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 15:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) Rugby and rugby union aren't the same 2) Foo in X seems to be the consensus standard rather than Xish Foo 3) Rugby union is played on an all-Ireland basis, an island of Ireland category is more useful.GordyB 19:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• rename. see also similar nomination a few days below under "New Zealand rugby union stadiums". Grutness...wha? 22:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. With one caveat: are all the stadiums/a definitely union ones? -Splash^talk 01:53, 23 October 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 --Kbdank71 15:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least rename as this title seems pretty loaded. Gamaliel 17:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not knowing much of such things, why is 'diaspora' a loaded term? On the assumption that the nom is correct, and that this cat cannot be populated with more than 2 articles if the nom is other than correct, delete. -Splash^talk 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has every right to be here. prashanthns

• Delete per Splash (only two articles). I don't think "diaspora" is a loaded term, but if kept it should be speedy renamed for capitalization. siafu 19:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as Sri Lankan diaspora. — Instantnood 11:26, 25 October 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 15:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I propose the new name to standardise all the subcategories under the main Category:Newspapers by country. Please, also consider this posibility: Serbian and Montenegrin newspapers. Thanks. Cacuija (my talk) 17:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, would this fall under a non-universally-applicable, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): Some states do not posess unambiguous (i.e. Democratic Republic of Congo) or universally-applicable (i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina) adjectives. In these circumstances, users should use the format "Foo of country", such as Category:Society of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Category:Art of Bosnia and Herzegovina.?(It appears I forgot to sign this comment, apologies. Hiding talk 11:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Indeed it does fall under the above rule, being as it is one of the two cited examples. siafu 19:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I thought it wasn't one of the examples. Hiding talk 11:53, 31 October 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 15:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I propose the new name to standardise all the subcategories under the main Category:Newspapers by country. Please, also consider this posibility: Bosnian and Herzegovinian newspapers. Thanks. Cacuija (my talk) 17:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): Some states do not posess unambiguous (i.e. Democratic Republic of Congo) or universally-applicable (i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina) adjectives. In these circumstances, users should use the format "Foo of country", such as Category:Society of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Category:Art of Bosnia and Herzegovina.(It appears I forgot to sign this comment, apologies. Hiding talk 11:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• oppose. use noun not adjective for countries. what would german newspapers be? (german speaking or from Germany?)Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:21, 26 October 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 --Kbdank71 15:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I propose the new name to standarise all the subcategories under the main Category:Newspapers by country. Thanks. Cacuija (my talk) 16:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose, see bonsnia. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:22, 26 October 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. They both cover largely the same topic, and WikiProjects is a fair bit smaller than Subject-specific.

Note that a similar vote was recently held to merge this into the parent category. I'm inexperienced and am not sure if this is the right thing to do, but I'm posting this in good faith because this is a vote for a different action (merge to sister rather than to parent). Interiot 16:26, 22 October 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 15:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This category is unnecessary and it is supperceeded by it's parent category: Category:Newspapers of the Americas. I think creating a subdivision of the Americas (which is actually not a geographical division buy cultural based on the main language spoken --which include Spanish and Portuguese--) would be cumbersome. This division is basically replaced by Category: Newspapers of the Americas and Category:Spanish-language newspapers and Category:Portuguese-language newspapers. Oh, by the way, this categ. is currently empty so it can just be deleted. Thanks. --Cacuija (my talk) 15:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, empty and I'm inclined to agree with the nom that we should stick to clear geographic/linguistic divisions rather than hazy cultural ones. -Splash^talk 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. CalJW 01:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Splash, though this suggests that we may want to consider changing the standard for Category:Newspapers by country to "Newspapers in foo" instead of "Fooian newspapers". siafu 20:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. go for "Newspapers in foo" or "... of foo". "German newspaper" is ambigous. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:25, 26 October 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 15:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I assume that the reason for inclusion of towns and villages is the same category is that there is no official distinction in Latvia, but the main articles do not confirm this. CalJW 12:14, 22 October 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 15:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a redirect to Category: Museums in Iraq which follows the standard format of Museums in Country categories. Category: Museums of Iraq also appears as a sub-category of Category: Museums in Iraq, which doesn't seem right! No articles refer to category deletion candidate. For some reason I was unable to add a ((cfd)) tag. AJP 12:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems you can't add cfd to a redirect, so I have cancelled that and added the tag. CalJW 12:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or keep as a soft-redirect. -Splash^talk 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 20:05, 24 October 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 15:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is this category really necessary? Arniep 11:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of Hulk articles, so it follows automatically that they should have a category. The categorisation menu is an organisational tool, and it doesn't matter if the topic is relatively trivial. This is just one of many categories for comics, and I don't think it is appropriate to nominate one category at random from a well esstablished group of categories. If you can get nearly all of the articles deleted through articles for deletion, only then should the category go to, but I wouldn't bother trying as it almost certainly wouldn't work, and it might upset contributors who may also write about topics which are of interest to you some time. CalJW 12:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Query. Isn't it correctly The Hulk, or The Incredible Hulk? Or is this something different? 12.73.196.132 19:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The publications featuring the character have had many names. However, the character refers to himself as "Hulk", as do other characters, and definitive articles tend to be avoided if unnecessary in naming articles and categories. If this was a category regarding a publication, I'd agree, but since it regards the character, it isn't applicable. Hiding talk 05:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per CalJW - TexasAndroid 19:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment It was Jennifer Connelly's inclusion in it that first raised my attenton and she's not in the comic but in a film based on a TV show based on the comic. Are we going to put all actors in the Hulk film in this category? Arniep 08:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the film would have been based on the comic, rather than the TV show. As to whether Jennifer Connelly belongs in the category, I'm not sure why her inclusion is so strange, although perhaps a sub category of Category:Hulk actors could be created to accomodate the actors, akin to Category:Star Wars actors. Keep. Hiding talk 11:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove Jennifer Connelly from the category.

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, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No article. Links to Template:Politician which is on templates for deletion. Absolutely POV. Should be speedied.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer. Since the category is only populated by that template, it can be speedily deleted if TFD decides to delete said template. No need to discuss it twice. Radiant_>|< 10:35, 22 October 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 --Kbdank71 14:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Reference section of a library"? The section Reference#Libraries doesn't help much here. The new name is more specific and looks to be more accurate, too. Brian Jason Drake 08:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, take a look at Reference work. Ancheta Wis 15:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Reference" is normal English. CalJW 12:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands, without renaming. What might 'typically' be found in the reference section of a library is hazy at best. It is probably not a useful thing to categorise an article as: I would rather hope that very many of our articles could be found in the reference section of a library. The suggested new name is also questionable in value, imo. It's some kind of meta-category for other meta-categories, and I'm not sure it's useful — I don't think there is much organizational use in having lists, people, sources etc. in a parent cat together. -Splash^talk 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See the talk page. Ancheta Wis 06:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the useful Category:Reference books already exists and I wouldn't oppose putting that category at this name. Given the proliferation of computer/CD encyclopedias, etc., books no longer covers everything that category contains. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Category:Reference books already exists why is it a redlink? If you're refering to Category:Reference works, this is a category for articles about other reference works, whereas Category:Reference is for articles that serve the function of a reference work. Valiantis 15:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, sorry, I did mean that. And it's not clear what articles don't serve the function of a reference work, given that this is an encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The Category was nominated for renaming and not Deleting. It is a fundamental concept in common use like Wikipedia:Reference Desk. Ancheta Wis 15:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is said quite frequently in an attempt to tell other editors that they may not say what they think because someone else thinks different. Allowing editors to suggest whatever they like is entirely in keeping with how places like AfD operates and allows everyone to consider all possibilities: there is, after all, the chance that the nominator didn't come up with the best idea available. -Splash^talk 16:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: As per CalJW & Ancheta Wis. Valiantis 15:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Splash. A category of "reference" information is found at [1]. I imagine, however, that whatever subset is being categorized here might be a good reason for a template, portal, or "Wikiproject:Almanac". siafu 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. per Valiantis. zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see the point about "reference" being a term that people understand, but I still think that this category should not be left as it is, since reference works normally include encyclopedias. Wikipedia:Browse (this is a better way of linking to that page from here) has a useful "reference" section but that doesn't link to all the pages in this category, and why shouldn't we have a category like this if we are going to have categories like Category:Lists? Brian Jason Drake 05:05, 30 October 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 14:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is empty and a duplicate of Category:Political parties in Serbia. NatusRoma 04:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete -The Tom 18:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Splash^talk 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 21:09, 24 October 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 14:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Includes axemen and guillotiners, but too few to subdivide and some used more than one method anyway. Honbicot 01:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. One of the more morbidly amusing nominations I've seen in a while. -The Tom 18:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and populate more thoroughly since its remit with the new name is considerably wider. -Splash^talk 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:10, 24 October 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.