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

The result of the debate was rename. --Kbdank71 15:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Major league centerfielders --> Category:Major league center fielders[edit]

To conform with Category:Major league left fielders, Category:Major league right fielders, and main article center fielder. MisfitToys 22:44, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Support move for stated reasons. Deco 01:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 15:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Beardy weirdies[edit]

Apparently "a beardy weirdy is a person who usually has a long, bushy beard." Presumably some kind of joke category. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Let's avoid insulting peoples' grooming styles on Wikipedia ... --Azkar 21:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I am the author of this category and I did not mean it as an insult. OTOH, if the category is deleted, then the Category:Beardy weirdies links should be removed from all pages in this category. — JIP | Talk 07:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- everything to do with Beardy weirdies. Nonsense. - Longhair | Talk 11:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. hydnjo talk 14:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JIP: Of course we'd remove the category links — I mean, we do that with every category we delete, don't we? Unless you mean you link directly to the category with internal links. Deco 01:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I only meant the category links. I was just checking. — JIP | Talk 05:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Because of the implied insult, I have already emptied this category. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is nothing wrong with novelty categories. SchmuckyTheCat 20:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's empty. --Kbdank71 18:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Postdlf 19:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep). --Kbdank71 15:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia 1.0[edit]

Merge with Category:Editorial validation. -- Beland 20:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment from creator: Please keep separate. I set up this category specifically as a working tool for the 1.0 effort - it's not part of the Editorial Validation project. Note that it's subcatted in Category:Wikipedia so isn't part of the article-space category tree - David Gerard 18:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep). --Kbdank71 15:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Quebec CEGEP[edit]

Deprecated by Quebec wikipedians' notice board in favor of category:CEGEPs because

1. the name should be plural, since it will mostly link to independant institutions
2. There is absolutely no need to keep "quebec" in the category name, since the institution is unique to Quebec.

All articles have been moved. Circeus 19:42, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I think Quebec CEGEP is more descriptive than CEGEPs. --Spinboy 03:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Categorization#Special conventions for lists "Category names for lists of items should be plural." This cat is not as much topical (the only "topical" articles will probably be CEGEP, SRAM and SRAQ) as a listing , so its name should be plural anyway. Circeus 16:33, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE: The articles were moved before a vote was taken. Moving them back and deleting the new category. --Kbdank71 15:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep). --Kbdank71 14:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Version control systems[edit]

Version control system is a redirect to Revision control, I believe the category should follow and be renamed to Category:Revision control. --cesarb 16:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Revision control systems. The category holds revision control systems, not articles on the topic of revision control. --Azkar 20:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the most familiar name for these systems. Deco 01:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have never called one "revision control" Google agrees. SchmuckyTheCat 03:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The current name is the one I most use and hear others use. There is also an existing VCS called Revision Control System which would lead to confusion if the suggested new name is used. RedWolf 03:43, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 14:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Mountains of the Netherlands[edit]

Likely to remain empty. Highest point in the Netherlands is the Vaalserberg, 328 meters high; it is a hill not a mountain. Eugene van der Pijll 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete, possible BJAODN as there are no mountains in the Netherlands (trust me, I live there and it's flatter than a tabletop. Even if it's a thousand-feet table top). Radiant_* 09:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The WikiProject Mountains general rule is that a country specific category should only exist once 5 or more articles exist on mountains in that country. As pointed out above, this country is unlikely to even get 2. The current lonely article is highly questionable as I wouldn't consider a hill 328m high a mountain. RedWolf 03:37, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 14:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Shahnama stubs[edit]

An appalling piece of hypercategorisation. there isn't even a Shahnama category, and the subject is quite adequately covered by other stubs. Not created nor wanted by WP:WSS. Template is currently on tfd. Grutness|^hello? 11:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Circeus 16:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 14:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Security stubs[edit]

Created by an anonymous user. Desperately vague, it could cover everything from Yale locks to Spy satellites. Not created nor wanted by WP:WSS. Template is currently on tfd. Grutness|^hello? 11:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Circeus 16:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Kbdank71 14:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Circus stubs[edit]

Completely useless. Currently has three items in it including the template (which is on tfd). The entire Category:Circuses only has about a hundred items. This will never be filled to anywhere nbear a viable level. Oh, and not approved by WP:WSS - it's been nominated here after discussion there. Grutness|^hello? 01:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep I don't see the point of this nomination, as this is a completely harmless facility. I don't see that there is any such thing as a "viable level" Oliver Chettle 03:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, stub categories are only useful if they have a large amount of articles to them. See Wikiproject Stub Sorting. Radiant_* 09:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Circeus 16:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above. RedWolf 03:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

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