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 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles moved to Category:2004 in sports, in keeping with way in which similar 2005 articles were categorized. MisfitToys 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see how this is necessary, considering Category:2004 in sports isn't that full. If someone wants it kept, rename to "2004 in sports by month" or something, the current title is just wrong. - Bobet 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – not necessary at the time being. Categories for each month would be too sparsely populated to be useful. ×Meegs 06:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sure this sort of thing would ever be useful. Annual (or in the long run monthly) articles for individual sports will be easier for people to navigate to find what they want. Bhoeble 09:39, 2 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 14:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary category, and would be ridiculously unwieldy if used. It is also already a list: List of songs featured in television commercials. MakeRocketGoNow 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a list for this is much better, since it can include details on what commercial a song was used in and doesn't require a full article for every song that's included. - Bobet 00:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlike the list, membership in the category adds the burden of having to describe the particular commercial in each member song's article. Plus, with the current trend in advertising, this category will soon be too large to be useful. I only hope the list doesn't grow into a red link jumble. ×Meegs 06:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:24, 4 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 14:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikification to Wikinews is not legally permissible. There was, and should remain, no transwiki queue or notice for this. Template:Move to Wikinews has already been nominated for deletion. Uncle G 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Bobet 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As I understand it (I don't work with categories at all), this'll be a C3 speedy once the template is deleted, which is why I didn't nominate it at the same time. —Cryptic (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer to the template deletion debate, as is standard practice for linked categories. - TexasAndroid 19:51, 31 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy since there was a discussion of the name and changed target category per discussion. Vegaswikian 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misspelled archaeological when I created it, all other entries use archaeological with an "a". Pschemp | Talk 09:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it also be "...in the Republic of..."? Grutness...wha? 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course yes, "the" should be in there. I wasn't paying attentionPschemp | Talk 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in the as per Grutness. CalJW 16:15, 30 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 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one article here, and this extra category is pretty redundant with Category: Star Fox villains. Supermorff 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Delete. Thunderbrand 19:49, 30 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 to Category:Temples and shrines in Kyoto --Kbdank71 14:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy since there was an objection. Vegaswikian 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honbicot 08:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• not sure of precedence for temples and shrines, but most structures are in, not of, so perhaps Category:Temples and shrines in Kyoto? Grutness...wha? 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Temples and shrines in Kyoto CalJW 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per CalJW. --Vizcarra 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Temples and shrines in Kyoto ×Meegs 06:47, 31 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 --Kbdank71 14:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy since there was an objection. Vegaswikian 19:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category covers the whole subject of endemism in birds, not just endemic birds themselves SP-KP 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection Not eligible for speedy renaming. Perhaps the former should be a subcategory of the latter. CalJW 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, I'm happy for this to be moved to non-speedy deletion instead, then SP-KP 18:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but as is it seems badly defined. A clear explaniation of what is supposed to go in this cateogry needs to be provided on the category page, so individual species don't get added.--nixie 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. The latter is part of the reason for the title change proposal. I'm just adding some text to explain that the individual species should go into the subcategories. SP-KP 20:19, 31 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 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since surname disambiguation pages should be articles not categories. This is the only surname disambiguation that is a category instead of an article listed under Category:Surnames--Tokek 12:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no need to articlefy since the nominator already did it (at Kuklinski). Categorizing some people by their surname doesn't seem very relevant. If they were all a part of a big family, you could create a category similar to Bush family, but it doesn't seem to be the case. - Bobet 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, disambig exists. Pavel Vozenilek 21:25, 4 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 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged all the episodes in two articles, the category now it's empty --Melaen 10:28, 30 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 to Category:Historical european martial arts --Kbdank71 14:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the non-abbreviated form used by the corresponding article. Mairi 03:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. ReeseM 04:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should this be Fully Capitalised? While it appears this way in the names of some organisations, they're proper names, while this logically would not be. But we should probably rename the main article first. Alai 17:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article's been renamed, non-full-caps to match that would make sense. Mairi 02:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, and agree with Alai that this probably isn't a proper noun. Radiant_>|< 14:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by the closing admin of the WP:RM: Don't cap this. —Nightstallion (?) 07:36, 6 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 --Kbdank71 14:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Celtic hip hop musicians. --FuriousFreddy 00:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy, I'm going to start doing it now... obvious per naming conventions. gren グレン ^? 01:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. gren グレン ^? 01:29, 30 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 14:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Spin-off comic book superheroes. --FuriousFreddy 00:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename – the name is certainly an improvement, but I have my doubts about the category under either name. The criteria for the category is quite complicated, and the few member articles that I looked at don't contain the term spin-off at all. A classification like this would be better explained in a full-blown article with an explanation for each superhero. ×Meegs 04:16, 30 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 14:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct category--which already exists--is Category:Alternative hip hop musicians. There was only one article in the "Underground Rap" category -- Tech N9ne -- which I placed in the correct category. --FuriousFreddy 00:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteper nom. Radiant_>|< 14:08, 31 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 --Kbdank71 14:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People of Irish descent in England and Wales. The heading in the category tells users to not include Irish-Scots, rather to include them in Category:Irish-Scots. As Scotland is removed, Great Britain is an inappropriate misdescription of the category's contents. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose. Create Category:People of Irish descent in England and Wales, and make both it and Category:Irish-Scots into subcategories of Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. Radiant_>|< 14:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. Djegan 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the parent cat: it has not been populated with two subcats ("... in Wales", "... in England") yet.--Mais oui! 09:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. Pepsidrinka 12:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - overcat. JW 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. comment similar ethnicity cats exist for other countries Mayumashu 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting deletion but renaming. By excluding Irish-Scots, the category is mislabeled. Like calling a category Japanese authors and having a headnote saying that if the person is from Hokkaido, put them somewhere else. Carlossuarez46 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like User:Grutness's suggestion - keep this, have two subcats, and change the page's heading. but in order to stop a deletion, i m changing my vote to rename, as suggested by another user Mayumashu 05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, as someone pointed out to me elsewhere, the easiest way to do my suggestion would be to rename, then make a new category with the original name. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. Arniep 16:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. Pavel Vozenilek 21:26, 4 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.