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 K1Bond007 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the CSA only have one submarine? Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep I prefer a complete and accurate category system to a half baked one. If none of the countries with only a small number of submarines are allowed a country, there will be a messy miscellaneous set in the main category, which will not be an improvement. Honbicot 07:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While this case, with only one article, may violate the more general guidelines of category population minimums, in this case, as per above, it is valuable to maintain for the sake of the organization scheme to avoid the miscellany mentioned. Joshbaumgartner 07:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. siafu 17:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there was a test one before it, the Pioneer, which doesn't have an article yet. Maybe others too, I don't know.--Bkwillwm 07:46, 23 December 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 14:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sub-category of CAT:CSD, which is supposed to be a centralized place for admins to check pages to be deleted. Splitting the CSD category just makes admins have to look in more places to delete articles that shouldn't exist in Wikipedia. Since all the articles here end up in the parent category, delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

• Seconded. Radiant_>|< 00:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: because of the way the templates are done, articles which get categorized into this category are also put into CAT:CSD. So it's harmless in terms of centralizing. But it also allows people who have a particular interest in attack pages to find them quickly. I'm basically neutral on this category, but I was considering going similar subcat for A7s, to allow them to be more easily reviewed. (A7 seems to have more borderline or improper uses than the other CSDs...) I'll hold off on making the subcat until I see the fate of this category... Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly delete. This is unnecessary, unhelpful and makes clearing CSDs a harder job than it already is. Keep everything clear and in the open and right in front of your eyes. I'd also oppose the creation of the other subcats. -Splash^talk 00:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)I misunderstood how this works. Seems harmless, and some may find it useful. I'd still look to avoid having a subcat to go with every CSD, mind. -Splash^talk 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I can see no way this possibly disrupts the task of admins clearing CSD, and it seems some editors find it useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as was explained during the previous CFD that closed less than a week ago this is not "another place you have to look", all the CSD candidates are still very much "in the open" as in they are still listed in the main CAT:CSD category in addition to beeing put in CAT:ASD. It might be slightly redundant when there are not a lot of articles listed, but it defenently does not make clearing CSDs any harder as using it is strictly optional and attack pages still appear in CAT:CSD like they always have. It's simply a "filter" that becomes usefull if there are 100+ articles listed for speedy deletion and you want to get rid of any nasty attack pages before going to work on the vanity garage band articles and what not (yeah people don't always use the "right" speedy tag, but every little bit helps IMHO). I think it's a good idea anyway, that's why I made it. --Sherool (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sherool. And wonder why Titoxd appears to contradict himself: if everything appears in the parent cat (and it does) why do admins "have to look in more places"? Also should point out that even with reduced workload on WP:CSD after banning of anonymous creation of articles, I've occasionally found this subcat useful, eg when I don't have much time I just go there and empty it and leave the stuff in the main cat for others with more time. It is true that with the ban in place (will it be permanent?) the subcat is less useful; but it does no harm and is occasionally useful for some - what more do you want? Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I didn't like how this page was showing up as an actual subcategory of CAT:CSD which implied that it is among the candidates to be deleted, so I recategorized the page under Category:Speedy deletion. Shawnc 02:33, 23 December 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 to Category:Hardware routers --Kbdank71 14:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is quite lost. Dedicated Router is not a major established term; consequentially, it has only two articles in it; it's a subcatgory of Electronics, not Computer-anything. QEDquid 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need some sort of category for dedicated (as opposed to merely software) routers. Of course, everything in "Category:Dedicated routers" can simply be moved to "Category:Routers", but that strikes as being less organized. — Itai (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Hardware routers since that is what these really are. There is a matching Category:Routing software. Vegaswikian 22:36, 28 December 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 14:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no encyclopedically valuable relation between being a celebrity and playing poker. It's at best a factoid. If it is relevant to their celebrity status (like having featured on Celebrity Poker Showdown), put these people in such a category, or move them to the relevant national daughter of Category:Poker players. But delete this category. Aecis ^praatpaal 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to clean up, prune and rename to Category:Celebrity Poker Showdown players and Category:Celebrity Poker Club players (or something to that extent), per Mike Selinker. 10:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A biased Keep. I created this category to specifically move the Ben Afflecks of the world out of the main category, when I moved all the poker players into national categories. Affleck should not be listed with Doyle Brunson. This is a valuable distinction in a world where televised poker has become a craze.--Mike Selinker 18:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After going back to the category for the first time in weeks, I see it has exploded. Originally the category was designed for celebrity players who were at the World Series of Poker or similar tournaments. It now seems to include anyone who has ever played a poker game, including Richard Nixon. Clearly the category has to change. I would suggest a Category:Celebrity Poker Showdown players and a Category:Celebrity Poker Club players instead of dumping this entire list into the nationality categories. The Yevgeny Kafelnikovs of the world, who have won major tournaments, deserve some recognition for this, but now this category has muddied that distinction as well. Worth a change.--Mike Selinker 00:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redefinition, as per Mike Selinker. Essexmutant 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying clean up, prune and rename? Aecis ^praatpaal 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. In fact, I'm prepared to do the work myself. Essexmutant 22:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this happens, let me know if you need any help.--Mike Selinker 08:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE it's trivial. 132.205.45.148 19:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme delete. Radiant_>|< 00:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Simply trivia, no categorization value. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 03:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial for an actor. --Vizcarra 04:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial. --Edcolins 08:27, 22 December 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 14:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patent law generally applies to technological, i.e. scientific, inventions (with the notable recent exception of business method patent, but in my opinion this should be considered only as an exception to the general rule that patents relate to scientific inventions in the general sense). It seems odd to use "Scientific patent law" for a category, which is slightly pleonastic. I would strongly recommend creating Category:Biology-related patent law, Category:Chemistry-related patent law and/or keeping Category:Patent law instead. Edcolins 09:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These four articles would do just as well in Category:Science and law, which can be subdivided as suggested by the nominator when there are sufficient articles. siafu 00:27, 22 December 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 14:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was replaced by Category:Presidents of the National Action Party (Mexico). wknight94 05:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As above wknight94 05:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it wasn't so much a replacement, rather an emptying of the original category, deletion of its mother category, cretion of the new name. Instead of the formal rename procedure. --Vizcarra 03:17, 22 December 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 - Izehar 13:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Trentino-Alto Adige
• Category:Natives of Trentino-Alto Adige
• Category:Towns in Trentino-Alto Adige

• Delete All: Trentino-Alto Adige was made a redirect to Trentino-South Tyrol and all related articles were moved to Category:Trentino-South Tyrol, etc. wknight94 01:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The English name of this Italian region with a large German-speaking population was discussed on Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol ad nauseam. It is fairly clear that Trentino-South Tyrol is the least bad name for the region. Valiantis 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. No argument. siafu 00:30, 22 December 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 14:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is the standard form. MeltBanana 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 05:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm going to change the category to Category:Olympic competitors from Puerto Rico. Any objections? -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 12:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I really care but all in Category:Olympic competitors by country have for. MeltBanana 14:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "for" - not all people who compete for a country at the olympics were born in that country, which is why we use "for" (there wasa big debate about this some six months back). Grutness...wha? 23:54, 21 December 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.