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. Syrthiss 17:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be a template added to articles which require more explanation, not a separate category. Also, only one article in category. StuTheSheep 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There already is a template for this, anyway. siafu 15:04, 12 January 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. Syrthiss 17:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Category:Montrealers. Qutezuce 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 'Montrealer' is the more common term. Brcreel 02:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unh-uh. It's Montréalotians. Create category when you have someone to add to it, not the other way around. Atrian 04:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a former Montrealer, I have never heard of this term. --YUL89YYZ 09:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 15:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed that Montrealer is the more normative term in English — I've never heard "Montrealian" in my life, and I'm a Canadian in my mid-30s. Just wanted to say, though, that AFAIK it's not normally necessary to CFD duplicate categories; you can just delete or ((categoryredirect)) them without a vote. But since this is already here, consider this a delete vote. Bearcat 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Category:Angelenos and Category:Buffalonians among others were abolished after discussion in favor of Category:People from Los Angeles and Category:People from Buffalo, New York. If that is the new convention to be adopted, why shouldn't Category:Montrealers become Category:People from Montreal? - choster 18:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was that actually established as the primary convention for a "people from city" category, or were those treated as individual cases which didn't necessarily establish a permanent precedent? Bearcat 19:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like a good suggestion, afterall, someone could argue for Catégoire:Montréalais 132.205.45.110 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would hate to see a new convention that originated for articles on U.S. cities applied to articles on Canadian cities without there first being some discussion among Canadian wikipedians. As such, I think any move to Category:People from Montreal should wait until there has been a more general discussion. Skeezix1000 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't a convention for U.S. cities. It was argued that it should be a convention for all cities (something I strongly oppose). I don't know if it actually is, which is why I brought it up. -choster 19:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Montréalians is a made-up word. Just as silly as when people insert an accent on Montrealer, so that it reads "Montréaler". Skeezix1000 18:42, 16 January 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. Syrthiss 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only two articles in the category, one of them a user --MisterHand 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the proposed splitting of each Marathon game article happens (see Talk:Marathon (computer game)), this category might become useful. æle ✆ 20:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, we'd only have four articles in here. -- MisterHand 20:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When the proposed splitting happens, then make the category. siafu 15:06, 12 January 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. Syrthiss 17:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little potential for growth. Two of the three articles in this category should probably just be merged into the main article which would make this category even less useful. Hirudo 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apparently, it's been discontinued, so little potential for growth. Currently overcat. siafu 15:09, 12 January 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. Syrthiss 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the city categories so only counties are left. I have made a new category:Buildings and structures in England by city as a pair to this. Calsicol 20:26, 11 January 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 rename. Syrthiss 17:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings in Nashville to Category:Buildings and structures in Nashville[edit]

This is the normal form. See Category:Buildings and structures by city. Rename Calsicol 20:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• This should be a Speedy. Vegaswikian 22:12, 11 January 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 rename, tho not very speedy apparently ;). Syrthiss 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the normal form. See Category:Buildings and structures by city. Rename Calsicol 20:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• This should be a Speedy. Vegaswikian 22:12, 11 January 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 (keep). Syrthiss 17:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't that many members. Vulturell 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Vulturell 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are five. Not many, but enough. siafu 15:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per siafu CalJW 18:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Henson family category has 2. Culkin family has 5. It's enough. Carly 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per siafu. --Vizcarra 22:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: They're all actors so they should all appear next to each other in the actors category. That's enough for me. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: BTW, I nominated a bunch of similar ones today with even fewer members. If quantity is the issue, you might want to check that out. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 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 20:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really pushing it.

• Delete per nom Vulturell 19:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: [[:Category:<identity>-<identity> <occupation>]] is needless overcategorization.Semiconscious · talk 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 15:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too specific - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Valiantis 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, empty and orphan. --Vizcarra 23:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: Empty cats older than 4 days can be speedied (if I understand correctly). —Wknight94 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 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. Syrthiss 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More needless "singer by ethnicity". Vulturell 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Vulturell 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: [[:Category:<identity>-<identity> <occupation>]] is needless overcategorization.Semiconscious · talk 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization. siafu 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too specific - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nom. Valiantis 02:18, 13 January 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. Syrthiss 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme overcategorization.

Delete per nom Vulturell 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: [[:Category:<identity>-<identity> <occupation>]] is needless overcategorization.Semiconscious · talk 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 15:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too specific - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. What is a Eurasian-American, anyway? Definitely no ethnicity subcats for ethnic groups who do not even merit an article and may well be the invention of a single editor. Valiantis 02:18, 13 January 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. Syrthiss 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcat again. Vulturell 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Vulturell 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: [[:Category:<identity>-<identity> <occupation>]] is needless overcategorization.Semiconscious · talk 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable division, populated. siafu 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too specific - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Valiantis 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per siafu. If merged with Category:Mexican Americans it will become overpopulated. --Vizcarra 22:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category is not double-identity, as Mexican American is a solitary, unique identity, not two. Also, the categories Singers and Mexican Americans are overpopulated, and subcats help with this. Finally, there is a user who has recently been refining the categories of singers as per Wikipedia's policy of trying to place articles in subcategories rather than broad categories, and much of her work would be undone by deleting the category. Gracias, --Rockero420 03:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Rockero420. --Bfraga 19:00, 16 January 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. Syrthiss 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization again. The problem is that the main category, Category:Greek-Americans, isn't big enough to demand sub-categories. Vulturell 19:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Vulturell 19:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: [[:Category:<identity>-<identity> <occupation>]] is needless overcategorization.Semiconscious · talk 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The main category has 106 members, plenty big enough to demand subcats. siafu 15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too specific - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep populated. Arniep 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No such things as "Greek-American drama", "Greek-American cinema" etc. Valiantis 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Greek Americans is big enough, if its automatically subdivided by initials. Same for Category:Americans actors --Vizcarra 22:51, 14 January 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. Syrthiss 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More overcategorization. This category probably could fill up nicely eventually, but in general it's just too much. Vulturell 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Vulturell 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: [[:Category:<identity>-<identity> <occupation>]] is indeed a needless overcategorization.Semiconscious · talk 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't feel strongly about the subject, but it seems like a notable category. (Ibaranoff24 00:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep and populate. Also a notable ethnic division, and there are many (e.g. Bob Dylan) who belong in this category but are not currently there. siafu 15:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has a large potential population and is actually useful - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In what way is the Jewishness of these people germane to their singing. Valiantis 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate. Same as Category:Mexican American singers... Both Category:American singers and Category:Jewish Americans have grown considerably.. --Vizcarra 22:49, 14 January 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. Syrthiss 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These huts are places for tourists to stay in remote parts of Australia. Rename to comply with guidance on buildings. Calsicol 19:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

RenameMaelgwn 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 15:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 21:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Longhair 03:27, 15 January 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. Syrthiss 16:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename based on consensus on WikiProject Norway. "Landscape" is the wrong word in English. -- Egil 18:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. This should be a speedy. siafu 15:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. Rename.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not sure about move. district sounds very administrative, but they are not(?). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The word landscape in English simply does not mean the same thing as it does in German, Dutch and Scandinavian languages, it simply does not mean region or district at all. You are right, these are not administrative units, but the word district does not necessarily imply administrative unit, although it does so in some countries. -- Egil 19:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Districts is more wrong in English than landscapes is. Districts or regions would be okay with a "geographical" modifier. I'd suggest "Geographic districts in Norway" or "Geographic regions in Norway", and I'm all confused by the "in"/"of" discussions so if someone wants to argue that it should be "of" I'd maybe go along with that. Gene Nygaard 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Last time I checked, district does not necesariy mean administrative unit. Indeed, Wiktionary says: "An area or region marked by some distinguishing feature." [1] while Webster says: "an area, region, or section with a distinguishing character". Pretty much spot on what we are looking for, imho. And this has been discussed for a long, long time. -- Egil 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but in those general meanings of "district", Norway also has districts which are administrative units. Adding a simple adjective would be an easy way to make clearer what we are talking about. Furthermore, this category does appear in Category:Subdivisions of Norway which is probably a little more implicative of administrative function in general usage, though as it stands now that supercategory doesn't include the subdivisions which are administrative. Gene Nygaard 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know of no adminitrative unit in Norway where district (Norw. distrikt) would be appropriate. It would probably make sense to make the district links appear as traditional districts in the text, where there is chance of any confusion. -- Egil 07:15, 19 January 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. Syrthiss 16:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the form used by all of its subcategories apart from the one nominated separately below. Osomec 17:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 15:28, 12 January 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. Syrthiss 16:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only national sports venues category that used "sporting" rather than sports out of more than 60 of them. Rename Osomec 17:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 15:30, 12 January 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. Syrthiss 16:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Category:Villages in Norway a while back, based on decision on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Norway. -- Egil 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 15:30, 12 January 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. Syrthiss 16:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Category:Bærum, which is consistent with other usage in municipalities of Norway. -- Egil 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but the retention of the a-e ligature is a little worrisome (as it's difficult to search for). Is that how it's commonly spelled in English? siafu 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. See Æ for more information. Punkmorten 18:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the article says nothing about Baerum. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Æ is English, dispite not really being used much. 132.205.44.134 02:13, 18 January 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. Syrthiss 16:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this category is a duplicate of this category and another category, which is Category:Singaporean television series, also the word drama should be lowercased. A suggestion is to merge it. Terence Ong ^Talk 11:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• MediaCorp's Channel 8 is not the sole producer of Chinese language drama, nor are all programmes by Channel 8 neccesarily dramas. The dublication exists now because we need people to start writing articles for dramas produced by other channels.--Huaiwei 12:57, 16 January 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. Syrthiss 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An unneeded distinction, there is only one article in the category - I don't wish to speculate on the sexuality of historical soldiers, and modern-day examples of soldiers are not notable simply for being gay. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 06:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 09:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. In any case, I'm under the impression that LGBT is the preferred form for cats, not Gay. Valiantis 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the LGBT categories are subdivided into separate L, G, B and T subcategories. But this one doesn't appear to be one of them; there's no "LGBT soldiers" parent between it and Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Bearcat 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Piccadilly 14:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't strike me as being particularly needed. If Benito Papazón was also a politician and journalist, then there's already more than one LGBT subcategory to put him in, and judging by the article, the combination of being a soldier and being gay isn't really what's of primary interest about him. There could potentially be some value in a category for people who specifically played some role in the question of whether LGBTs are allowed to serve in the military, such as Michelle Douglas or Barry Winchell, but there's no encyclopedic value in a category for any random person who merely happens to have been both gay and in the army. And, for that matter, if that category is ever implemented it should be named more narrowly than this...so delete. Bearcat 19:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Yukio Mishima is a good example of a soldier, to whom being gay was a central influence in his life and writings. I'm sure we could find more. But I agree, we do not need a separate category. Pretzelogic 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sure there aren't enough articles on gay soldiers to warrant an entire category, but there are certainly plenty of soldiers whose primary claim to fame was being gay (and being killed or kicked out of the military for it). So, unless a lot of new articles are written, delete. If, somehow, they are written, rename to Category:LGBT soldiers to keep with the current convention. -Seth Mahoney 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat and Seth Mahoney; this is currently unnecessary and misnamed. siafu 15:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Seth Mahoney. Instantnood 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Seth Mahoney. Just because the articles have not yet been written is not a good reason to remove a category. Underpopulated categories inspire editors to write more articles. -- Samuel Wantman 09:10, 16 January 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. Syrthiss 15:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is nonsense. I've already tagged the only article in it with AFD. Nobody measures the passage of time in bimillennia. Ohh, might I add, if it is decided that this category should be kept, it should at least be renamed to Category:Bimillennia. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bimillennium —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:06Z

• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 08:07Z
• Delete per nom. Recreate when historians and the like start referring to bimillenniums. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. There may be interest in an AfD on 2nd bimillenium here. Semiconscious · talk 09:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Saberwyn CalJW 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KramarDanIkabu 18:17, 12 January 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 per nom. Syrthiss 15:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Octopuses is the correct plural for octopus. Read the octopus article. Andros 1337 03:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nomination. Semiconscious · talk 09:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merriam Webster and Britannica list both as valid plurals. Deborah-jl 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Dictionaries report descriptively, therefore if an erroneous usage becomes commonplace, dictionaries will include it. Nonetheless, of the two possible plurals, "octopuses" is "more correct" as "octopus" is not a Latin 2nd declension noun and the "octopi" form is spurious in origin. As we have only one category, we should use the more correct plural form, not make do with the less correct. Using a form that many people will consider incorrect will reflect badly on the public perception of Wikipedia. (Also the form of this cat should be consistent with Category:Octopuses). Valiantis 15:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is sensible, though wikipedia reports descriptively as well. If an erroneous form becomes commonplace, it ceases to be erroneous (though the list of words I'm prescriptive about is ridiculously long, so...). In any case I yield to the argument of consistency with Category:Octopuses and, given there's no reason to stick with the current name in particular, withdraw my vote. Deborah-jl _Talk 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. ~~ N (t/c) 01:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the OED only lists octopuses or octopodes but would not Category:Fictional cephalopods be best. Yours tentically MeltBanana 01:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds far better to me (mind you, I'm one of the rare breed who prefers the term "octopodes" anyway). rename to Category:Fictional cephalopods as per Squiddly-diddly MeltBanana. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the online OED lists all three, with octopi more common than octopodes (Google shows it ten times as common!), although the print is as you say. First usage of "octopi" is 1853, so for a broken backformation, it's pretty well-established. But again, no reason not to make the change for consistency's sake. Deborah-jl _Talk 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. While calling them cephalopods would be technically better and shorter, it's also a technical name. Given the likely crowd that would be searching for, say, Squidward, on wikipedia, it's an especially good idea to make this one easy enough for an 8-year-old. siafu 15:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME to Category:Fictional cephalopods then we can include cuttlefish 132.205.44.134 02:17, 18 January 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. Syrthiss 15:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization. The "Greek-American" category isn't that big Vulturell 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Vulturell 03:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It's an important identity for many people. While it is admitedly more broad in scope, Category:African-American_singers seems to be well-received. Semiconscious · talk 09:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After further consideration, and taking into account Valiantis's comments, I've decided that [[:Category:<nationality>-<nationality> <occupation>]] is indeed a silly overcategorization. Semiconscious · talk 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overcategorisation (as are most Hyphenated-American plus profession cats). People who happen to be both Greek-Americans (whatever that means) and singers can be categorised in the two cats Category:Greek-Americans and Category:American singers. Valiantis 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, overcategorisation as others have pointed out. (Ibaranoff24 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete as overcategorization; category has four members only. However, reason cited by nominator is erroneous-- Category:Greek-Americans has 106 members. Valiantis' reasoning is more compelling but also problematic-- there is one member of Category:American singers by ethnicity not nominated by Vulturell, Category:African-American singers. I'm not going to speculate on why it was missed, but it's unfortunate as I believe it would make a great example as it's highly unlikely that that category would come to deletion. As such, there are clearly hyphenated-American <occupation> categories that make sense, and they're not just discarded on principle. siafu 16:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, compared to categories like Category:Irish-Americans, Category:Italian-Americans, Category: Jewish Americans, 106 people isn't really that much and doesn't even take up more than one page. If it passes one page, than I could see the need for sub-cats. Vulturell 19:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well you could argue that American music owes a lot to the African American community. Does it owe a lot to the Greek-American community? Probably not. Arniep 22:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would not vote to delete Category:African-American singers as I consider there is such a distinct and definable entity as African-American music and that many (if not necessarily all) African-American singers perform in this genre. I do not feel the same applies to Greek-American music. If there is such a thing as Greek-American music, I doubt that those people who are notable singers and Greek-American necessarily perform it. Valiantis 02:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate, because the size of Category:Greek Americans and Category:American singers. --Vizcarra 23:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:American singers contains exactly 1 article at the time of writing and Category:Greek-Americans (note the hyphenation) has 104 articles (i.e. it fits on one page). In any case, I remain unconvinced that the size of a category is ever a good reason to create inappropriate subcats. Valiantis 01:55, 16 January 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 20:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a duplicate category when I messed up the capitalization; this is redundant with the preexisting Leonese cuisine category. If it's possible to speedily-delete a category, this would be a good one.. Klaw ¡digame! 19:08, 11 January 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 20:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally named this Deaf persons, instead of deaf people. Cat is currently empty. Esprit15d 20:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be a Speedy Delete. Requested by creator. Vegaswikian 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied. ~~ N (t/c) 01:07, 12 January 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.