< August 24	August 26 >

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 as per nomination --Kbdank71 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Computer and video game anti-heroes. -Sean Curtin 23:48, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per nominator. --FuriousFreddy 14:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all of these per the nominator, save for Category:Video game cartoons. -Splash 17:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as per nominator Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:04, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
• Rename, per nom ∞Who?¿? 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll go out on a limb and say delete as too obscure a category for anyone to want to look it up. But what do I know. Nandesuka 17:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. And to the deletists, there are plenty of CVG anti-heroes. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:45, September 1, 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 rename as per nomination --Kbdank71 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Films based on computer and video games. -Sean Curtin 23:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per nominator. --FuriousFreddy 14:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as per nominator Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:04, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
• Rename per nom ∞Who?¿? 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as per nomination --Kbdank71 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Novels based on computer and video games. -Sean Curtin 23:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per nominator. --FuriousFreddy 14:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, however I recommend that it be renamed as category:books based on computer and video games instead. This will cover all types of genre of books. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:07, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
  • COMMENT that would also cover hint books, video game history books, and the like. I don't think that's the intent. 132.205.45.148 16:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tip books/strategy guides would be Category:Books about computer and video games. I meant for Category:Books based on computer and video games to cover novels and graphic novels/manga, narratives based on the game, not supplemental information about the game. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:56, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. siafu 18:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as per nomination --Kbdank71 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Television programs based on computer and video games. -Sean Curtin 23:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per nominator. --FuriousFreddy 14:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as per nominator Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:05, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as per nomination --Kbdank71 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Animation based on computer and video games. -Sean Curtin 23:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename, but I would suggest it be moved to Category:Animated series based on computer and video games. Feature films should be filed in Category:Films based on computer and video games. --FuriousFreddy 14:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME, but subcategorize with Animation series and Animation films 132.205.3.20 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Animation series" and "animation films" should be "animated television series" per Category:Animated television series and "animated films" per Category:Animated films, respectively. That said, I agree with the proposed subcategorization. -Sean Curtin 03:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per FuriousFreddy. -Splash 17:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per FuriousFreddy. siafu 18:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as per nomination --Kbdank71 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Computer and video game villains. -Sean Curtin 22:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as per nominator. --FuriousFreddy 14:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as per nominator Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:01, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
• Rename per nom ∞Who?¿? 01:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~99% redundant with Category:Marvel Comics characters. If the distinction really merits separation via categories, Marvel's non-Marvel Universe characters should be categorized as such instead. -Sean Curtin 22:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

To whoever closes this: if consensus is to (merge and) delete, please don't repopulate the articles into Category:Marvel Comics characters if the articles are already populated into one of that category's many subcategories. -Sean Curtin 03:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless there are in fact a large number of articles that belong in one cat and not the other. siafu 22:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Category:Marvel Comics characters includes characters owned by Marvel while Category:Marvel Universe characters covers characters which have been shown to exist in the Marvel Universe. There is a big difference. Many characters such as Conan the Barbarian and Fu Manchu are not owned by Marvel but have been important parts of the Marvel Universe. However, I would support the re-categorisation of Marvel's non-Mu characters as suggested by Sean Curtin above. Hueysheridan 00:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would the problem be resolved by adding Comic characters as a subcategory of Universe characters?

Not really - there are characters who are owned by Marvel but who are not part of the Marvel Universe (Royal Roy, Spider-Ham) that are listed at Category:Marvel Comics characters.

However I see the point that the overlap might be confusing, but that just makes the case for writing clearer introductions on the category page - howabout "Characters owned by Marvel Comics though not necessarily a part of the Marvel Universe" for Category:Marvel Comics characters and "Fictional characters who have been shown to exist in the Marvel Universe, though not all owned by Marvel Comics" or some better written variation thereof? Hueysheridan 10:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• While I understand Hueysheridan's point, the distinction is far from clear to most people, nor is it clear from the category naming. I believe merge&delete would be best, and for those few characters present in the Universe but not owned by Marvel, that should be noted in the articles. Otherwise the distinction would just end up confusing people. Radiant_>|< 08:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • And note that users tend not to read category pages - categorization should be evident from the name of the category. Radiant_>|< 13:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• COMMENT I don't think Fu Manchu or Conan should appear in an Marvel category. It's like listing Star Trek characters as part of DC Comics, just because they published some comics based on them, or Marvel, come to think of it, there's a Planet-X novel with Marvel characters set in TNG. 132.205.3.20 15:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete It pains me to point this out, but I seem to remember Doctor Who has been shown to exist within the Marvel Universe by dint of interacting with charcaters who later appeared in the Marvel Universe. Therefore this is redundant, as the distinction is impossible to make. Hiding talk 21:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no merge - SoM 16:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All of the Marvel categories need to be cleaned up, as the guys dealing with them have no compunctions about redundant categories, but I digress. --Apostrophe 21:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• All ships in the category are Halifax class, and renaming would bring it into line with other subcats of Category:Canadian Forces ships. -The Tom 21:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom ∞Who?¿? 01:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of overcategorization. It has no articles, and the only subcategory is Airline Companies of Puerto Rico. Delete it. Airline Companies of Puerto Rico can be added to Category:Companies of Puerto Rico and Category:Transportation in Puerto Rico, which should suffice. Dbinder 13:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agreed. James F. (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The categories I mentioned already exist. I meant that Airline Companies of Puerto Rico should be moved into those two in this one's place. Dbinder 13:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Splash 17:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ∞Who?¿? 01:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly move the subsequent listings into Category:Transportation companies of the United States. Note that there are currently Category:Transport operators of Hong Kong, Category:Transport operators of Singapore, Category:Transportation companies of Canada, Category:Transportation companies of the United States, and Category:Transport operators of the United Kingdom (which obviously should be standardized). To quote User:Aecis from another CfD, What matters is whether the category is relevant (I think it is), whether it is well-defined (I think it is), whether it can be filled (I think it can) and whether it follows the existing hierarchy (I think it does). -- Reinyday, 07:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference is that Puerto Rico is not a country. Singapore, the US, Canada, and the UK are. PR is a territory of the US. There is no category "Transportation Companies of Guam" or "Transportation Companies of the US Virgin Islands". Dbinder 17:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was defer to cat titles discussion --Kbdank71 13:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category name is non-standard and not in conventional English. It is inconsistent with the parent and grandparent categories. As for the idea that people won't be sure what it means, those who make that point know perfectly well what it means perfectly and also know that everyone else does too. The only linked foreign language equivalent is in Czech and is called Američtí dramatici.CalJW 11:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume you're referring to American -v- U.S.? If so, deferto Wikipedia:Category titles which is gradually drifting towards conclusion. -Splash 12:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• We can at least rename it to "United States" whatever; abbreviations are frowned upon. Radiant_>|< 14:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to "United States dramatists and playwrights", then for proper renaming defer to CT. James F. (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend per Splash. Maurreen (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed by User_talk:Jdforrester. Hall Monitor 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Suspend per Splash. Or deferto :) ∞Who?¿? 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a category for regular cast members (they're in Category:Simpsons cast members), but for people who have made a guest appearance, which means lumping together Danny Devito, Liam Neeson and U2. Much as I love The Simpsons, this should probably be a list. JW 10:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Possibly rename it or move it, instead of delete? I'm no expert but I'm guessing there are a great many guests in that series, and it may be a good idea to seperate them out for easier viewing of both this list and the original page about the serial. Kevin 10:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

  A list would still have its own page to make it separate from the main article, and would be in Category:The Simpsons. JW 12:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, this is a recreation. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 13 for earlier debate. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with a list, if one doesn't already exist. - SimonP 16:12, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. this is ridiculous, a list would do far better. Samdupont 16:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agreed. James F. (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. List almost certainly already exists. -Sean Curtin 22:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. And might I suggest moving Category:Simpsons cast members to Category:Simpsons voice actors? --FuriousFreddy 14:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all cast members are voice actors, there are other jobs, and I'm sure that all the bio's are cat'd in Category:Voice actors. ∞Who?¿? 01:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this is a valuable list. Dantecubed 19:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You can keep it as a list, but as a category it shows up in every article belonging to it. Such is vain. -Hapsiainen 15:16, August 31, 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 --Kbdank71 13:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last 'user who does not accept to be described as "Millennial Generation"' (user:Wikinerd) was removed from this category. I was left as the only person in this category, however I was in Millennial Wikipedians too. (Since I couldn't see any difference between the two, I simply added myself to both.) Now I removed myself from this cat, which is now empty and, IMO, useless. Army1987 09:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, then. The concept is somewhat silly. Radiant_>|< 10:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both Arbitary and useless. There are other sites where people can meet others of their own age to socialise. CalJW 11:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, and there are also sites where people can meet others of their own nation, so Category:Wikipedian by location is useless too, right? There are also sites where people can meet others of their own profession, so Category:Wikipedian by profession is useless too, right? By your grounds the whole Wikipedia:User categorisation would be useless. IMO it's useful for a user to identify himself as an adolescent, a young adult, a mature adult or an elder, just as it is useful to identify himself as a Briton, an Italian, a Pakistani or a Pole.--Army1987 13:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you think Wikipedia is? An online encyclopedia, or a lonely hearts' club? 12.73.196.15 22:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  And they're welcome to do that, but on a list that doesn't create such a server load. siafu 14:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Server load? How much server load does such a category create?--Army1987 23:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently a much greater amount than a list. I asked this question and was informed by User:Rick Block that the difference is quite significant. siafu 23:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  That link does not work (at least, there does not seem to be a section While_I_was_initially_in_favor in that page). Is it right?--Army1987 08:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete silly, and delete along with almost all Wikipedian caetgories. -Splash 12:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. siafu 14:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• These are both slated for deletion as per a previous CFD from Aug 18. --Kbdank71 16:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, what the hell is going on here? Are these cats harming anything? The 'Wikipedian' cats are one of the many little incentives that keep good editors invested in the project. Being able to proclaim that "this Wikipedian is a ..." something isn't hurting anything, and removing them is in fact only going to add to the many little annoyances on Wikipedia that cause peope to leave. Func( t, c, @, ) 16:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense -- and when I say "you" here, I mean the generic "you", not "Func" -- but if you need "incentives" like vanity pages to stay involved in the project, then I say "good riddance." Nandesuka 17:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both. Violation of "no vanity page" policy (along with all other "Wikipedian" trivia pages). Also, looks silly as hell, juvenile and egocentric, and thus hurts the (admittedly shaky) reputation of Wikipedia as a responsible source of worthy information. 12.73.195.100 20:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Vanity page? It's a category of userpages, not an article...--Army1987 23:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pointless. James F. (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with Func. It's pointless to waste time deleting these. --Evanwohrman 07:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. per Func BlankVerse ∅ 11:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Kbdank71 13:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my vote at #Category:Mathematician Wikipedians. ~~ N (t/c) 22:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a pointless discussion, you can't rename a deleted category. If you want to be in an existing category, then place your userpage in it. If you want a vote. Oppose. This should really not remain listed, as there is nothing for Cfd to do. ∞Who?¿? 01:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per func.--Kross 03:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Go Func Jobe6 08:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity categories are against policy, and Wikipedian vanity categories should be doubly so. Caesar's wife, and all that. Nandesuka 17:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- What's bad about categorizing users? We already have things like Category:User_en; which also serve a social function presumably (Hopefully most users of the English Wikipedia speak English, anyhow, right?). I think until/unless a User category:* namespace comes about, plain categories are a decent way to index users. And these aren't vanity, per se, any more than the languages are, or the User: pages are - and are harmless, so long as made well-organized -- I don't see user pages themselves appearing on Vfd yet as silly. I think the rampant deletionism might be getting a just a tad over the top, these days. --Mysidia

(talk) 18:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely. Wikipedia has far too many useless categories. This has no encyclopedic value and is quite esoteric to Wikipedia. -- Dantecubed 19:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a category listing users by D&D alignment. Is it really more useful than this one? (This discussion has starded to merge Generation Y Wikipedians into Millennial Wikipedians, and this has been done, but apparently it went on about the deletion of the latter. My vote refer to this.) --Army1987 10:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was listify --Kbdank71 13:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This large category groups articles together which don't belong together. So it's useless as navigation aid and misleading as a tool of article categorization. The related list is somewhat more useful, as every item gets a small explanation. Our own article Massacre describes the problems with applying the term. --Pjacobi 08:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Listify sounds good. Radiant_>|< 10:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Listify does indeed sound good, and it would seem strange to have an article saying the word is problematic and then use it in the title of the category that the article is in! -12:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• List. No argument. siafu 14:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, implement as list. James F. (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 13:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Placed all in Category:D.H. Lawrence books as he also wrote poems, essays, plays, novellas. MeltBanana 00:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Poems, essays, and plays do not belong in Category:Novels by author. siafu 06:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. I will repair the damage. CalJW 11:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — note that the nominator doesn't say they've put everything in novels, but that they've put everything in books. Looks like the cat tree needs building properly here.
• Keep, even so. The division is useful, and Category:D.H. Lawrence should be a parent. -Splash 12:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agreed. James F. (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Hall Monitor 16:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 13:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category: British and Irish Lions as this would allow more articles to be placed in the cat. For example The Power of Four sits in the Category: Irish rugby union cat when there is no direct link between the song and Irish rugby union. I could simply make 'tours' a subcat of my proposed new cat, but I don't think there is any need to do so, I think it unlikely that subcats will be needed.GordyB 11:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally 5 articles is about my lower limit for holding a category separately. I presume this category can be more thoroughly populated by writing the missing articles (or cat'ing them), and will expand in future. Not a vote as such, more thinking out loud. -Splash 12:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There are 5 'tour articles' already and there will certainly be more. There are 2 'non-tour articles', I don't think there will be many more. A tour cat is definitely justifiable, a cat that doesn't include tour articles is probably not. That's why I'd rather have one 'super' category.GordyB 18:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but also have a super-category of stuff in general about the Lions. James F. (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be renamed and so far only one person has disagreed. That makes it 1-1. If nobody else votes I'm not sure what should happen.GordyB 12:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically, the no consensus means there won't be a rename. But you can create Category: British and Irish Lions and put the tours cat in it, and any other non-tour articles. --Kbdank71 13:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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