL please. --Kbdank71 8 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)

::I have not been disruptive, rude, or demeaning to anyone on Wiki. The Cfd's can get to be tedious, and sometimes a "witty" comment for fun, just lightens the mood. My vote, had nothing to do with my comment, and I usually comment on every vote/discussion, where the earlier discussions did not cover what I would have said. In this case, there was nothing more for me to discuss, as I fealt the ground had been covered, so I just voted and made a "funny" comment. Furthermore, I only comment on other remarks for clarification purposes, and do not feel Cfd is the place for these types of comments on comments (yes even this one). In the future if you have something you wish to share with me about my vote or discussion, please put it on my talk page, as not to disrupt the other voters and the discussion in general. Thank you. <>Who?¿? 06:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

::::I apologize for my original brashness, but I'm sure you can understand there are certain types of jokes that will offend certain kinds of people. -Alexwcovington (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are only four subcats in "major cities", three of which are already in "cities in", the fourth (Minot) is empty. And no articles. --Kbdank71 8 July 2005 14:40 (UTC)
  • Merge with :Category:Cities in North Dakota. I think a list of cities by population would be more helpful to the GP than a category of 15 articles that represent cities of more than 2450 people. --Kbdank71 14:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This category is useless because of another category that I created called "Category:Metropolitan areas in North Dakota". "Major" is much harder to define than "metropolitan". The subcategories in this category should also be deleted as there are similar subcategories in "Category:Metropolitan areas in North Dakota" that are actually used. --MatthewUND 03:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC) KEEP. I have changed my vote because of the great work that Alexwcovington has done on the category. I would encourage those who have voted for deletion to view what he has done and hopefully change your minds. As it stands now, the category is useful and makes navigating around the articles for North Dakota's major communities MUCH easier. --MatthewUND 06:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

::Not all the subcats need deletion. :Category:Minot, North Dakota is filling up nicely.--Alexwcovington (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I would really like to have something less restrictive than "Metropolitan Areas" and more restrictive than the full list of cities. I think between myself, Gene Nygaard, and MatthewUND, the category can be kept acceptable from the standpoint of North Dakotans. --Alexwcovington (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:Bit of background here- Under North Dakota law, all communities with a municipal charter of any kind are cities. :Category:Cities in North Dakota looks more like a data dump than something someone actually took care to make. I think this category should be given a chance to develop before voting immediately to delete it. --Alexwcovington (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

::CommentIf there is a certain set of cities which meet someone's criteria for a "major city in North Dakota", it should be done in list form with a prominent link from the :Category:Cities in North Dakota page. As it is, there is no explanation on the :Category:Major cities in North Dakota page indicating what it takes for a city to be there. A list would allow for a greater explanation of what a "major city" in North Dakota is, a list of the population of the cities, population of metropolitan areas, etc. Cheers. --BaronLarf 05:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

:::I've updated the category page to include some guidelines. Is it acceptable enough to allow the category to continue improvements without threat of deletion? --Alexwcovington (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Comment the reasoning behind mine, and other votes, is not a question of "large" versus "small" cities. The term "Major cities" is slightly POV, and ambiguous. I have gone through the category :Category:Cities in the United States, I did not see any other sub-categorization for city size. This does not mean that North Dakota shouldnt have one, just that the term "Major", should be discluded in the title, if a sub-cat was to be created. If the intention of this particular sub-cat is to remove some of the articles due to over population, I would generally object, at this time. The template Template:North Dakota does a good job of sub-dividing for the time being. At this time, I do not wish to change my vote, and feel all the articles should be in the parent. This has nothing to do with the remarks made against me, its just to keep a standard category structure in mentioned parent cat, until sub-cat'n seems warranted in the future. Thank you. <>Who?¿? 06:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Rename after "deliberation", it had been pointed out to me by Alexwcovington that the intention was to give the category a similar structure to other states that have; Towns in [state] and Villages in [state]. Whereas ND does not have such a distinction. So propose rename to :Category:Large cities in North_Dakota, as to rule out ambiguous and POV naming schema. <>Who?¿? 06:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment. In either case, the category (as it now stands) can be neatly summed with a population requirement of 2450. --Alexwcovington (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I still respectfully believe that, unless the North Dakota government or another prominent non-Wikipedia comes up with a different subdivision, this category is arbitrary and unnecessary. Simply stating on the category "Guidelines: Cities listed on Template:North Dakota, and other cities added by consensus" (as it currently states [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AMajor_cities_in_North_Dakota&diff=18513343&oldid=18237334]) is arbitrary. Having a guideline statement like that just points to the fluidity of its contents; aren't most categories the result of consensus? And a population requirement of 2450 seems even more arbitraty. Why not 2400? Why not 3000? Cheers --BaronLarf 07:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

::So we can't come to a consensus on the major cities because that would be arbitrary, and we can't pick hard requirements because that would be arbitrary? How could any category on Wikipedia withstand those requirements? --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:::That's a straw man. My contention is that having the category state "Guidelines: Cities listed on Template:North Dakota, and other cities added by consensus" or having a criteria of 2450 is arbitrary. Cheers. --BaronLarf 07:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

::::My point is, including anything in any category is to a degree arbitrary. What is really important here is that this category covers new ground on North Dakota, the cities that are too small to be "Metropolitan areas", but have a special place in the North Dakota psyche.

::::Arbitrary? Perhaps. But in a list of major North Dakota centers, who could forget Beulah and Hazen, or Rugby, the geographical centre of North America? You can draw a hard line any way you want, but hard facts and figures don't always tell the full story. What matters is that people who know and care about the subject matter are on the job, working tirelessly to improve it. That's the strength of Wikipedia, and it will work as well here as it was on the rest of our 650,000 articles. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

:Keep and make this a subcategory of :Category:Cities in North Dakota (as it is clearly a subset of that category). What cities qualify as "major" in North Dakota should be discussed and decided at Category talk:Cities in North Dakota, and that standard should be noted on the category and subcategory pages. Even though the distinction of what city is "major" is a bit subjective, I think it's still useful. --L33tminion (talk) 15:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

:Keep with exactly L33tminion's suggestions. Jolomo 23:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Video game cartoons]]==

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Animated television series based on computer and video games. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 03:31 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Cartoons]], [[:Category:Cartoon characters]]==

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 14:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The term cartoon is highly ambiguous, and is used to refer to both comics and animation interchangably. The former category is mostly empty, and should be merged into :Category:Comics and :Category:Animation as appropriate. The latter category should be repopulated into :Category:Animated characters and :Category:Comics characters, again, as appropriate. -Sean Curtin July 6, 2005 03:22 (UTC)

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

== [[:Category:Michigan islands]] ==

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

All articles have been moved from :Category:Michigan islands to the new category :Category:Islands of Michigan in order to be consistent with the rest of the states under :Category:Islands of the United States. This category is now empty and should be deleted. Cleduc 6 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

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

== [[:Category:Id]] and [[:Category:Jv]] ==

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

These may have been mistakenly placed in the category namespace. Both orphans (is that speedyable?). Delete. --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 01:31 (UTC)

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

== [[:Category:Related articles]] ==

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm really trying to see the point to this, but I just can't. What does this category do for me? Well, nothing. Especially since it only has two articles, and its associated template, {{tl|Relate}} (which is just as pointless and orphaned) and a strange Wikipedia:Relate to go along with it. --Dmcdevit July 6, 2005 00:56 (UTC)

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

== [[:Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with LCMS]] ==

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename to :Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod per Wiki policy on acronyms. Those outside of the LCMS are unfamiliar with what LCMS stands for. -Ichabod 6 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

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

==[[:Category:Anti-gay rights legislation]]==

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 13:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the second time for this page. Unfortunately, the previous resolution of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 19 was required to be restarted. Radiant has requested here that further details regarding that incident be deleted, but for the record, they can be found here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

The previous resolution acceptable to all parties was the proposal on June 20 by Dave and subsequent consensus decision that this should be renamed to :Category: LGBT-related laws and expanded to include laws from both sides. In this manner, it would be like :Category:Family_law.

--Noitall July 2, 2005 14:10 (UTC)

  • Rename to :Category:LGBT-related legislation — regardless of the previous discussion and rather venomous-looking consequences, this category title is highly POV (and badly hyphenated; it should 'Anti gay-rights laws'). -Splash July 2, 2005 17:35 (UTC)

:*BTW, I apologize for the "venomous-looking consequences," it was not meant for those expressing their opinion but for a User taking a heretofore resolved issue and restarting it because the User did not like (or could not understand) the resolution. --Noitall July 2, 2005 18:39 (UTC)

  • Note: I propose we extend the vote three days because the {{cfd}} tag wasn't added when this category was listed here. -Seth Mahoney July 6, 2005 00:03 (UTC)
  • rename, as determined earlier. If going through the process again is necessary, then that's fine. Take as long as seems fair. Dave (talk) July 6, 2005 01:00 (UTC)
  • The category should continue to exist, but I don't have a problem with renaming it as above, to make it a pro-and-anti category. — OwenBlacker July 6, 2005 13:08 (UTC)
  • Keep I would still argue that many, on both sides of the debate, would categorise these laws as "anti-gay rights". Axon 7 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)
  • Note: As per Seth Mahoney, this is being kept open until July 13th because the cfd tag was not added. Also to see if we can get a consensus. --Kbdank71 16:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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