Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:22, 30 December 2005

December 29

Category:Pages affected by proposed deletion of Template X

Has {{cfd}} since 10 December, completing nomination. Some kind of experiment, seems to be abandoned. cesarb 23:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied as user test. Radiant_>|< 00:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mac OS software-

Soft redirects to Category:Mac OS software, title is not useful. cesarb 23:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Citigroup subsidiaries into Category:Citigroup

One way or another this needs to be consistent, an extra category for subsidiaries doesnt seem to be of any use as Category:Citigroup contains subsidiaries anyway. Merge Ian3055 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Local Government Areas in The Gambia to Category:Local Government Areas of The Gambia

Your reason? just cos I feel like it. MeltBanana 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Birds by country to Category:Regional bird lists

See Category talk:Birds by country Elf | Talk 18:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, present name seems to match naming schemes more closely. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object: This is a merge. The bird articles vs. lists vs. categories is baffling. These both actually need to be in Category:Bird lists by country. There's not a lot of bird articles - they're all actually species lists. These are categories of lists of birds by country which all point to the lists of birds by species --- figure that one out. wknight94 02:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Lists of birds

Empty catg Elf | Talk 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: There's already two categories like this that people are trying to merge. We certainly don't need another empty one to further confuse the issue. wknight94 02:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:United States television networks to Category:American television networks

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". Ronald20 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, as "American" is used mainly for people, a better name would be Category:Television networks of the United States. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:United States radio networks to Category:American radio networks

Standard seems to be "American" instead of "U.S." or "United States". Ronald20 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Object, as "American" is used mainly for people, a better name would be Category:Radio networks of the United States. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

This category is inherently POV in most circumstances. Addition of it to any article is very likely to create an edit war. Phroziac _. o º 16:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (again) This category is not inherently POV. We can and succesfully have taken a sociological . There are certain hallmarks of pseudoscience and scientific community unanimous in denouncing pseudoscience as such. Sure, there is a demarcation problem at the fringes, but we can be conservative with such topics, but such things as perpetual motion machines, astrology and creation science are patently pseudoscience. Also, we really need to star creating Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Category:Foo pages in order to stop constant renominations. We've been through this before. — Dunc|☺ 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep again. Categories are a navigational aid, not a presentation of facts. SchmuckyTheCat 16:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (is this the third time it has been listed here?). I'm still not sure the current name of it is best but nothing better has come along. It is a valid conceptual category and its assignment should be purely sociological — Creationism is labeled psuedoscience because mainstream scientific consensus is that it is pseudoscience. It's a POV but it should be an attributed and easily verified POV, and one which is meaningful and useful to apply at times. And while it surely will create controversy in applying it, that by itself is not a good reason to nix it. --Fastfission 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (again) Ian Cairns 17:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or perhaps I should say pseudo-delete. David | Talk 17:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you did, it'd probably be taken as a delete. :P --Phroziac _. o º 20:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Willmcw 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (again) KillerChihuahua 18:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Fastfission. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I will listen to proposals for a name change. I don't really like the "questionable validity" term that was proposed. Bubba73 (talk), 19:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Phroziac about as NPOV as ]. --Doc 20:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Rename to just about anything ("unprovable science" etc.)... the current name screams edit wars and such for little benefit... WhiteNight 20:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Fastfission. --CDN99 21:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to: Science of debated status, or something similar. Larix 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Shouldn't talk pages for categories which underwent an unsuccessful deletion vote be tagged with a notice similar to the one articles get ? -- Ze miguel 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A common neutral encyclopedic term disliked by amateur enthusiasts. The cat. needs to be watched for potential abuse. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Silent Comics characters

All articles in category are currently AFD'd due to being possible advertising. Should the articles be deleted, this category would thus be unnecessary. Should the articles stand, they are not sizable or notable enough to warrant their own category. Mitsukai 16:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Yooden
• Keep - as long as there are articles in there, the argumentation to delete does not stand. Larix 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too small to require a cat, use other comics schemes if the articles remain, or listify. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Canadians detained to Category:Canadian prisoners and detainees

In line with the other subcategories of Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality Ze miguel 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Yooden

Category:Prisoners

Duplicate with Category:Prisoners and detainees. The category was requested to be emptied and deleted since October 6, 2004. Ze miguel 16:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Yooden
• Cat redir. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Dieselpunk

Second nomination (first nomination here). Since the main dieselpunk article was deleted as original research, there's little reason to retain the category. - EurekaLott 15:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete w/o the dieselpunk article, the category is meaningless. Avogadro 15:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Condemned Prisoners

Duplicate with Category:Death row prisoners Ze miguel 15:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Should be Category:Prisoners on death row. And "Condemned prisoners" should probably be a redirect. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Video game musicians to Category:Computer and video game musicians

Consistency with the rest of the Category:Computer and video games categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Golfcam 15:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

1. The category title is POV
2. To broad (there are LOTS of notable people who have a level of hatred towards jews, some publicaly some not). I am sure we can list millions.
   • Every German had to be a member of the Nazi party or were declared trators right? Doesnt simply being a member of the Nazi party make one Anti-Semitic? I do not think so.
   • This is really like Category:Terrorists. As far as I care Osama is a terrorist. As far as an average Jew as well as myself Hitler is Anti-Semitic. However this is a breach of WP:NPOV. Who determinies who is Anti-Semitic?

   --Cool Cat 13:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A last minute thing articles such as David Irving is very concernig. Misplaced Pages is not a median to declare people things or mock them. We cannot call George W. Bush a terroist just because Ossama declares him as such nor can we declare Ossama as a terrorist just because US gov and Bush as well as many others think so. --Cool Cat 13:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it sad that the 'Vocal' few get so much attention while the silent majority get so little. Send a message to 'Cool Cat' and Co. vote to 'Keep'. Battlefield 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Cool Cats speech, let people think and vote they don't need to read your crap! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlefield (talk • contribs)

Restored "crap", who or whatever you are stop it. You are warned, I am also giving you warning one for vandalism. --Cool Cat 06:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The title is misleading, the content is not NPOV. --Yooden

• Delete You can't call someone anti-semitic without drawing a parallel with Hitler. CalJW 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The majority of the articles were in the Category:Anti-Semitism this category was becoming crowded with peoples names so this secondary Category was created. Battlefield 15:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User talk:Battlefield based on your own talk page there has already been serrious issues on a number of people being tagged with this category. --Cool Cat 06:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, so long as the category is only used for people who are sourced in their own articles as being anti-Semitic. User:Zoe| 16:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What about people such as David Irving who is declared by others as Anti-Semitic and he says he isnt. How is it npov to namecall people on their wikipedia pages? --Cool Cat 06:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Zoe. Don't agree that the content is not NPOV so long as the category is maintained properly. David | Talk 17:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Zoe's reasoning. WhiteNight 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a very relevant category. It has to be monitored closely, though. Larix 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• My vote for delete is above, but I wanted to add some other thoughts.
  • This is necesserily POV, and it might very well be reason for a lawsuit against Misplaced Pages. If some lawyer-crazy USian finds his name on this list and needs money, what do you think he will do?
  • NPOV in an article, even on a topic like this, can be done with the proper formulation. This is not possible with a bland label as this category.
  • Third, I am reminded of the word 'Jew' written in a yellow star. --Yooden
    • Sorry but how is the "yellow jew star" related to wikipedias cfd policy? I know I am blunt but really key thing is who determines who belongs to this category and who isnt. --Cool Cat 06:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: But maybe it needs to be renamed? "Admittedly anti-semitic people" maybe? As far as lawyer-crazy Americans suing, that has nothing to do with this category - that goes for all of Misplaced Pages. Just ask John Seigenthaler Sr.
  • In the mid-1980s, Irving began openly associating with neo-Nazi and extremist groups, and his reputation began to wane. In the late 1990s, he sued the Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt for having listed him as a Holocaust denier in her book Denying the Holocaust. After a much publicised trial, Irving lost the case and was found to be a Holocaust denier by the court. In the process, his reputation as a historian was effectively destroyed. from David Irving
  • David Irving is declared Anti-Semitic and he has sued or attemted to sue people declaring him as such. What if I am next to be declared Anti-Semitic for cfding Category:Anti-Semitic people? --Cool Cat 06:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Seigenthaler case is different, the entry was clearly wrong and was changed as soon as Seigenthaler pointed it out. The entries in this category are meant to be true. Are they supposed to be deleted once anyone takes offense? What's the point then? --Yooden

• Delete, POV/attack magnet. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - so is Adolph Hitler, just because something is a POV/attack magnet doesn't mean we should delete it, its the relevance and importance of the (in this case) category thats important GabrielF 03:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename into much less controversial Category:Anti-Semitism (people). Also, a couple of comments. 1) Since Category:Nazis is a subcat, I think the individual Nazis should be removed from this one. 2) In case this cat. is completely removed, the articles should be moved back into Category:Anti-Semitism. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or rename to anti-semitism (people) I saw this category the other day while browsing around and I figured it would come up for a vfd. However, the category is relevant and none of the entries that I recognized were objectionable. It has to be closely monitored, as Larix said, but it should be kept GabrielF 03:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC) -- edited to support Humus Sapiens excellent suggestion GabrielF 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • yes but who determines who is Anti-Semitic and what makes one Anti-Semitic, who determines the border from "simple hate" and "Anti-Semiticism"? Who determines who is a gurrela and who is a terrorist? Of course I made similar statements that were removed by a third party so please have a read of them :) --Cool Cat 06:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, as I said for all of the names in the category that I recognized on the list it is pretty obvious from what they have said and written and done that they are anti-semitic. How could you argue that Hitler or Goebelles or David Duke weren't anti-semites for example? This is much less complicated than asking who is a terrorist because I think we have a pretty good definition of anti-semitism. I don't really understand what you mean when you say who determines the difference between simple hate and anti-semitism, anti-semitism, according to my dictionary (Oxford American) is defined as "hostility to or prejudice against Jews." There is no distinction between simple hatred of Jews and anti-semitism. Of course there could easily be controversial inclusions, but those should be debated on a case by case basis, we shouldn't wipe out the whole category. GabrielF 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or rename to Category:Anti-Semitism (people) because
  1. If it is so hard to decide if someone is anti-semitic or not, then at least half of Category:Anti-Semitism should also be untagged. Either keep both or delete both.
  2. There are too many entries in the parent category to re-merge these, so the people need to go into some sub-category.
  3. Perhaps this category name itself is offensive. If so, rename it, not delete.

--ssd 08:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:IWW leaders to Category:Industrial Workers of the World leaders

Remove abbreviation in line with policy. Sumahoy 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC). Rename per nom. WAvegetarian (email) 08:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Eternal Divine Path

A category describing a religious movement, for which there is a single article. Ze miguel 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:LGBT murderers, Category:LGBT serial killers

Created for the purpose of anti-LGBT POV pushing; not an important category. DDerby-(talk) 10:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Previous no-consensus CFD discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Biased nomination. As being LGBT is promoted via the category system in relation to positive accomplishments, this should be kept too. Sumahoy 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean, this should be kept because you want your POV represented? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. Ambi 13:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per the first bloke to speak in the category's defence. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think the category Category:LGBT criminals is rather worrying too. Should this include Alan Turing, whose only crime was being gay? Morwen - Talk 14:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We've already been through that. CalJW 14:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no sigifigant correlation between LGBT and murderers much less serial killers - until evidence of such is presented, this looks like just POV Triona 14:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do we have Category:African American serial killers ? How are you going to prove they are gay anyway? - FrancisTyers 14:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Deletee, per everyone else. --Phroziac _. o º 14:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wonder where all these infrequent visitors to this page came from? I dare say they are a little skewed compared to the user base as a whole. This can go when your propaganda categories go, but you won't allow your bias to be removed so this should stay as an attempt balance the most obvious systematic breach of the neutrality policy which has been inflicted on wikipedia. CalJW 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't really think the frequency of my usage of this page matters. I'm a member of the Misplaced Pages community. I usually avoid deletion discussions unless they are important to me. Of course, I can't talk for anyone else. --Phroziac _. o º 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I frequently look, but often don't enter a position, due either to no strong feeling either way, or clear consensus one way or the other. KillerChihuahua 19:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We already voted on this. Golfcam 15:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no reference to a previous CFD on the talk pages. --DDerby-(talk) 21:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Lesbian Killers? WTF? --Yooden
• Delete Nonsense category. KillerChihuahua 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anyway, shouldn't 'LGBT murderer' be used for someone who kills Lesbians, Gay men, bisexuals and transgender people? David | Talk 19:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with the equally nonesensical categories of LGBT muderers and LGBT criminals.Benami 20:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with yet to create Category:straight murderers, and then rename to Category:Criminals with a sexual orientation ;) Larix 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Because we must keep ballence on wikipedia. grazon 23:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Wow, this is quite the hornets' nest... How can we talk about proving people are gay? That argument applies to all of the zillion LGBT categories out there now. We already have LGBT categories - we already have serial killer categories - so why are we feigning horror at the idea of combining them? Sounds like paranoia to me. wknight94 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not all permutations of cats make sense. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This will be interesting to see how this develops, don't think it's assuming a correlation so much as a "hey, this is interesting too", like "Jewish actors" or "lefthanded Chicagoans" Chris 03:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a patently stupid category. Who cares what serial killers were LGBT? Ral315 (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Birminghamians to Category:People from Birmingham, Alabama

• Rename. - There is stated in this category, that this is a category for people of Birmingham, Alabama, but still it is confusing to have only "Birminghamians" category. Darwinek 09:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Particularly silly since the American Birmingham is about five gazillion times less well-known. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though I doubt many Brummies would call themselves "Birminghamian"! Grutness...wha? 23:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cape Towners

Empty Category, superseded by Category:Natives of Cape Town. Zunaid 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

• Cat redir. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Channelled entities

Inherently POV and unverifiable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, no, it's not really either one. Sure, it's unverifiable whether these entities actually exist, but it's not at all unverifiable that books have been published purporting to reveal the entities' channelled wisdom. The fact that Seth, Ramtha, Kryon, Oahspe, etc. can't be definitively proven to exist doesn't make the category unverifiable — God can't be definitively proven to exist, either, and we have categories devoted to him. The question is whether we can verify that some people believe that these entities exist, and the answer to that question is yes, we can. Keep. Bearcat 08:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ramtha's 15 minutes ran out about a hundred years ago, but it was some sort of something, that we have mostly NPOV and verifiable articles about. SchmuckyTheCat 08:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite the category page to make it clear that the existence of these entities is disputed, but keep the category itself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to something more comprehensive. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians interested electronics

Redundant with Category:Wikipedians interested in electronics (and the page of that category says that to add yourself to Category:Wikipedians interested in electronics, you use the same code as you would if you were to add yourself to Category:Wikipedians interested electronics). Delete and use the category that is properly named. --Idont Havaname 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. -- Ze miguel 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted, merged with Category:Wikipedians interested in electronics, as it was apparently created by mistake. --Phroziac _. o º 20:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Democrats (US)

This category needs routine deletion. It was once linked to by a template but that now links elsewhere. There are no pages here, just a small server hog that should be gotten rid of. HereToHelp (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The template was changed and the category is now in use again. Never mind.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to something like "Wikipedians who support the Democratic party" or whatever. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Australian television comedy to Category:Australian television comedy series

• Category:Australian television comedy to Category:Australian television comedy series

Rename: To bring uniformity to the Category:Australian television series by genre category. -- Longhair 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Goth metal to Category:Gothic metal

• Category:Goth metal albums to Category:Gothic metal albums

Rename: The main article is titled Gothic metal, which is the preferred form. -- Parasti 03:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename and Add. On this note, there also needs to be catagorys called Symphonic Metal made, and Gothic-Doom, to establish the differences between bands. This is so that a full editiation of the network of articles can viably be corrected, edited, or otherwise modified, as to not undermine the articles and their content. Also see the Gothic Metal articles 'Common Misconceptions' on as to why 'Goth Metal' is a misnaming of the genre 'Gothic Metal'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyasu (talk • contribs)
• Rename per nom. (I also changed the title for you to follow conventions; hope you don't mind.) --Idont Havaname 04:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is all new stuff to me, so no, not at all. Thanks. -- Parasti 04:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Golfcam 15:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Cat redir? Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Entertainers who died aged x etc. categories

Entirely arbitrary categories. Why 20 and not 21? Why 21 and not 16? And so on. It doesn't make an interesting or natural category. The same can be said for the "entertainers who died in their n0s" categories, which have the same failings. We don't have "kings who died in their 50s" do we? Tell me we don't have that! James James 02:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Original nom was just for "before age 20" cat, added to nomination all similar categories. Arniep 16:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Category:Prematurely deceased entertainers
• Category:Entertainers who died before age 20
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 30s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 40s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 50s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 60s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 70s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 80s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 90s
• Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 20s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 30s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 40s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 50s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 60s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 70s
• Category:Entertainers who committed suicide in their 80s

• Delete as per nom. Valiantis 14:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Yooden
• Delete all but Category:Entertainers who committed suicide. I could definitely see that one being useful. The rest are awful.--Mike Selinker 20:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is it useful to link entertainers and suicide? We already have Category:Suicides I don't see what difference it makes what profession you are in. Also, personally I never refer to actors as entertainers, comedians maybe, but not actors.Arniep 00:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it's reasonally encyclopedic. If I were doing a research paper about suicide, I might want to research some famous people who killed themselves. The category:Suicides is already colossal (which is pretty unfortunate for other reasons), so breaking it up by profession isn't out of line. I certainly wouldn't want to break it up by nationality or age.--Mike Selinker 04:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all but Category:Entertainers who committed suicide. -Sean Curtin 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• People can be interested in young-died artists. And if you have to draw a line, the round numbers make sense to me. Therefore: Keep Larix 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename Category:Entertainers who died in their 100s as Category:Entertainers who lived to the age of 100 and delete all others but Category:Entertainers who committed suicide, Category:Entertainers who died before age 20, Category:Entertainers who died in their 20s. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, arbitrary. Can be inferred from the births/deahts cats. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I've had countless conversations with friends recounting various "celebrities" that died prematurely. These were started as just that and exploded into the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. that even I find useless. wknight94 01:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Prematurely" is a bit hard to define objectively. I'm not convinced about the suicide thing. I think of categories as navigation tools. Do people read about Ian Curtis and then think, I wonder who else topped themselves? Maybe they do. If you think they do, keep the suicide one. If you don't, delete all. James James 06:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rulers in India

Empty, covered by Category:Indian monarchs. MeltBanana 01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Rulers of India, and add Category:Prime Ministers of India and Category:Indian monarchs as subcategories. -- Ze miguel 17:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per Ze miguel. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Newspapers of the Republic of China

The naming format is "Blahnese newspapers" in Category:Newspapers by country and Category:Taiwanese newspapers already exists. Also, Instantnood is underhandedly trying to rename Taiwan to Republic of China by creating new categories that fit his name, since he can't get consensus to rename the EXISTING category. SchmuckyTheCat 01:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Seems like a straightforward delete per nom. James James 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete - cateogry already exists by diff name as per nom. novacatz 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Sumahoy 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: User:SchmuckyTheCat knows pretty well with the issues around the matter. Anybody who is familiar can tell who's underhandedly trying to fit her/his own preference by making use of CfD inappropriately. — Instantnood 16:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This category was created following precedance such as category:transportation in the Republic of China/Taiwan and category:townships in the Republic of China/Taiwan, that are in turn following Misplaced Pages's NPOV policies (Misplaced Pages:naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV, Misplaced Pages:naming conventions (categories)#How to name a nationality and #How to name the country. Further, this is the only category Matsu Daily and Kinmen Daily News can reside, rather than category:Asian newspapers. — Instantnood 16:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah, those two can go in Taiwanese newspapers just fine. They are newspapers in the common definition of Taiwan, just not your restrictive one. SchmuckyTheCat 16:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Please be reminded it's not me who's being restrictive. I'm following the NPOV policy which has been in place before I joined Misplaced Pages. Please don't influence the rest of the community adversely by making some false accusations on me, and providing false information regarding the matter. — Instantnood 18:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if I generally agree with the said convention, I see this as his latest attempt to test waters in the wake of an Arbcom related to the Taiwan issue.--Huaiwei 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Question Can't we merge both categories in 'Newspapers of Taiwan/the Republic of China'? Otherwise, delete. Larix 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; rename if stylistic considerations are important (but what would it be -- "Republican Chinese newspapers"?). There is no reason not to have two categories, one for Taiwanese newspapers, and one for newspapers of the ROC. After all, we have two different articles for Taiwan and Republic of China; history of Taiwan and history of the Republic of China; etc. Clearly there are newspapers that were once published in the ROC (e.g. Ta Kung Pao), but were never published in Taiwan. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Huaiwei. Ral315 (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)