< February 19	February 21 >

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 14:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Includes both letters and digits, making the word "letter" a misnomer. Georgia guy 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure whether this is necessary. It seems overly pedantic. Currently, character disambiguates to grapheme, so the pedantic name would be "two-grapheme...." The category has been in use since it was created by Docu (talk · contribs) in 2004-06-13, with a couple of years of history. At the same time, Georgia guy (talk · contribs) also moved ((2LC)) to ((2CC)) without any discussion. But should it be agreed, then the others should be moved as well:
  • Category:Lists of three-letter combinations ((3LC))
  • Category:Lists of four-letter combinations ((4LC))

    --William Allen Simpson 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Originally, Docu only wanted combinations made out of letters, not digits, in the category, and thus it was not a misnomer. Now, however, because it appears to include digits as well as letters, it becomes a misnomer. Georgia guy 17:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably, Docu can speak for {her|him}self? All I know is that Template:2LA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:2LAdisambig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Template:2LCdisambig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been adding pages with numeric combinations to this category since April 2005, and Docu was an editor of the latter.

    --William Allen Simpson 10:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look you will see that Template:2LAdisambig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) redirects to Template:2LCdisambig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There was a discussion a while ago about reducing the number of these templates. Vegaswikian 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I certainly noticed the redirect last year! Also, there was another template ((LND)) for "letter-number disambiguation" that was used (often for combinations without numbers), and was recently TfD after discussion in several forae. I just finished orphaning it (1300+ uses) last week. Indeed, ((2LC)) was the consolidation of those 4 templates.

    --William Allen Simpson 11:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you include digits as well, the category should indeed be renamed. The digits don't necessarily need to be included in the same category though. -- User:Docu
  • OK. Which do you prefer? Six templates and six categories? Perhaps ((2LC)) and ((2LDC)) (letter digit combination), ((3LC)) and ((3LDC)), ((4LC)) and ((4LDC))? Or merely renaming ((2LC)) to ((2CC)) (character combination) or ((2GC)) (grapheme combination), with similar for 3 and 4? My preference is for three templates and three categories.

    --William Allen Simpson

• Support. Vegaswikian 19:52, 27 February 2006 (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. —akghetto ^talk 09:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost empty category with no possibility of expansion, not following Wikipedia guidelines for cat system structure. Ziggurat 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded cat that is almost empty.FloNight ^talk 18:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - should every writer get their own category? GRuban 14:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing in here that can't be accomplished by the following category.--Mike Selinker 06:54, 28 February 2006 (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, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost empty category with no possibility of expansion, not following Wikipedia guidelines for cat system structure. Ziggurat 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded, almost empty cat. FloNight ^talk 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He's not Shakespeare. Should every minor writer get their own category? GRuban 14:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or, preferably, Rename to Category:Books by Mark Bowden. Black Hawk Down isn't remotely minor. We don't seem to have much of a structure for nonfiction books at all (for example, The Hot Zone, The Best and the Brightest, and Paper Lion have no author categories), and we should. This seems a good place to start. Leave it for now, and I expect more will spring up.--Mike Selinker 06:53, 28 February 2006 (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 speedy deleted as emptied, and requested by the author, who should go ahead and create the new category and populate it now. — Feb. 27, '06 [03:03] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I created that Ancient Egypt category last night and upon more research and reflection, I realize that it should be renamed as per the category tree at commons:Category:Ancient_Egypt.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-18 20:17Z

• From the article, it seems this should be called Naqada III. 132.205.45.110 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had stopped adding articles to that category when I realized my error. Predynastic_Egypt is a good reference for what I mean about this request.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-21 23:43Z

• • From Protodynastic Period of Egypt, it is known as the Naqada III archeaological period... Or do you mean you wish a broader category? 132.205.45.148 17:40, 22 February 2006 (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 18:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are myriads of such redirects. Are we going to list them all? If so, we'd have some rather huge category. I don't see how this category is useful at all, so I say it should be deleted. Gardgate 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, even if it's only advantage to you may be that you could delete all those redirects at once (I'm not advocating this though). -- User:Docu
• Delete needless category. As Gardgate says, if we keep this category, it will eventually be overflowing, because there are myriads of such redirects, many that aren't even listed. Science3456 22:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size doesn't really matter for this type of category. Keep in mind, it's a category, not a list as Gardgate suggests. -- User:Docu
• Keep, it goes with ((R from plural)), one of several designed to protect changes from deliberate redirects. Survived TfD with a very strong keep response, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005#Template:R from alternate name and others. --William Allen Simpson 14:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if "Polar bears" redirects to "Polar bear" a bot can look in this category and find it, and completely bypass the redirect (in cases of standard plurals) by moving the "s" to the outside of the brackets. This is more efficient than the alternative (having the bot scan the text of a individual documents for links that look like redirects from plurals, then checking the contents of each link to make sure it actually is a redirect before treating it as such).— Feb. 27, '06 [03:07] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Keep per Freakofnurture. There are significant applications for it, therefore it's well worth keeping. Ziggurat 03:33, 27 February 2006 (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 14:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As below for English. Tim | meep in my general direction 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the move. Ziggurat 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this and similar moves bellow. Pavel Vozenilek 22:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the move. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional people of Ireland, the standard form for other country references. --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (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 14:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As below for English. Tim | meep in my general direction 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the move. Ziggurat 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the move. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional people of the Netherlands, the standard form for other country references. --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (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 14:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As below for English Tim | meep in my general direction 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the move. Ziggurat 21:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the move. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional people of France, the standard form for other country references. --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (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 14:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less wordy and follows the format of other categories in Category:Fictional characters by origin. Tim | meep in my general direction 18:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the move. Gardgate 19:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the move. Ziggurat 21:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: what about "Fictional British people"? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the move. (This cat is a subcat of Category:Fictional British people. Not all British people (even fictional ones) are English.)--Mais oui! 13:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportthe move per nom. FloNight ^talk 20:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional people of England, the standard form for other country references. --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (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 18:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of The Triangle, North Carolina (I already moved the 4 articles) Jcbarr 17:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete dupe of Category:The Triangle, North Carolina and it has 0 articles now. MPS 21:53, 23 February 2006 (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 18:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too narrow scope to be considered useful. Prior precedent in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Megatokyo. Delete. DarkLordSeth 17:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A precedent set more than a year ago, and therefore of negligible importance, IMHO. Megatokyo has more articles about it than any other webcomic, and while that might not be such a great thing, it's not the duty of CfD to comment on that. It's useful for organizational purposes. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Abe Dashiell. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:44, 21 February 2006 (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 deleted rather quick (empty, pointlessly hierarchial, can't see any objections forthcoming) — Feb. 21, '06 [16:10] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'd suggest merging Category:Detroit sports teams into Category:Detroit sports, and Category:Oakland sports teams into Category:Oakland sports, since these are the only ones I've found of this nomenclature so far. Category:Detroit Pistons should be one of the first things you see when you open Category:Detroit sports, yet this nomenclature leads to it not being on the page. (The alternative, move every team into an "(X) sports teams, is, in my opinion, a terrible idea.)--Mike Selinker 16:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Btw, all items in the Detroit sport teams category are missing proper sorting key and are thus placed under D. Pavel Vozenilek 22:44, 20 February 2006 (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 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should not have a category for something that is essentially a joke and is not relevant to and adds an unfair negative outlook to the subject's articles. Arniep 15:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Razzies have a long history, and as for the unfairness, well, don't you think Andrew Dice Clay brought it upon himself?--Mike Selinker 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, the title needs to move to Category:Worst Actor Razzie nominees, per naming conventions. For what it's worth, I understand Arniep's concern, but also think it's as legitimate as having categories for Oscar-nominated actors. Though I will grant that the award is very often less a comment on the person's actual acting skills, and more a comment on the badness of the movie as a whole. Bearcat 19:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Razzies may well be notable to some people, but they are definitely not notable for each person who has ever been nominated. The list we have for this is fine- we don't need (and shouldn't have) a category for this. Arniep 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous decisions Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_15#Razzie_categories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_7#Category:Worst_Actress_Razzie_.28film.29. Do we need to go through this regularly? Pavel Vozenilek 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think every six months is too often to reevaluate decisions. Every two weeks, sure. But membership changes, and thus do group opinions.--Mike Selinker 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks that this category not being included in the previous cfd was an error. Arniep 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the previous cfds are not relevant here at all, they only concerned categories about films where an actor or an actress appeared in a razzie-nominated role. The categories of the actors and actresses themselves were never nominated for deletion so please don't use the results of the other cfds as a reasoning. - Bobet 15:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek — ciphergoth 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and listify. well-known enough to keep a list of but too insignicant (too many "awarded" and not serious enough a matter to warrant the 'widespreadedness' that categories tailers provide in the encyclopedia) Mayumashu 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If bad actors can have articles, then it's good to have verifiable sources for exactly how bad they are. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem, many actors have acted badly in at least one film so it is totally unfair to have this extremely visible category on subject's pages just because a bunch of nobodies has selected them for an award which noone takes seriously. Arniep 21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the high profile of a category does not match the 'high' profile of the award (as per "Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article" in WP:CLS). Definitely should be listified. Ziggurat 03:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and pluralize the category title. For better or worse, this is verifiable information that is of interest to a large group of people. — Feb. 27, '06 [03:47] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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 17:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new naming is the convention followed by almost all other contents of the parent Cat Category:Government by city. Kurieeto 14:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Implies a degree of autonomy that London doesn't have. Rename Category:Local government in London to match the more relevant convention used by most subcategories of Category:Local government of England (which should itself use "in" not "of" as England has no government of its own). Honbicot 14:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Local government in London as per Honbicot. Piccadilly 18:00, 26 February 2006 (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 17:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new naming is the convention followed by almost all other contents of the parent Cat Category:Government by city. Kurieeto 14:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (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 16:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a redirect to Category:Philadelphia Government. "Goverment" is a typo, and this category does not need to exist. Kurieeto 14:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (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 16:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section stubs is a bad name for this. stubs are very short articles. these are big articles with sections that are empty which is a completely different thing. theyre also not dealt with at all by the stub sorting wikiproject because they arent stubs. and the name section stubs makes it sound likje theyre stubs about sections of something. it makes more sense to name this like Category:Articles to be expanded, since these are articles with sections that need expansion. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 12:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support change. Not a vital change, but you're right - long articles with missing sections aren't stubs, they are simply articles needing expansion. Reflecting that in the name will save a bit of confusion, too, since we have had these things referred to Stub-sorting before now, and we don't deal with them. (and because they're not a stub thing, this is the right deletion forum rather that SFD, I'd say). Grutness...wha? 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this or any other change to something not ending in "stub". These aren't stubs, it's impossible to deal with them as stubs, and calling them stubs creates confusion and false expectations such as these being splittable by topic, and the like. Needs some different name for the sake of clarity. Alai 01:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Conscious 07:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. --TheParanoidOne 22:03, 26 February 2006 (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 "People by university in Foo" --Kbdank71 15:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:People by university affiliation - Australia → Category:People by Australian university
• Category:People by university affiliation - Canada → Category:People by Canadian university
• Category:People by university affiliation - France → Category:People by French university
• Category:People by university affiliation - Ireland → Category:People by Irish university
• Category:People by university affiliation - Mexico → Category:People by Mexican university
• Category:People by university affiliation - USA → Category:People by United States university

Attempting to replace non-standard names with more acceptable ones. - EurekaLott 05:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to also consider:

• Category:People by university affiliation - UK
• Category:People by university affiliation - England
• Category:People by university affiliation - Scotland
• Category:People by university affiliation - Wales

I'll bung a cfr tab on those 4 cats for you too.--Mais oui! 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative proposal Move to "People by universities in Foo" (because "Fooian" tends to be used only for people themselves, not organisations)--Mais oui! 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• additional suggestion. have separate supra-categories, one for alumni and one for lecturers/professors/staff/ etc. and have them link up under the categories being considered in this nomination. the name of these categories supra-category describes both alumi and teaching staff (perhaps unfortunately) Mayumashu 02:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• alternative renaming. as the nomination has been made, without any mention of the whether teaching staff should be included or not, i prefer the naming Category:Post-secondary institution alumni by country (more suitable in North America), Category:Tertiary instition alumni by country, or perhaps the more discriminary Category: University alumni by counrty based on an assumption that the term 'alumni' is as acceptable in other Englishes as it is in North America (a quick check seems to suggest so) Mayumashu 02:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to "People by universities in Foo" Ardenn 20:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Counter suggestion -- supra-categories "People by university in Foo" (not universities plural) with categories "Alumni of ..." and "Staff of ..." (where ... is the institution); the vast number of current variants is not memorable, and leads to bad choices. --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I like this idea. Support. - EurekaLott 21:03, 23 February 2006 (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 deleted rather quick (empty, redundant with the other one mentioned. — Feb. 21, '06 [16:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

reduntant to Category:WikiProject Webcomics members. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Never though you'd catch me saying this, but per nom. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:30, 20 February 2006 (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 empty and delete. — Feb. 27, '06 [02:36] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

A typical software development projects uses dozens of different software tools which are of minimal interest to a typical Encyclopedia reader. I don't see why SVN is any more special than CVS, GNU make, Apache Ant and all the rest. -- nyenyec ☎ 03:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, ephemeral (who's going to keep track of when a project changes from SVN to whatever the next great source control system is?). Catamorphism 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I have made the exact same argument myself. Think not only of software tools but of languages, libraries, algorithms, ciphers... — ciphergoth
• Delete. Today Subversion, tomorrow they switch to ClearCase or Perforce. Pavel Vozenilek 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ephemeral as above. GRuban 14:50, 23 February 2006 (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.