Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 12

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 Overwhelming support --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that all Wikipedian or User categorization categories have "Wikipedian" as part of their name to avoid any ambiguity as to their function. This also eliminates the possibility of accidentally assigning articles to non-article categories that Wikipedians seem to generate with fecundity. 132.205.45.148 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems a sensible kind of idea to me. Perhaps there might even be a separation in the data/maintenance of user-related and encyclopedia-related categories...? David Kernow 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and also support David Kernow's proposal, subject to any Wikipedian category missing the word "Wikipedian" being eligible for deletion or renaming here. Scranchuse 02:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as second choice to deleting the lot. Wikipedia is being turned into a social club. The other day a seventeen year old proposed on the village pump that user categories should be used to create a dating service. CalJW 02:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: is this intended to apply to categories that already include "Wikipedia" or "WikiProject" in their names (e.g. Category:Wikipedia administrators, Category:Participants in WikiProjects)? If it is, we're going to be seeing some rather redundant wording in category names; "Wikipedian participants in WikiProject Foobar" sounds a bit silly. Kirill Lokshin 02:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Wikipedian" or "WikiProject", but not both. And as far as I can tell, most Wikipedians are here as a social club, and regularly swamp those of us who were invited as experts. Humans have a tendency to form cliques. Eliminating categories or templates related to users isn't going to change that fact of life. I wish that more were actual readers, though. --William Allen Simpson 03:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely support.--Mike Selinker 03:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bhoeble 06:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and hopefully we can delete most of 'em too. --Cyde Weys 06:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support bogdan 09:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it'll make it much easier to keep categories intended for articles and users apart. Shouldn't this be a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) instead of here? SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I assume that you mean "Wikipedians"... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with the proviso that either Wikipedians or WikiProject can be used, per arguments above.--cjllw | TALK 03:15, 18 May 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category of Wikipedians who support the 7/7 Truth Movement (an article which is currently being considered for deletion). As such it is a way or organising Wikipedians by POV. It is also almost empty. David | Talk 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category is actually now empty as the two users who have signed their names in the cat have not actually added their userpages to the cat. The 7/7 Truth Movement mainspace article was in the cat but I have just removed it as mainspace articles should not be categorised in user cats. Generally I vote to keep user cats, but this user cat appears to be part of an attempt to create net-momentum for a "movement" that has only a virtual existence. Valiantis 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Conspiracy theory nonsense, the prevalence of which is pretty high up on the list of things that bring Wikipedia into disrepute. CalJW 02:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 06:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Burn with fire--Doc ^ask? 11:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ZOMG!!! This category is just asking for trouble... WP is not a place to organize advocacy, there are plenty of other places for that. Delete and protect against recreation. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It will grow if people know! FK0071a 20:44, 17 May 2006 (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 as recreation--Doc ^ask? 11:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous Category:Gay icons was deleted, so I see no point in this staying around for much longer. LBM 23:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the vote just last month was to keep this. Thumbelina 23:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many times nominated, time to draw a line under this. David | Talk 23:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and the vote just last week was to delete it. I initially voted keep, but I can see this is unencyclopedic, and inherently POV. We don't need it. Rossrs 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and Rossrs.--ᎠᏢ462090^Contribs 00:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete As Rossrs comments, there was a very clear consensus to delete last week on the basis that it is ludicrous to categorise people based on other people's supposed (but in actuality unquantifiable) perception of them. If anyone feels the deletion was inappropriate (e.g. due to procedural irregularities), then they should list it on Wikipedia:Deletion review not just recreate it. As per Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Speedy delete policy cats that are "substantially identical recreations of earlier deleted content [...] can be deleted immediately." Valiantis 01:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Fancruft. Scranchuse 02:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and permanently block recreation. Biased and unencyclopedic. Golfcam 02:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CalJW 02:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above. --Rob 03:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. very POV and unencyclopedic Mayumashu 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Bhoeble 06:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Hawkestone 11:36, 13 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh Andy Warhol is listed as a Roman Cath artist. There are only three entries in the category. Only one of the 3 (Francisco Zurbarán) has any religious art mentioned in the article, but the word catholic doesn't even appear in the article. There is no art thematically related to this specific religion. Clubmarx | Talk 23:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a categorically meaningful relationship. Only if a profession has a significant connection to an occupation should the two be intersected to form a category. Postdlf 00:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Postdlf. Valiantis 01:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Postdlf. Scranchuse 02:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 06:29, 13 May 2006 (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 delete. Vegaswikian 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 06:29, 13 May 2006 (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 merge. Syrthiss 12:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge only entry to Category:Catholic saints. Vegaswikian 16:15, 19 May 2006 (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 both. Syrthiss 12:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Melbourne tram routes -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (also has faulty capitalization) or rename per Bhoeble below. David Kernow 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC), updated 03:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Category:Tram routes in Melbourne. Bhoeble 06:30, 13 May 2006 (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 Deleted by Vegaswikian --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by IZAK -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Because the term "ultra-Orthodox" is controversial, and Wikipedia editors agreed long ago that "Haredi" or Haredi Judaism is the NPOV term with widest acceptance. See intro to the Haredi Judaism article: "The term "ultra-Orthodox" is controversial, as it is often considered to be pejorative, and is rarely used by the Jews to whom it is applied; they generally prefer terms such as Haredi." See also Talk:Haredi Judaism#ultra-Orthodox as a pejorative term. IZAK 04:55, 17 May 2006 (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 commons-ify. Syrthiss 12:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor name choice -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transfer to Commons:Category:United States area code maps. David Kernow 02:09, 13 May 2006 (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 delete. Vegaswikian 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Northern Areas, Pakistan. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:09, 13 May 2006 (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 Deleted by Vegaswikian --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (also has faulty capitalization). David Kernow 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, per nom.--cjllw | TALK 03:20, 18 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by creator, another extinct bird -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by creator, another extinct bird -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 delete (C2). --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Lakes of Nunavut (typo / spelling / speedy?) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 already deleted - TexasAndroid 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Historically Irish-American colleges (spelling / typo / speedy?) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, speedy delete per nom. David Kernow 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• moved to speedy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:13, 15 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, someone populate? ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Do not populate, confusing term. Bhoeble 06:31, 13 May 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:CBM users. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE or RENAME to Category:User CBM users as this is a Wikipedian categorization category, and should not have such a non-User-category-space identifiable name. This problem also appears in the parent cat 132.205.45.148

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Argentine Spaniards -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, forgotten already -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:14, 13 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Spanish-French people -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:14, 13 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, some sort of owl... --

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 merge. Syrthiss 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Congregations of Holy Cross -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, blanked by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 merge both. Syrthiss 12:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to: Category:Fictional disabled -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom / rename per Bhoeble below. David Kernow 02:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC), updated 03:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both to Category:Fictional disabled people. Bhoeble 06:32, 13 May 2006 (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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, blanked by Hmains. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (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 Deleted by Vegaswikian --William Allen Simpson 04:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--ᎠᏢ462090^Contribs 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused usercruft. --Vossanova ^o< 13:40, 16 May 2006 (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 per below. Syrthiss 12:27, 23 May 2006 (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 per below. Syrthiss 12:27, 23 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More obvious name[s], given that these categor[ies are] intended only for lists. Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 02:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC), amended 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Bhoeble 06:33, 13 May 2006 (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 Delegations by state, will try to follow up with William Allan Simpson re possible deletion with article splitting. Syrthiss 12:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the primary category relates to the United States and some other countries could have Congressional Delegations. --Cyde Weys 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom (does "Delegations" need lowercasing?). David Kernow 02:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. CalJW 02:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename to Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state -- Delegations is traditionally capitalized -- There was a fair consensus last fall at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress to eliminate the category and split the articles into the existing House and Senate articles, already a tremendous amount of duplication. Also, CoDels are more often a term for members taking a trip (or junket) to another place (for example, to Japan). --William Allen Simpson 03:21, 13 May 2006 (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 whoo. looks like it should be kept now that it is a subcat of gov min in RoI, but if I'm mistaken please come set me straight... the discussion was all over the place :). Syrthiss 12:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current category title of "Irish Government" is highly ambiguous. It is a sub-cat of Category:Government ministers by country and contains almost exclusively articles regarding ministers in the Irish Government. This renaming disambiguates the title. Kurieeto 19:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Political office-holders and the contents of Category:Government ministers by country. The naming convention is to use "in", not "of", for "those that group offices of a certain type, operating within said country", which is what this category groups. "Of" is used "for those concerning holders of a specific office with jurisdiction over said country", such as Category:Presidents of Ireland. Kurieeto 14:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you know how convincing the consensus for the above was, Kurieeto?  To me, "Government ministers in X" reads as if it has a physical context, whereas "...of X" reads with the associative context the category intends (and with no sense of "over" X). Perhaps, though, my perception is amongst the minority...?  Regards, David Kernow 15:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I wasn't involved in those discussions. As not following an established convention allows for a speedy rename, I just didn't see the point in choosing to rename it as such. Kurieeto 15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know; if/when I find this convention rearing its head, perhaps I'll probe further, but for now I'll withdraw my vote below. Best wishes, David Kernow 17:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Government ministers of the Republic of Ireland or Category:Irish government ministers. David Kernow 02:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC), withdrawn 17:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Government ministers of the Republic of Ireland". Bhoeble 06:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to "Category:Members of the Cabinet of the Republic of Ireland". I've created Category:Government ministers in the Republic of Ireland (in is per naming conventions) as a supercategory for this and categories of non-Cabinet ministers that had been jiggling around loose a level up at Category:Political office-holders in the Republic of Ireland. The Tom 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative rename now that Category:Government ministers in the Republic of Ireland exists as a super-category. Kurieeto 15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain or move to Category:Government ministers in the Republic of Ireland. Cabinet is simply an informal term for Government, in Ireland at least; non-Cabinet ministers are by definition not in the Government. I appreciate the Tom's suggestion, but unfortunately in this case it would result in inaccuracy and probably confusion. Palmiro | Talk 11:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Agree with Palmiro. In Ireland government means what in other states is called cabinet. Junior ministers are not part of the government, whereas elsewhere government includes cabinet and non-cabinet ministers. So this category would be misleading and liable to lead people to add it in to articles about junior ministers, etc. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Government ministers in the Republic of Ireland" here is using "Government minister" in the sense of "minister involved in politics" rather than "religious minister" or "diplomatic minister." While I appreciate that the Irish situation makes an alternative definition possible (ie "government ministers" = "cabinet ministers"), surely there is some term we can find for full ministers who sit in cabinet and ministers of state collectively? The Tom 21:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Ministers", "Holders of ministerial office", or something of the sort. As a subcategory of "political office holders', surely these would not be too liable to confusion with religious or diplomatic ministers? Unfortunately "government ministers" is not just open to an alternative definition; that alternative definition is the one that anyone familiar with Irish politics or administration would automatically understand from it. Palmiro | Talk 11:34, 16 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, redundant to Category:Wikipedians in Macau. Conscious 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:29, 13 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories have the scope of cars produced (manufactured is the term used on Wikipedia) in each respective country. As an initial renaming, "cars" is proposed to be changed to "automobiles" as Category:Cars currently redirects to Category:Automobiles. Additionally, the use of the word "of" can imply a relationship of production or ownership by the state. To have the clearest title for the scope intended, "manufactured in" is the most suitable wording that can be used, and the following renamings are proposed:

• Category:Cars of Brazil to Category:Automobiles manufactured in Brazil
• Category:Cars of China to Category:Automobiles manufactured in the People's Republic of China
• Category:Cars of Egypt to Category:Automobiles manufactured in Egypt
• Category:Cars of Iran to Category:Automobiles manufactured in Iran
• Category:Cars of Italy to Category:Automobiles manufactured in Italy
• Category:Cars of Portugal to Category:Automobiles manufactured in Portugal
• Category:Cars of Serbia & Montenegro to Category:Automobiles manufactured in Serbia and Montenegro
• Category:Cars of Sweden to Category:Automobiles manufactured in Sweden
• Category:Cars of The Netherlands to Category:Automobiles manufactured in the Netherlands

--Kurieeto 18:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm more than happy to go with this new classification, but I think this is more than a rename, it's also a bit of a rescope. Many automobiles are manufactured all over the world yet are identified as "American" or "Brazilian" or "Japanese" etc. by virtue of the nationality of the original auto manufacturer. If that characteristic is worth preserving in the category scheme too, then it would make sense to bring in these new names as additional categories and rename to something which clarifies what an "automobile of the United States" actually is. TheGrappler 19:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a conversion into American English, and that is not good. Also, cars should be classified as being "of" their original country. If a branch factory is set up elsewhere, that isn't so important. However as the car industry is increasingly global it would also make sense to classify cars by company only. Athenaeum 21:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Car redirects to automobile. I believe that establishes a useable precedent for category naming conventions. Furthermore, "Cars of x" or "Automobiles of x" remain ambiguous category titles. Kurieeto 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is much discussion on Talk:Automobile but there seems to be a consensus that automobile and car are not synonymous i.e. an automobile is any (generally) 4-wheeled motor vehicle whereas cars are a subset of automobiles. The question then is do the cats above only contain cars or do they also contain trucks, buses, utility vehicles etc. If the former then the word car should be used, if the latter then a rename to automobile is appropriate. Looking through the cats it appears that almost all the articles are specifically cars rather than the more general automobiles. The two exceptions I saw are that in the Serbia & Montenegro cat there is Zastava Trucks and in the Netherlands cat there is DAF Trucks, both truck manufacturing companies rather than individual vehicles; these consequently do not really belong in this hierarchy at all.

As to the term "manufactured in" I note for example that the humble General Motors Corsa is listed in the Brazil, China & Spain cats as it is apparently manufactured in all three countries (and several others for which there are no cats). This suggests that the cats are being used with the sense "manufactured in". In these days of multinational car manufacture, I wonder how useful a scheme of categorisation this is, expecially as multinational manufacturers seem to close factories and move production at the drop of a balance sheet. I would suggest Category:Vehicles by brand is a more useful hierarchy for individual cars and that cats by country might more usefully be restricted to manufacturers where there is already an extensive and developed hierarchy. The handful of cats above seem to be the only ones in the theoretical "Cars of Fooland" (or "Automobiles manufactured in Fooland") hierarchy and there is no Category:Cars by country parent cat. Valiantis 01:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Car redirects to automobile because the American won the usage on that one. It doesn't mean anything or everything else has to follow American usage. The American category should be "automobiles" and there should be wider categories called "vehicles manufactured in", which is version of English neutral. CalJW 02:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. First, The Automobile Association might take issue with being told their name is an Americanism. Second, if it's a real problem, we can use the local usage precedent to case-by-case a few categories back to "Cars manufactured in Fooland" or "Internal-combustion engine-power consumer road vehicles manufactured in Barland" or whatever. Third, "vehicle" is not synonymous with automobile/car; in fact, I'd suggest Category:Vehicles by brand is irritating in that it would make perfect sense if within Category:Ford vehicles most of the automobile/car models were in a subcat Category:Ford automobiles, but whatever. Fourth, Category:Automobiles is already named as such as the parent. Fifth, I rather like the X manufactured in Fooland format, and recommend we use it on Category:Aircraft by country as well. The Tom 05:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm happy to ammend this proposal to include local naming usages, that is Wiki policy I believe? But it would probably be best to address those in subsequent individual CFRs, as local naming usages are very much case by case issues. Kurieeto 15:51, 14 May 2006 (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 for now, renom for merge if needed. Syrthiss 12:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. -> United States. —Markles 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Leaders of the United States Congress -- most Majority or Minority leaders get there after being whip, and many in the House go on to become Speaker, or move to the Senate. Overcategorization. --William Allen Simpson 03:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree with the merge, but can we at least do my proposed rename (US→United States) and then debate your merger proposal?—Markles 21:40, 14 May 2006 (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 for now, bring separate debate for merger if needed. Syrthiss 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. -> United States. —Markles 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Leaders of the United States Congress -- most Majority or Minority leaders get there after being whip, and many in the House go on to become Speaker, or move to the Senate. Overcategorization. --William Allen Simpson 03:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree with the merge, but can we at least do my proposed rename (US→United States) and then debate your merger proposal?—Markles 21:40, 14 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally addresses the problem that I created last year. "Officers" is a term of art referring to many different positions in Congress including employees. Calling this category "Officers of the United States Congress" only confuses matters. "Leaders" means party leaders, Speaker, President pro tempore, and so forth: It's basically for elected members in a leadership position. As opposed to Category:Employees of the United States Congress. —Markles 17:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support --William Allen Simpson 03:46, 13 May 2006 (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 Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Some 70% of bios linked to "Fooian emigrants" category pages are not of emigrants but their descents - and since all emigrants are also descents, but not all descents are emigrants, the nomination here is to merge the more refined group into the other. the assumption here is that users do not care to see the emigrant/non-emigrant split maintained. (will tag and list the sub-cats should voting favour it)Mayumashu 16:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American emigrants to Category:People of American descent
• Category:Argentine emigrants to Category:People of Argentine descent
• Category:Armenian emigrants to Category:People of Armenian descent
• Category:Australian emigrants to Category:People of Australian descent
• Category:Belgian emigrants to Category:People of Belgian descent
• Category:Brazilian emigrants to Category:People of Brazilian descent
• Category:British emigrants to Category:People of British descent
• Category:Canadian emigrants to Category:People of Canadian descent
• Category:Chilean emigrants to Category:People of Chilean descent
• Category:Colombian emigrants to Category:People of Colombia descent
• Category:Croatian emigrants to Category:People of Croatian descent
• Category:Cuban emigrants to Category:People of Cuban descent
• Category:Cypriot emigrants to Category:People of Cypriot descent
• Category:Czech emigrants to Category:People of Czech descent
• Category:Danish emigrants to Category:People of Danish descent
• Category:French emigrants to Category:People of French descent
• Category:German emigrants to Category:People of German descent
• Category:Haitian emigrants to Category:People of Haitian descent
• Category:Hong Kong emigrants to Category:People of Hong Kong descent
• Category:Indian emigrants to Category:People of Indian (country) descent
• Category:Israeli emigrants to Category:People of Israeli descent
• Category:Korean emigrants to Category:People of Korean descent
• Category:Lebanese emigrants to Category:People of Lebanese descent
• Category:Lithuanian emigrants to Category:People of Lithuanian descent
• Category:New Zealand emigrants to Category:People of New Zealand descent
• Category:Northern Irish emigrants to Category:People of Northern Irish descent
• Category:Portuguese emigrants to Category:People of Portuguese descent

• Agree with nominator Brcreel 06:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Hawkestone 14:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn in light of argument made by User:Valiantis that having non-emigrant ethnicity cat pages with a stated limit on how far back the descent can be acknowledged is a form of original research. this means that emigrant categorizing is the only legitimate form and instead of merging as originally suggested here, a purge of non-emigrants is a better move to make Mayumashu 04:30, 20 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 12:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Argentine expatriates to Canada (shouldn't that be IN Canada?). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. first these are two different things - Canadians of Argentinean descent (by way of immigration) and Argentineans who live in Canada but are not Canadian. User:Raymond Cruise has been removing article page and sub-cat page links to immigrants cat pages instead of putting nominating the cat pages here - i ve restored this page to how it looked before Mayumashu 15:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with User:Raymond Cruise's apparent point though that emigrants and their descents should not be kept in different categories - have made a nominated above to rename "emigrants" pages to reflect this wish. (if that nomination goes through, i support deletion here) Mayumashu 16:17, 12 May 2006 (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 both. Syrthiss 12:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Greek people in Japan. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Between them the two cats muster exactly one person - Lafcadio Hearn who according to his article was born in Greece to an Irish-born officer in the British Army and his Greek wife. However, he spent most of his childhood in Ireland, before emigrating to the US where he lived and worked for twenty years (the article fails to mention if he took US citizenship), and then moved to Japan where he remained the rest of his life, eventually taking Japanese citizenship. His "Greekness" is debatable; he was presumably born a British subject, I am assuming considered himself of Irish nationality, and wrote in English. He was possibly later an American citizen and definitely later a Japanese citizen. As he was not clearly Greek and, even if he did consider himself Greek and/or held Greek citizenship, was at his death a Japanese citizen in Japan, I am removing Category:Greek people in Japan from his article. Hence both cats are now empty. I consider the appending of this cat to the article on Hearn to be a particuarly fine example of what I am minded to call ethnocruft. Valiantis 02:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both A particularly bad example of over enthusiastic ethnic categorisation. CalJW 02:50, 13 May 2006 (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 reverse merge. Syrthiss 12:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Media in Newcastle upon Tyne. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Abstain per below. David Kernow 02:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC), amended 02:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge It is empty because it was emptied a couple of days ago. That was renaming without a vote, which is improper. "X media" is preferable, and should be read as short for "Media based in X". Most of the media available in Newcastle or almost any other city is from outside. CalJW 02:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per CalJW Bhoeble 06:34, 13 May 2006 (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 speedied. Syrthiss 02:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, unused, way too soon -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as name uses "Noted". David Kernow 02:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Incorrect and inappropriate in multiple ways. CalJW 02:56, 13 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by creator, another extinct pigeon -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (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. Vegaswikian 23:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Miss USA delegates (blanked by creator). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This definitely a speedy delete, ProveIt. David Kernow 02:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• moved to speedy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:14, 15 May 2006 (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, vanity user cat per recent discussions. Syrthiss 12:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged, no direction preference -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (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 Delete. Vegaswikian 23:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Filipino saints. (caps / blanked by creator / speedy delete?) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This definitely a speedy delete, ProveIt. David Kernow 02:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• moved to speedy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:15, 15 May 2006 (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, G3. Conscious 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Canarian culture. (blanked by creator) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (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. Conscious 19:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (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. Conscious 19:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Webzines (blanked by creator). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't this come up before? Bhoeble 06:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but not exactly ... it was Category:Free Magazines -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:54, 13 May 2006 (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 for now, but I'll check on it in a week and if its not populated I'm going to speedy it as an orphan. Syrthiss 13:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Australian people by ethnicity. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. Category:Ethnic groups in Australia is not a duplicate of Category:Australian people by ethnicity. The latter is for individuals, while the former is presumably intended for groups. The nominated CfD is however empty. I seem to recall a discussion some while ago (think it was on WP:AWNB} about this or a similarly-named category (this may be a recreation of an earlier-deleted one). Will see if that discussion can be tracked down.--cjllw | TALK 03:37, 18 May 2006 (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 deleted as below. Syrthiss 02:16, 22 May 2006 (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 deleted already. Syrthiss 02:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Executions by gas chamber (blanked by creator). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as creator. David Kernow 02:29, 13 May 2006 (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 Delete. Vegaswikian 23:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Sex trade. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This definitely a speedy delete, ProveIt. David Kernow 02:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• moved to speedy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:16, 15 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since Feb 2006 -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's been unused for that long, it wass easily CSD C1. SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not quite sure what to make of this category. --Vossanova ^o< 13:41, 16 May 2006 (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 Delete. Vegaswikian 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:IPod software (caps). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This definitely a speedy delete, ProveIt. David Kernow 02:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• moved to speedy -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:17, 15 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Speedy delete. Vegaswikian 21:28, 16 May 2006 (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 unused cat. Syrthiss 13:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, {{prophecy}} now feeds into Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing. Conscious 14:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 06:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Does the Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing make it clear that prophecy is the problem of the article? The style guide doesn't mention anything about how to spot prophecy or why it should be avoided. Should the style guide say something about making sure the article doesn't mention future events as if they've already occurred?

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 already speedied (C1). Conscious 10:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, redundant to Category:Romania-Moldova Reunion Wikipedians. Conscious 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 03:22, 13 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard naming convention for categories of battles from particular conflicts; matches the existing Category:Islamic conquests. Kirill Lokshin 14:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support - current name doesn't match the category's true purpose as well as this rename would. TheGrappler 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 06:36, 13 May 2006 (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 relisted on May 13. Conscious 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the tags and relisted these two. The discussion can continue at the new nomination. I hope this was the correct procedure. SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fine. Admin, please note the new nomination on May 13.--Mike Selinker 06:37, 22 May 2006 (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 Deleted. Vegaswikian 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Unused, redundant to Category:Wilderness Areas of Colorado. Conscious 13:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete - I cleared out this category when I was standardizing categories per Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas. I forgot to submit it for deletion though. ClarkBHM 14:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 03:22, 13 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were in Category:Erotic computer and video games until User:OrangePeel moved them without any discussion. I think that "erotic" is a much clearer description than "adult". bogdan 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The category's main article is called "Adult video games", the ESRB, which is the largest and most advanced rating service labels such titles as "Adult" not "Erotic".OrangePeel 13:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that an accurate description is more important than what name the rating labels use. bogdan 13:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with word adult is that it also refers to other things unsuitable for children, such as violence. The problem with erotic is that it is quite hard to describe exactly. Anyway I suggest we rename the category to Category:Erotic video games. The word computer is redundant, while word erotic remains more descriptive than adult. --Easyas12c 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got to keep the "computer and" because all categories of games of this type use this nomenclature. That is, we can't just change it for this category.--Mike Selinker 14:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is clearly not for all things the ESRB might find objectionable, and some titles in the category don't get the AO rating. There are two choices of descriptor words from other categories, "Pornographic" and "Erotic," and since the former doesn't apply to some of the games, I'd go with the latter.--Mike Selinker 14:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Mike, erotic is more spesific than adult, and c&vg is the wikipedia standard. --Eivind^t@c 20:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support adult is too non-specific. - Colm O'Brien 19:15, 17 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 02:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. This is a category with only two possible members. ergot 19:21, 16 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia. I would say 'listify if there were more than 2 persons there. Conscious 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Not just trivia - impossible to ascertain who qualifies. At what point does one stop being one of the youngest? Is it all those under 30? Under 40? The 100 youngest? etc. Valiantis 14:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • listify and rescope. should be possible to find each country's youngest leader, which is what it sounds like it means anyway. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Valiantis. Impossibly vague. Postdlf 16:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and stick an {{expand}} on it. SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rubbish list. What about all the hundreds of monarchs who came to the throne as kids? Golfcam 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Fluit 20:20, 21 May 2006 (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 commons-ify and recat to Commons:Category:MAPS of the United States Congress. Syrthiss 13:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to naming scheme of other subcategories of Category:Legislative Branch of the United States Government.—Markles 11:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both in preference to Commons:Category:Maps of the United States Congress. David Kernow 02:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I assume that "Maps" was a mistake for plans and was going to suggest Category:Plans of the United States Congress. It is fine as it is and there is no need to send people to an external site, which will be confusing for the uninitiated. CalJW 02:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your point, but I was under the impression that Wikimedia Commons was intended for this kind of material...?  Regards, David Kernow 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support moving to Commons, but I don't know how to do that. As for "Plans"— I don't know what that means. This category currently has images of two types (each a subcategory):
  1. Category:Maps of United States Senate composition, which show the United States with each state shaded by its party representation in the United States Senate; and
  2. Category:United States Congressional district maps, which is a collection of images( copied, legally, from the National Atlas of the United States) which show each congressional district.—Markles 10:42, 14 May 2006 (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 merge. Syrthiss 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New one member category. Merge into larger category:American technology writers. I believe the term "technical writer" does have some specialist meaning, but the person in this category is a writer on technology. Bhoeble 09:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge per nom. CalJW 02:55, 13 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is useless beyond its purpose of nationalist propaganda. Listing a scientist like Daniel Goldhagen in this category proves that it is an introduction of POV, with the sole intention to polarize, not to categorize, no matter how argued upon Goldhagen's theories may be. -- 790 08:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like simply a way of imposing a personal view outside the text of the main article. If it's prevelant enough it should have it's own article such as - Anti-Americanism - Peripitus 09:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that articles like Daniel Goldhagen shouldn't be in this category. What about articles like Ten German Bombers? What about Anti-German (ideology)? Just because this category can be used in order to introduce a POV into an article doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. The category on anti-Semitism could also be used to falsely defame a someone as an anti-Semite; that doesn't mean that the category should be deleted; such a deletion would border on denial of the existence of anti-Semitism.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 12:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, there is a - not very good - article called Anti-German sentiment.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 12:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi, I think that labeling the song as anti-german is a little over the top, considering that it is directed against german bombers, and not the Germans in general; then again, the rather new leftist ideology of "anti-germanism" is something completely different. IMHO these subjects don't have much in common. -- 790 08:16, 22 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: to match Category:Companies of South Korea and most of the other specialist categories of (South) Korean companies. Nathcer 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as above. Nathcer 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (so long as all manufacturers listed are South Korean!). David Kernow 02:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 06:37, 13 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently empty category, as nobody competed in Rowing at the 1896 Summer Olympics. Jonel | Speak 07:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nathcer 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Jusjih 08:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and thanks, it was to be in this mornings batch. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT it can be used to categorize people who would have competed had the conditions allowed it... in other words people who were scheduled to compete, and therefore, are rowers at the 1896 Olympics. 132.205.45.148 23:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Olympic competitor categories are for those who actually competed in the Olympics. Those who did not compete in official Olympic events, whether because the event was cancelled or because they withdrew or because the event was a non-Olympic event (as decreed by the IOC) held at a time and place proximate to Olympic events, are not Olympic competitors. No rowing was held at the 1896 Summer Olympics, thus there were no Category:Rowers at the 1896 Summer Olympics. -- Jonel | Speak 01:32, 13 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel to other members of Category:Companies by country -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nathcer 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. A no-brainer really. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:51, 13 May 2006 (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 redundant (Was already listed for speedy rename/merge). - TexasAndroid 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, redundant to Category:24 Hours of Le Mans races. Conscious 05:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Moved to the proper spelling, so this cat is empty now and obsolete.--Matthead 13:38, 12 May 2006 (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 for now (since it is an orphan cat) and repopulate under better name if/when the other articles are renamed. Syrthiss 13:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in this category should be expanded to contain more than just squads, like those in Category:2004 European Football Championship, because without that they're just fragments of 2006 FIFA World Cup (squads). So there is no need for this category. (If kept, fix capitalization to Category:2006 FIFA World Cup squads). Conscious 05:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge into category:2006 FIFA World Cup and rename articles "X at the 2006 FIFA World Cup" to match those which already exist for Brazil and Croatia. Choalbaton 06:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and rename per Choalbaton CalJW 02:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but I don't think the renames can be done as part of this process. Bhoeble 06:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sole page under this category should have already been replaced by 2006 FIFA World Cup (squads). I am going to nominate that page for deletion soon, so that will make it an empty category. --Pkchan 15:59, 16 May 2006 (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 and burn. Syrthiss 13:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is overly broad, impossible to maintain and seems to have limited input from the comics/TV areas of fiction CovenantD 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I hope you don't mind, but I added Category:Fictional redheads and Category:Fictional characters by hair color to this nomination. Category:Fictional characters with black hair is already under discussion below. They all need to go. - EurekaLott 02:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. CovenantD 02:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Choalbaton 06:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. This could lead to categorizing real people by hair color, and that's a whole lot more articles.--Mike Selinker 07:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all even though I was about to add Bianca Jackson to the redheads :) Sweetie Petie 09:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all --Smerus 12:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Entirely useless, and accuracy is impossible. Postdlf 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all --as per nom Palendrom 03:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per Covenant. Kusonaga 07:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per above. MakeRocketGoNow 01:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per above. Joeyconnick 05:37, 19 May 2006 (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 deleted. Syrthiss 02:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category contains no articles, existed since June 2004, excessive categorization. Kurieeto 01:38, 12 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly vague category. Only one entry at present. There is also a Category:1869 works with two entries (one of them a reprint of the item in the 1850 category!!!) , and may well be others for all I know. There may (or may not) be a case for publications by date, artworks by date, musical compositions by date etc. but this category does not seem to fulfil an encyclopaedic purpose. Also infeasibly broad and impossible to maintain. Therefore delete, together with any similar 'works' categories--Smerus 11:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created these categories as an umbrella category for works which do not have their own separate "by year" categories: Poems, plays, artworks, speeches, musical compositions, political documents, etc. I reasoned that since there are not enough articles of any one of these categories to justify a separate "by year" category, they could all be lumped together, along with appropriate subcategories (books by year; songs by year, etc.). Sorry if there's only one thing in the category; I only created it yesterday, and am in the process of populating them now. MakeRocketGoNow 16:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create specialist categories when and if they become appropriate. Athenaeum 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vague. I don't think "works" means anything significant; there has to be a better term. Postdlf 00:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into category:1850 The category system is a category tool and I don't think this will help users to navigate as they are probably rather unlikely to look for it. CalJW 02:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: User:MakeRocketGoNow has created dozens of these categories (see Category:Works by year). It would probably be a good idea to discuss all of them instead of two isolated categories. - EurekaLott 03:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I will refrain from creating any more of these categories, unless the result of this discussion is keep. MakeRocketGoNow 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into category:1850 Bhoeble 06:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to a more descriptive title. Q0 17:30, 22 May 2006 (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. Syrthiss 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see above (Category:1850 works)--Smerus 11:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as above. MakeRocketGoNow 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and create specialist categories when and if they become appropriate. Athenaeum 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Postdlf 00:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into category:1869 The category system is a category tool and I don't think this will help users to navigate as they are probably rather unlikely to look for it. CalJW 02:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into category:1869 Bhoeble 06:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to a more descriptive title. Q0 17:31, 22 May 2006 (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.