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 13:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:People with asteroids named after them should become Category:Asteroid eponyms; because categories should, above all, be short. ( Category:Human asteroid eponyms might avoid getting all the mythological asteroids into the cat; but is still too long.)

• Support and Keep Nominator vote. See also comment below. Septentrionalis 21:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: use of this category should be rethought. Discoverers name asteroids as by their wish and very often they use historical persons (at least Czech astronomers did name dozens of objects AFAIK). Someone too eager is then tempted to put this category into innocent article and result feels as joke. The category should be converted to list, IMO. Pavel Vozenilek 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I found List of asteroids named after people already exists (and is quite large). List of asteroids exists as well and is truly gigantic. Pavel Vozenilek 17:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I support the existence of both the list and the category; and think they work well together; many of people asteroids are named after are otherwise non-notable, the astronomer's wife and neighbors.. Septentrionalis 16:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete and list, per Pavel Vozenilek. siafu 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete and list. Gdr 23:03:48, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
• Support Nominator vote. Pictureuploader 14:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, agree this would be better as a list. - SimonP 15:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. — Insta ntnood 15:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify & delete. R adiant _>|< 00:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. List material. Flowerparty ^talk 19:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Just delete. If an asteroid is named after someone, it should be in their article. -- Kbdank71 16:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Move as suggested. Lists are too bothersome to be updated frequently. Sarge Baldy 02:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Listify / Delete As much as I prefer cats over lists, some of the persons with said named asteroids, don't warrant inclusion to Wiki, so it would be quite difficult to add them to a category. It would also be rather silly to create a stub for someone named after an asteroid that not very many people no about. A list will suit these purposes just fine. ∞ Who ?¿? 16:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I am nominating this category, which is similar to another case below, to facilitate a better discussion, and to review all these categories which share some similarities. (For this reason my nomination should not be considered a support vote.) — Insta ntnood 16:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• What are you nominating this category for? Deletion? Renaming?-- Huaiwei 17:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• There should be a log of a recent CFD on this, with a Keep decision attached... 132.205.94.172 19:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• CLEANUP', category needs subcategorization. 132.205.94.172 19:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Working on moving anime/manga related terms into Category:Anime and manga terminology. There probably should be ones for others as well. Count this as a Keep and cleanup, BTW.-- Mitsukai 01:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Seems like alot of the terms you're moving aren't specifically animanga terms, such as dorama (there're tape trees for live action dorama in North America), lolicon, shotacon, hentai, ecchi, kawaii... while you left anime, and manga in the parent cat... 132.205.45.148 16:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I left anime and manga in the root cats because to put them in terms cat would have been a needless redundancy. Some of the others that bleed heavily into manga and anime terms, such as lolicon, etc. do expound into anime/manga, which is why they are in there (unless I made a mistake, the other categories should have remained as well, unless they were in the root anime/manga cats, in which case I then removed them). And by your own words, dorama is disqualified from anime or manga because it deals with live action; since I made that mistake, anime and manga should be removed from scene outright and I'll take care of that now.In retrospect, anime and manga are fine with it due to radio drama, but there's no reason why we should have it listed in seperate manga and anime cats when there is a subcat that exists in both.-- Mitsukai 23:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Keep but refactor. Isn't there a lot of dictionary definition in these categories (for example, dorama)? I would say that anything that is just a translation or romanization of an English word should be VfD as a dicdef. Of course dramas in Japan reflect peculiarities of the local culture, but the general term drama doesn't take on a different meaning in Japan. This isn't to hash out dorama in particular, but just an example of what I see as problematic with this category. If you want to do Japanese term dicdefs, you can bring them to Takipedia where such contributions are welcomed and encouraged. The Hokkaido Crow 14:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I think that dorama can be encyclopedic, since in North America it solely refers to Japanese live action TV drama, and to Anime audio drama CDs. As this is a subcultural issue, an article with comparatives between Japanese dorama and English-speaking world ones, or the impact of dorama in North America and elsewhere outside of Japan would be a good article. Otherwise, "Manga" is just comics, and "Anime" is just cartoons. 132.205.44.43 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
        • If understanding the nuance of dorama depends on a North American or subcultural POV, then by definition it violates NPOV (to my reckoning). Again, my purpose is not to hash out dorama specifically, but to bring up issues that can be generalized to the category - dicdef and POV. The Hokkaido Crow 21:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
          • Not really, if it is dependent on a North American point of view, it just needs to indicate this. We have lots of articles like this (such as anime, manga, physician, just about every aristocratic title article, etc). Afterall, "fag" means gay in North America, but "cigarette" in Britain, so variant meanings based on locality is common. Articles on subcultures are also encyclopedic, otherwise any articles about racist terms would also be a problem. An article on the use of "fag" and tne impact of the word in the gay subculture, or society in general would be relevant to North America, but not everywhere on Earth. 132.205.94.174 22:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep ∞ Who ?¿? 00:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

→ Category:K-141 Kursk accident

Rename so that it can be better used for the accident, and not just specifically restricted to the sub itself. 132.205.44.43 16:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Limiting it to the accident is, well, limiting. The current title covers the sub and related matters, such as the accident. -- Kbdank71 17:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, as I see it, the submarine category is the smaller one, as there will only ever be a few articles on it. While articles pertaining to the accident is a potentially larger population. 132.205.94.172 21:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Could the original submitter please provide an example (or two) of something they feel is convered by the "accident" name, but not covered by the original "Kursk" name? As it stands, it's hard to see why the change is needed. TexasAndroid 17:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I'd like it to include articles about ships related to the Kursk accident recovery and rescue attempts. 132.205.94.172 19:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep there is not enough material to split off a separate category. - Splash 19:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a vote to split off material, it's a rename request, all material in it will stay in it. 132.205.94.172 21:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, but this cat will be too small to be a useful cat. And separating from the more broadly named cat will mean that there is less to go in that cat, which is itself very small already. - Splash 17:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
      • The current category would be smaller than the renamed category. There would be no separating, and the proposed name would be a broader category than the current one, since just about no other articles are likely to be added to the current category. Kursk accident can accomodate further articles on the state of the Northern Fleet, the state of submarine rescue, the ships involved in the Kursk rescue attempt, etc. 132.205.44.43 19:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Kbdank71, why not just a new category? . feydey 01:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete ∞ Who ?¿? 01:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, replaced with Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. -- Kbdank71 16:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I am afraid by proliferation of categories that are not useable for articles, only for users (say late Category:Windows XP users). They bring almost no value to Wikipedia, are impossible to verify and once started everyone will feel empowered to create his own category. There should be central policy on such "categories". Pavel Vozenilek 21:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I concur with the above. It's superfluous, and will only cause problems in the long run.-- Mitsukai 01:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• I don't see how they are a problem. They can be useful by linking users who have experience in whatever the subject is. Please see the earlier CFD discussion. Maurreen (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment The general idea is "usefull" (as far as Wikipedian categories go), but the current implementation is not very "international". I'm not even sure what the local equivelent to college is, and what the heck is "alma mater"? Something Latin no doubht... Should be more "general" like "Wikipedians with higher education in <insert field here>". Or just "Wikipedians by schools", lumping all colleges, universities, high schools and what not in there. As for the usefullnes I think people need to "loosen up" regarding the Wikipedian categories, sure some are pure nonsense, but as long as they are properly organised, and non-offensive what harm is there if people want to categorise themselves by favourite color, height, hobby or whatever? As long as it doesn't spill into the main namespace naturaly. That said, empty categories are naturaly fair game. -- Sherool 21:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Almost forgot: delete this particular category as it's empty and redundant in the current "system". -- Sherool 11:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Both versions (see above for second nomination). They are both in American English. Change to category:Wikipedians by university or college. Osomec 11:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete ∞ Who ?¿? 00:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, replaced with Category:User trumpet. -- Kbdank71 16:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I guess the wiki user project changed all them all: Wikipedian → User? ∞ Who ?¿? 16:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete ∞ Who ?¿? 00:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, replaced with Category:User sax. -- Kbdank71 16:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete ∞ Who ?¿? 16:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted ∞ Who ?¿? 00:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty. Misspelling of Category:Portuguese poets. I've already moved the three entries into the existing, correctly spelled category. TexasAndroid 16:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per rules. Pavel Vozenilek 21:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy requested ∞ Who ?¿? 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete ∞ Who ?¿? 00:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty. Tagged for Cfd by creator but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 16:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete ∞ Who ?¿? 00:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty. Tagged for Cfd but not listed here. -- Kbdank71 16:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Ports and harbours of the United Kingdom. ∞ Who ?¿? 00:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:Ports and harbours of the United Kingdom, surely? Even with the debate on naming conventions going on, I don't think there would be many complaints about this move. Grutness... wha? 13:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. And the "abbreviations question" got 73% in favour of expanded abbreviations and using "United Kingdom", although discussion will probably continue on related issues too. - Splash 19:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 22:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as above. Osomec 11:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Upmerge to category:Public transport in Hong Kong. All are reasonably small, and it's more comprehensive to keep different kinds of public transport together. Besides, "tram" is a form of "railway". R adiant _>|< 12:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• This nomination is nothing but stupid meddling. Of course it is more "comprehensive" to merge categories - do you want to place all articles in one big category? It follows an established pattern (see e.g. Category:Public transport in the United Kingdom, which is not obviously wrong. You haven't suggested anything better. So what are you trying to do? Mirror Vax 07:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. They are linked to category:rail transport by country, category:bus transport and category:tram transport. Useful components of categorising structure. — Insta ntnood 16:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Instantnood. Albeit the puny number of articles, this is a very common way to separate transport system of a region into different aspects. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Please be reminded to use {{ cfru}} for umberella nominations. :-D — Insta ntnood 16:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Radiant! I wouldn't have a problem recreating one or more if the number of articles warranted it. Right now I don't believe it does. -- Kbdank71 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • So are you volunteering to monitor the categories and articles, and re-create the structure the very second it is "warrented"? If not, I respectfully suggest you refrain from meddling. Mirror Vax 06:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • No, any editor can do that. Like you. Anything constructive to add? -- Kbdank71 13:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Kbdank71 — there just aren't enough articles to make a cat out of them yet. Could be remade in future though. - Splash 19:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • So are you volunteering to remake them in the future? If not, I respectfully suggest you refrain from meddling. Mirror Vax 06:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. No argument. siafu 22:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge SchmuckyTheCat 23:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as part of the structure. -- SPUI ( talk) 05:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Instantnood. Maurreen (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge Category:Tram transport in Hong Kong in particular.-- Huaiwei 15:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per Instantnood. - Hello World! 02:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Instantnood. James F. (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) -- Kbdank71 13:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Bit of a clumsy title. Should be "Black" or "African-American" not both, as they don't mean the same thing. Assuming all these directors are American, the title should be Category:African-American film directors. JW 11:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete, do not categorize by skin color. Also, we should have a centralized discussion on that issue. R adiant _>|< 12:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• That's really another issue. The parent is Category:African Americans and there are probably other racial categories. I'm sure this must have been discussed before as with the LGBT cats. If you feel strongly about it you can always nominate the parent for deletion. JW 14:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It is another issue, but if as you say it has been discussed before, please show me where. To my knowledge there has never been a consensual discussion on the existence of racial, gender or sexual preference categorization. R adiant _>|< 15:59, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know if there has been a discussion about racial categories but I assumed there would have been if people felt strongly enough. If there hasn't been one then it's probably long overdue, although I suspect it would be difficult to get a consensus for deletion. My own feeling is that it makes no sense to classify by race or sexuality when we don't do it by gender. But as long as this category exists it should at least have the right name. JW 18:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename or split into two. — Insta ntnood 16:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Black. That way it can hold blacks from other countries. -- Kbdank71 17:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I think the creator of this category actually meant black Americans, rather than all black directors, so a rename to "Black film directors" would change the purpose of the category from a national/ethnic one to a purely racial one. JW 19:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I think the creator meant black, as the intro sentence points out: The following individuals are African-American or non-American Black film directors. Although technically there are white africans, so maybe not. -- Kbdank71 13:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete ethnic subcats. - Splash 19:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• 'Delete per Radiant. Centralized discussion should be created as this question comes up regularly. Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Dividing people by skin color or ethnic background is pretty fucking stupid. It's a fact, however, that this is a very common and accepted thing to do both at large and in the academic community. siafu 22:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • That's down to systemic left liberal activist bias in the academic community. Osomec 11:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename or split. Agree with nom and siafu. Maurreen (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Should be no more acceptable than category:white film directors would be. Osomec 11:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Rename. Prior to the 60s, black filmmaking was as segregated as anything else, and represented a separated and subcultural phenomenon in the USA, akin to "Russian" films made in the Soviet Union. A handful of postmoderns like Spike Lee have also made race-oriented filmmaking into an art form. To ignore all that is ridiculous. I prefer '"Black American film directors"' because zero of the people who would fall in this category emigrated from Africa to the best of my knowledge, or carried dual citizenship; but either is more acceptable than pretending there wasn't, and still isn't, a black subculture producing its own art within the USA, including film. Obviously, of course all directors listed here should be co-listed in just plain Category:American film directors; and there should also be work on defining other US subcultural filmmakers and their films (e.g. Yiddish/Jewish); and this should be a subcategory to Category:Black American film. 12.73.195.15 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:African American film directors. - Sean Curtin 00:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Radiant, Splash, Osomec, and the others. Singling out film directors based on their skin color is racism. Amalekite 10:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Politicians of European nations. ∞ Who ?¿? 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't this be renamed to Category:Politicians of European nations, in tune with the other subcategories of Category:Politicians by country: Politicians of African nations, Politicians of Asian nations, Politicians of Caribbean nations, Politicians of North American nations, Politicians of Oceanic nations and Politicians of South American nations? Aecis 09:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Question: Is there any need of a category for EU politicians? — Insta ntnood 16:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not EU politicians, it's politicians in nations on the European continent. EU != Europe. -- Sherool 21:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. We have the other continents, so might as well have this one too. The whole lot might well be too broad to be useful, though. - Splash 19:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename but keep, one giant category for all countries is not practical. Pavel Vozenilek 21:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. I'm thinking, however, that it may be better to have these categories named more simply as Category: Politicians of <continent> rather than ... of <continental nations>. siafu 22:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC) reply

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