< June 20	June 22 >

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 29 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Rename to Category:British Railways gas turbine locomotives since BR wasn't rebranded until 1968 or so and these engines all predate that. Dunc|☺ 00:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Should the lower case railways be used? — Instantnood June 28, 2005 16:54 (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 29 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Created originally by User:Irate, who I believe is now banned. Contains two peers and the article on their peerage, based on their common surname. There's no need for this as a subset of Category:Peers, or as a standalone category. The three articles listed already have categories in which they make sense. 146.113.66.22 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) (who is actually Mackensen, but can't login at this terminal, but who will reply here within the hour to signify that this anon IP is not some hoaxer)

Yes, that's really me. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this vaguely worded and unneccessary catalogue before I add Wolverhampton Wanderers to it! Grutness...wha? 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoops - that's Molineux stadium... make that Clutha River, then. Grutness...wha?
• Delete this vaguely worded and unneccessary catalogue before I add Populous to it! ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 13:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 14:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Craigy (talk) 22:14, Jun 23, 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 29 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

Very POV. There is no litmus test you can give to say if a book belongs in the list or not. Gorrister 18:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Very true. Delete. --Kbdank71 19:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All of the books in there have been considered 'controversial' at some point. Whether by the Catholic church, various governments or organisations, or large groups of people. NPOV states that every significant opinion should be represented fairly, not that none should be represented at all. Firestorm 20:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where are the other significant opinions? Did I miss the fair representation of them in this category? As far as I see, Wikipedia is advocating that these books are indeed controversial. --Kbdank71 20:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What I am saying is that these books have been deemed controversial by various groups, so maybe a rename to Category:Books deemed controversial could be in order. But to not include any opinion is not what NPOV really is, either. That's what I meant. Firestorm 23:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. All "Controversial" means is "generated significant/notable controversy". It is not that hard to judge, and it is not a pejorative. Origin of Species was controversial in its day; The Metamorphosis was relatively not. Books which were banned, generated large public debates, generated large scientific debates, etc. would be included. Questionable additions can be decided on a case-by-case basis -- it should not be hard to prove it one way or the other — if you can't cite works produced by the "controversy", then it's probably not that controversial. We know The Bell Curve was controversial because there were a legion of articles and editorials written for ad against it (most of which in the present describe it as a "controversial book"), and a number of volumes published as "Refutations of the Bell Curve" or "Arguments against the Bell Curve" or "Arguments for the Bell Curve", etc. True controversy generates more work about something, either offensive or defensive -- there's your litmus test. (The Metamorphosis generated a lot of literary work as well, but it was not attacking or defending it, it was analysing it -- there's your difference). --Fastfission 03:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • One more comment: I'm worried that the people who find this category to be POV don't have a very precise definition of controversial. Merriam-Webster defines "controversial" as simply "of, relating to, or arousing controversy", and "controversy" is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing view". This is not hard to measure, and it is not POV, and it does not reflect on truth or falseness. --Fastfission 04:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a useful category. There are many, many books that the authors wish were controversial, but relatively few that generate widespread discussion and debate, either in the lay or the specialist communities. It is worth highlighting those books. -Willmcw 05:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just a magnet for people to list books that don't fit with their own POV. Kaibabsquirrel 05:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I list books as controversial that do fit my POV. Would you deny that Origin of Species was and is controversial? Does that have anything to do with whether you agree or disagree with the book's contents? Creationists think it is controversial, biologists think it is controversial. Controversial can be a positive thing too. If it wasn't controversial, it probably didn't have any effect! --Fastfission 04:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I wouldn't have a problem if there were some objective way of determining what would go in the category which would limit it to books which have had a longstanding controversy that has proven significant in the long term or relates to major news items. There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of books that have wound up on "banned books" lists at one time or another, making the list potentially unmaintainable. I also think the "controversial" label carries with it an inherent POV; don't like liberals, just slap the "controversial" label on all of Michael Moore's books; don't like paleoconservatives, add all the Pat Buchanan books; don't like environmentalists, add "The Population Bomb" and "Silent Spring"; think the premise of "Camp of the Saints" is evil, just slap the label on it. Do "Huckleberry Finn" and "The Lorax" qualify too? The Bible and the Koran? I'm not saying these books aren't controversial but that this is a potentially open-ended list, and that merely adding a book can cause it to be somewhat discredited on a basis other than somebody reading it for themselves and making up their own mind. Kaibabsquirrel 02:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As stated in NOPV, What people believe, is an objective matter of fact. Likewise it is (basically) a matter of fact that a book is controversial. In contrast, it would be POV to conceal opposing judgements of the book.
• Interesting point. Useful, but wrongly named. How about rename to Category:Books that were banned? "Controversial" is too broad. Radiant_>|< 11:44, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Controversial does not have to be too broad -- we're talking about notable controversy, not a few negative book reviews. Books which changed the entire debate. And in my experience "banned" is both harder to check than this (banned where? by who? by some school board? by the Nazis?). --Fastfission 04:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, for instance, would you consider Harry Potter a controversial book? Because several die-hard christian organizations accuse it of satanism. What would you think of The Lord of the Rings, which is alleged to be sexist because it has so very few female roles. What about any number of Michael Crighton's or Robin Cook's books, that highlight controversies in current culture? What about Erich von Danicken's books that are controversially labeled as either scientific or misleading? Seems to me that 'controversy' is too broad. Radiant_>|< 08:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename to Category:Books deemed controversial. (Category:Books that were banned might be a subcategory.) — Sebastian (talk) 04:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep - this seems like a useful category, and "contovertial" is verifiable, and therefore NPOV. It's certainly notable. Guettarda 04:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Dunc|☺ 10:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - although there are enough keeps now that I'm not sure it's worth the bother. From WP:CG If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?. Exactly how controversial does a book need to be to be put in this category? How long does the controversy need to last? How widespread does the controvery need to be? Banned or not is factually verifiable. Controversial is ultimately subjective. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 14:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can provide a competently authoritative category article. Buffyg 14:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. being controversial isn't PoV — there's either controversy or there isn't. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, for instance, would you consider Harry Potter a controversial book? Because several die-hard christian organizations accuse it of satanism. What would you think of The Lord of the Rings, which is alleged to be sexist because it has so very few female roles. What about any number of Michael Crighton's or Robin Cook's books, that highlight controversies in current culture? What about Erich von Danicken's books that are controversially labeled as either scientific or misleading? Seems to me that 'controversy' is too broad. Radiant_>|< 08:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, reasons as others above. Pavel Vozenilek 01:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but possibly convert into an annotated list. -Sean Curtin
• Compromise proposal 1: This is indeed a very fuzzy category. How about if we relied on the article itself? (In the same way as we determine notability by what the article claims.) Because most interesting books contain some things that are worth discussing, we should raise the bar to "notable for the controversy". — Sebastian (talk) 09:19, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Compromise proposal 2: Designate this category only as a parent category for category:banned books and subcategories of specific kinds of controversies, such as The Origin of Species -> Category:books opposed for religious reasons or so. — Sebastian (talk) 09:19, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands because 'controversy' is inherently POV and POV cannot be avoided with additions to the category as named. A category, if it is to be useful, needs to be crystal clear as to what should go in it and many categories are CfD'd because they lack sufficient clarity. The compromise proposals above are interesting, but would not prevent additions to (and revert wars about) the category. -Splash 23:31, Jun 25, 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 keep former delete latter --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 15:11 (UTC)

These two categories are somehow overlapped. Some South Korean actresses/actors are categorised only to the latter category, while some are categorised to both. The two can either be merged, or make the former a subcategory of the latter. Please also note that on the English version of Wikipedia many lists and categories of Korean-related topics, the North and the South are not differentiated. — Instantnood 14:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• That's rather odd, because they are two distinct countries (and tend not to like each other much). In the spirit of countering systemic bias, delete the latter, keep the former, and add Category:North Korean actors. Radiant_>|< 15:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well politically the two states are not in good condition, but among Korean people they do posess a sense of nationalism. They enter in opening ceremonies of Olympic Games together. In the 2002 Football World Cup North Korea sent a cheering team to the South. On Wikipedia many categories, lists, as well as stub types, are for both. — Instantnood 15:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete the latter per Radiant!—--Jerry Crimson Mann 15:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: In theory, the Korean category could hold all actors of Korean ethnicity, i.e. including Korean-American or Korean-Japanese actors... however, to my knowledge none such are currently included in the category, and I'm not sure such a category would be a great idea. -- Visviva 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Anyway, I support Radiant's suggestion to delete Category:Korean actors and merge its contents into Category:South Korean actors. And if anyone can find enough information about a North Korean actor for an encyclopedia article, by all means add that category. -- Visviva 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have put up a notice at the talk page of Korea-related topics notice board. Let's see their opinion. :-D — Instantnood 17:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both, but have "Korean actors" as the superset of North-Korean and South-Korean sub-cats only. James F. (talk) 14:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and delete as per Radiant. I oppose keeping "Korean actors", as although they have made some progress towards peace, they are still very much seperate countries, as Canada is in North America, they are listed as Category:Canadian actors. The Category:American actors is another issue for later. <>Who?¿? 28 June 2005 04:31 (UTC)
• Note. I have created Category:North Korean actors, which at present holds only one article. -- Visviva 29 June 2005 04:01 (UTC)
• Couldn't Category:Korean actors include all acting professionals of Korean origin? We don't have Category:Korean American actors yet, but one could easily be created to hold figures such as Rick Yune and Linda Park. -- Visviva 29 June 2005 04:01 (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 --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)

Seriously misnamed, since it actually contains only video editing software. Video editors are people. So, rename to Category:Video editing software and delete, unless there are enough articles on actual video editors (Note: Category:Film editors contains only 21 articles, and film editors are generally much more notable than video editors). -- grm_wnr Esc 13:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Video editing software as suggested. It may be worth noting that according to the deletion log from November 2004 the author renamed it from Category:Video editing software to Category:Video editors. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 22:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:12, 23 Jun 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 keep --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 14:55 (UTC)

had only four entries. Created missing Category:Churches_in_Austria (according to other countries) and moved the entries. Ikar.us 12:05, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• Keep. Category makes sense in order to keep Category:Vienna, which is already pretty full, more organized. Martg76
• Delete and create Category:Buildings_in_Vienna instead. — Sebastian (talk) 04:54, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to Buildings in Vienna, I like that suggestion. Radiant_>|< 10:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 14:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's more where those four came from, as Vienna is not a city that wants for interesting churches. 14:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It will fill up in time. CalJW 16:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful, and potentially large. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 23 Jun 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 29 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)

This categorization isn't actually in use. Note that singles are already classified by artists, and artists are classified by nationality. Radiant_>|< 09:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, delete. Firestorm 20:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 14:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:02, 25 Jun 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 keep --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 14:52 (UTC)

This category is for musical groups formed in Great Britain. Great Britain is comprised of Scotland, Wales, and England. Scotland and Wales already have their own categories for musical groups. A category for England has recently been created to facilitate the changes. The articles should be merged into Category:English musical groups, Category:Scottish musical groups, or Category:Welsh musical groups (whichever is the case). This category is too generalized. - Tastywheat 07:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Question - Does redundancy within categories have an adverse effect on the server or database? If not, those three categories could exist as subcategories of British musical groups. - Tastywheat 08:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Only marginally so. But it doesn't really help in accessibility of information. I'd say delete for that reason - creating a cat merely to store three subcats is too bureaucratese for my taste. Radiant_>|< 09:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are many groups with members from more than one of the home nations. The UK is a state and is as entitled to have categories at your country. CalJW 16:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Use it to store the three subcategories and articles which cannot, for one reason or another, sorted more specifically. But maybe it should be renamed to Category:UK musical groups, so it can store the hypothetical Category:Northern Irish musical groups as well? This is mainly because I think it's strange and confusing to have Scottish, Welsh, etc. groups in Category:Musical groups by nationality directly. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal, I personally feel that the division would make each category smaller and easier to search through. Also, I think the culture of each country affects the bands they produce and a distinction should be made. If the supercategory is to exist there would be little, if any, articles in that category that wouldn't fit in one of the subcategories. Tastywheat 00:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep British, delete English, Scottish, and Welsh. --Kbdank71 14:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per grm_wnr. Hiding 15:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as super-cat of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish cats; "British" includes NI, FWIW, and doesn't mean "of Great Britain". James F. (talk) 18:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Clarification, Britain is an unofficial and somewhat ambiguous term for United Kingdom. I would be in favor of grm_wnr's suggestion, renaming to Category:UK musical groups. Overpopulation, if it even exists, would definitely occur in this category without division. Tastywheat 00:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Grm wnr. There should be a Category:UK musical groups to cover the three named subcategories (for England, Scotland, and Wales) plus one for Northern Ireland, since that is the difference between the UK and GB (the full name of the place is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). Grutness...wha? 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Umm. The problem is that, quite apart from "UK" being utterly vile, it's a noun, not an adjective. The adjective needed here - the one meaning "of or pertaining to the United Kingdom" - is, erm, "British", which is where it's needed to be. James F. (talk) 14:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or rename as a parent for other Great Britain/UK musician categories. -Sean Curtin 05:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is standard to have UK wide categories and subdivide as appropriate. There must be lots of groups with members from more than one of the home nations. CalJW 16:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Bottom Line Having the more general (UK) and more specific (English, Irish, etc) categories is a bad idea in my opinion. If you have both there will more than likely be redundancy. If this category doesn't go I thinke the others should. I just prefer to have the smaller categories. -Tastywheat 01:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• • Below the Bottom Line. Where do, off the top of my head, Cream, The Faces or Primal Scream go in the smaller categories? Hiding 16:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • England, England, and Scotland. Were you trying to say they're British but not English or Scottish? Tastywheat 21:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• • • Yes. Jack Bruce isn't English, Rod Stewart isn't English and Mani isn't Scottish, so how do you categorise them as you have done so? Surely it's POV? Hiding 22:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If one of the members of Cream was American would you then classify them as World music? Or Northern Hemispheric music? They all had to meet somewhere in order to form a band or at least they had to start with a base of operations. Tastywheat 15:04, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I thought earlier you were arguing for this category based upon an idea of cultural influence? And if so, I repeat, how can you categorise a band as English or as Scotttish if members of such a band are not of that nationality? And given the changing membership of many bands, do we give bands multiple categories based on changing influence? If not, it seems far easier to retain Category:British musical groups, than to categorise by what appears a contentious and possibly POV issue. And by the way, how on earth do you get Category:Britpop musical groups to be a sub cat of Category:English musical groups?

And please note, I oppose any renaming as well, given that British is the nationality of a citizen of the U.K. Hiding 17:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Certainly in the U.S., the Beatles (e.g.) are considered a "British" rock sensation, not an "English" one. The phenomenon of British music in the '60s and later seems important enough to warrant a "British bands" category, even if some particularly regional sounds are split off into subcats. And yes, if Wikipedia has an "American musical groups" category (note: not even subcats for Southern musical groups, Northwest musical groups, etc.), it seems incredibly silly not to have one category devoted to music from the U.K.  --Quuxplusone 23:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep everything, and make English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish subcategories of British. — Instantnood June 28, 2005 17:08 (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 29 June 2005 13:58 (UTC)

This category has been split off from Category:2005 ostensibly to hold news-related articles relevant to the year and also news-by-month subcategories like Category:April 2005 news. My main objections are that it makes the category structure harder to use (for comparison, see Category:2003 which has not been fractured like this), will inevitably lead to many multiple classifications, and is simply not necessary since there can't possibly be that much news-related content that it can't be held in a single year-category. Besides, aren't almost all 2005-related articles "news"? In other words, pointless redundancy. (I have also nominated Category:2004 news for exactly the same reasons.) - dcljr (talk) 05:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If some article is about an event that occurred in 2005 just put it in Category:2005, or one of the by-subject subcategories. Bryan 23:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ··gracefool |☺ 13:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary, redundant category. All these things belong in Category:2005. -Splash 15:14, Jun 25, 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 29 June 2005 13:54 (UTC)

This category has been split off from Category:2004 ostensibly to hold news-related articles relevant to the year and also news-by-month subcategories like Category:December 2004 news. My main objections are that it makes the category structure harder to use (for comparison, see Category:2003 which has not been fractured like this), will inevitably lead to many multiple classifications, and is simply not necessary since there can't possibly be that much news-related content that it can't be held in a single year-category. Besides, weren't almost all 2004-related articles "news" at the time? In other words, pointless redundancy. (I have also nominated Category:2005 news for exactly the same reasons.) - dcljr (talk) 05:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - BTW, I've listed this nomination separately from the 2005 one in case people feel differently about this sort of fragmentation propagating back through time (which will probably inevitably happen) than they do about allowing it for the current year only... although I'm not sure how such a distinction could be maintained. But whatever. - dcljr (talk) 06:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bryan 23:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ··gracefool |☺ 13:43, 24 Jun 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 29 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)

• Delete: Frivolous and ultimately erroneously titled. Cyberjunkie ^TALK 14:43, 21 Jun 2005 [1]
• Delete. Unnecessary categorization. improperly named to boot. Who is the nominator above? RedWolf 05:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign (check above diff).-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 08:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Don't see much use for it, and "Three" and "Twentynine" and the like are not numerals.
• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Please see my comments at Category_talk:Localities_with_numerals_in_their_names. (I have watchlisted "Categories for Deletion" so that I can download possibly useful information from interesting pages before it is too late.) Wavelength 00:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Arithmonyms (or Category:Arithmonymata, if that is the correct plural). — Sebastian (talk) 05:03, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Retracting my vote. I still feel sympathetic to the idea, but as a hapax legomenon, "arithmonym" is a bad name for a category. — Sebastian (talk) 05:12, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete; utility elusive. Buffyg 14:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure that the category is doing any harm; it may be somewhat frivolous, with limited (though not non-existent) utility. Could those who want to save it transfer the information to a List article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Here are some possible page names (all of which refer to number names):

• "Category:Places whose names contain number names"
• "Category:Places with names containing number names"
• "List of places whose names contain number names"
• "List of places with names containing number names" Wavelength 01:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Agree with Mel. — To λ: I'd prefer
  • "Category:Places whose names contain numbers" or
  • "List of places whose names contain numbers" — Sebastian (talk) 08:46, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Delete since this does not extract any useful information, and as already pointed out, numerals are actual digits and so must be absent from practically all place names. In case of a rename taking hold, the two chosen by Sebastian just above are clearly the most appropriate. Given the largely silly nature of the category, I think I'd prefer a list. -Splash 15:18, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 12:19 (UTC)
• Keep or convert into a list. — Instantnood June 28, 2005 17:19 (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 28 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

• Delete no entries and inactive for a year. Josh Parris ✉ 02:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although it it wasn't inactive for a year... it was only created last month. I see no use for the category though. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 21:11, Jun 22, 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 29 June 2005 13:36 (UTC)

• Delete one entry - a stub that appears in other categories. Josh Parris ✉ 02:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 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 29 June 2005 13:32 (UTC)

• Delete one entry, the article on Royal commissions. It's only meaningful to group Royal Commissions by their country, because they have no legal (and little political meaning) outside of it. Josh Parris ✉ 03:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Josh's point. — Sebastian (talk) 05:17, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete - my reaction exactly when I read the name - "what country"? - Guettarda 05:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of specification of commissioning monarchy. Buffyg 14:33, 23 Jun 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 29 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)

• Delete one entry - it appears that the Supersuckers aren't that interested in singles.... Josh Parris ✉ 04:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:23, 25 Jun 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 29 June 2005 13:24 (UTC)

• Transform into article and Delete. Josh Parris ✉ 04:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 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 29 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)

• Delete one entry. Josh Parris ✉ 04:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Brunnock 20:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Buffyg 14:33, 23 Jun 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 28 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

• Delete no entries. Josh Parris ✉ 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I shudder to think why this was ever created. BJAODN? Grutness...wha? 00:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why was this ever created? BJAODN Nomination seconded. Firestorm 17:12, Jun 23, 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 28 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

• Delete no entries. Josh Parris ✉ 04:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Kbdank71 14:52, 21 Jun 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 28 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

I give up.

• Speedied as nonsense, empty, and unreferenced. Radiant_>|< 09:39, Jun 21, 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.