Talk:List of Algonquian personal names

Disallowing a category makes no sense
This article is so unwieldy and nowhere near as useful as a category was. Categories are much more versatile, they allow the benefit of finding out the other names simply and unobtrusively by clicking the category from the involved pages, without tediously having to add a link to this page from every individual article just to accomplish the same. People reading most of these articles will not even know the list is here, what use is it? I just do not follow the ideologies and politically contrived reasons for deletion, that currently seem popular as a pretext with those who like to delete categories really for their own agendas. They are making this encyclopedia only harder to use or benefit from. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At least it was kept as a list rather than deleted, and kept within the encyclopedia rather than hived off to Wiktionary. Category navigation is still usable, clicking first to the specific "people" of which the person was a member, then up to Category:Algonquian peoples. I acknowledge that this also includes people known primarily by a "Christian" name, but the articles on those people will often include their native-language names, so it can be argued that you can reach more people/names using the "People" category than by the old "Name" category.
 * Thank you for improving the intro to this list. Shall we move it to "List of people with Algonquian personal names" or similar? – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess that's looking on the bright side, but it still leaves me wondering why we seem to be moving in the direction of "less" user-friendly here, for some kind of weird reason, like we were running low on byte space so we had to cut back in a few spots, and this article is not as functional, so it matters little what you call it. Before I could easily add new category members as I came across them. Now do you think I am going to cross check all Algonquian names I come across with this page just to see if they are on the list, when before I could immediately tell if they needed to be added? It's pointless. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's make it better, then. Do you agree that sub-dividing by people or more specific language groups would be helpful? How about a table, including the meaning of the name, specific language, tribe/people, other names by which the person was known, years, and what they are notable for e.g. leader of X people? – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)