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 to Category:Organic food --Kbdank71 15:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is ambiguously named. Should it include food retailers that sell exclusively organic products? Or is having a small percentage of organic foods enough? I don't feel a category is currently warranted for the former given the lack of articles about subjects that fit that parameter. In the event of the latter, most articles in both Category:Supermarkets of Canada and Category:Supermarkets of the United States carry at least some organic products. The existence of this category would therefore result in the unneccessary duplicate categorization of articles. Kurieeto 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into parent cat Category:Organic food -- Chanlord 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Chanlord.--Dakota ~ ε 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Chanlord. siafu 21:33, 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 merge to Category:Organic food --Kbdank71 15:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created on December 6, 2004, and currently contains 1 article. This level of categorization is therefore demonstrated currently unneccessary in my view. Kurieeto 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into parent cat Category:Organic food -- Chanlord 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, move one article per Chanlord. siafu 21:32, 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 15:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Virginia Tech, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Carnegie Mellon University, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Loughborough University, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Wales, Bangor, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Waikato, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Victoria University of Wellington, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Massey University, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Lincoln University, New Zealand, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Canterbury, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Letterkenny Institute of Technology, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Institute of Technology, Tallaght, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Dublin Institute of Technology, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Athlone Institute of Technology, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Western Ontario, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Ontario College of Art and Design, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Northern British Columbia, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Dalhousie University, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Algonquin College, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Alberta, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Western Sydney, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Sydney, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Queensland University of Technology, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Melbourne, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Macquarie University, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Argentina, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Hong Kong

• Delete: These categories and all subcategories: they are all unpopulated as of Jan 09, 2005. Semiconscious · talk 01:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Delete all alma mater categories above this. Ouch! Perhaps they have de-populated over time. Chanlord 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thanks/wangi 09:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for cleaning this up. I don't know why I didn't think to group them like this... Semiconscious · talk 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Waikato, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Victoria University of Wellington, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Massey University, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Lincoln University, New Zealand, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Canterbury, Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Auckland University of Technology, and Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Auckland were only created and announced yesterday. Keep them at least long enough to find out whether they will be used! Please check the edit history to make sure these things aren't brand new. Oh, and as it happens at least two of them are in use. If the rest aren't in use in a month's time, then delete, but there were created less than two hours before being proposed for deletion! Grutness...wha? 00:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, when someone wants to use it, then they can create it at that time. The only way these are going to get some great use in a short period of time would be if you make a Userbox for each of them. There is no point putting a seperate category for each uni unless people are going to use them. When someone wants to put themself in the category, then they can then create it. It's pointless just having tonnes of empty categories. čĥàñľōŕď 00:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We don't create categories with the hope that someone will populate them in the future, they are created as they are needed. Given your logic, we may as well create thousands of categories for every university with the hope that some wikipedians will place themselves in that category. It just doesn't seem logical. Semiconscious · talk 09:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are only nine universities in New Zealand; as such it made sense to make the nine at the same time and announce it at the NZ wikipedians' notice board. I was planning to make templates for them all, but given that only 74 minutes passed between making them and them being nominated for deletion, I hadn't got round to it. As it is, none of them have deletion templates on them, so it was purely by chance that I saw them listed here. Grutness...wha? 10:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. I'll add the deletion templates. Anyway, "alma mater" doesn't refer to just colleges and universities either. But my comment above still stands. Semiconscious · talk 10:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Instantnood 09:09, 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to avoid use of acronym in category title. Semiconscious (talk · home) 23:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE this and all other "Wikipedians by alma mater" categories. Silly, self-serving vanity cats, like all other "Wikipedian" cats they degrade the site. 12.73.195.117 03:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Wikipedian by alma mater is a perfectly reasonable category -- Chanlord 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. ~~ N (t/c) 17:31, 10 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 15:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subcategory of Category:American television. Oddly it also contained an article about a national British TV news programme but I have taken that out. Not sure such a category is much use in other countries but it this can always be recreated with subcategories for other countries if anyone creates any. However for now it would be better to give this a name which reflects what it is. Calsicol 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Calsicol 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nomination. - Hinto 23:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. 68.88.194.206 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:American local television programming. Shorter and it matches the parent name and most of the other entries under the parent. Vegaswikian 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That name doesn't say anything about the program being local in origin. Also too similar to Category:American television series. - Hinto 01:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Vegaswikian 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I think there's a subtle difference to be noted here. The articles in the category aren't so much about local programs per se; they're all about franchised formats and brands shared across a lot of local programming markets. It's actually pretty rare that a purely local program without that added context would even merit an article at all. I'd favour a rename; just not sure the proposed one is quite the right one. Bearcat 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could justify an article on The Edward Bernstein show for the cat. It's well know out here and based on the web site is 'a 30-minute television talk show, is the longest running television talk show in the State of Nevada. It is in its thirteenth year of production'. It is likely notable from that and the fact that he has interviewed presidents and other notables. Is the problem that we need Category:American franchised television programming? Or is this all over classification and not needed? And don't forget that there are some notable Local-access television programs in the US, even if only for how horrible they are. Vegaswikian 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Osomec 20:12, 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 15:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merged articles and cats into Category:Wikipedians by alma mater where all the other universities are. -- Chanlord 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Chanlord 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Semiconscious · talk 01:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--Dakota ~ ε 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Alma mater is an Americanism (yes I know it is in Latin, but that doesn't stop it being an Americanism). Move all to "by university" which is easily understood English. Piccadilly 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the Wiki entry, Alma mater has both English and American english roots. I don't see too much of an issue leaving it as is, especially as it's a Wikipedians by ... cat. čĥàñľōŕď 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both - to Category:Wikipedians by educational affiliation or similar to include professors, current students, etc. Or, where do professors fit into the current Category:Wikipedians_by_education tree? ∴ here…♠ 02:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest Category:Academia Wikipedians as a subcat of Category:Wikipedians by profession? Educational affliation is just too broad or obscure. What if you graduated from one university and now work at another? -- čĥàñľōŕď 02:40, 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 --Kbdank71 15:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect of above. -- Chanlord 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Chanlord 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Semiconscious · talk 01:09, 10 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 15:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of California, Berkeley. -- Chanlord 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Chanlord 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Semiconscious · talk 01:08, 10 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 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing this category is essentially down to the point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) of the editor, and it isn't particularly helpful to the reader. Category:Alcoholics exists, and those with verifiable drink problems (Wikipedia:Verifiability) can be listed there. Category description is very vague, and if a person happens to fit them then a section in their article would be better than a simple addition to a category - the entry in the article can be verified and reference as normal (Wikipedia:Citing sources). Thanks/wangi 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Thanks/wangi 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A similar category was deleted in December: Category:Drunk drivers. Thanks/wangi 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arkon 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think the category is vague and ambiguous and overly simplifies and pigeonholes the lives of many important historical figures. the dharma bum 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Deskana (talk page) 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This caused enough problems on George W. Bush. Matt Yeager 00:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- vague and POV ridden. - Longhair 09:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created this category, and I'm fighting a losing battle to keep it! I merely wanted to celebrate the lives of people that have shown pleasure in drinking alcohol (a la Modern Drunkard Magazine, in an attempt to redress the negative stance on drinking, that I felt emminated from wikipedia. We have many articles on alcohol but no articles on the people who derive pleasures from it, and are masters of the drunk arts. Tis like having a article on paint, but no category of painters! Gareth E Kegg 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's what you're after then why not create an article on famous drinkers, one where sources can be properly cited? A category really isn't what you're after... Thanks/wangi 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category serves no useful purpose. It doesn't "celebrate" anyone's life because most readers will take inclusion as a negative factor. JamesMLane 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiability constraints should be applied to the articles which place themselves in the category and not the category itself. (this does bring up a meta question as to how any inclusion in a category can be verified and cited). Many of the people in the cat are definitely notorious for their drinking, I'd also add Churchill. I'd say this cat is more NPOV than Category:Alcoholics which prescribes a particular medical label to the people, which they may not have declared themselves as, I certainly know people who would call themselves a drinker but not an alcoholic. As to whether we should only celebrate the lives giving just positive aspects, I would say this is POV we should document both positive and negative characteristics (indeed people in this cat probably did more celebrating than most!). The category does have some good academic interest, there is often a high correlation of autistics and creative types with alcohol or other drug use, and is interesting to have a category which records this. So overall keep so we don't get overtaken by the Political Correctness POV. --Pfafrich 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First, there's no exact definition for the word "famous". What exactly makes someone famous for drinking? "Known" would be more fitting word, but I still think this article should be deleted as many of these people don't belong in this category. SujinYH 16:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Famous", "notable", etc. are to be avoided in titles. Removing that, we just have "drinkers", which includes most (though not all) of the biographical articles on wikipedia. siafu 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I too think this is a less POV category than Category:Alcoholics. People are interested in this kind of information and there should be some way of aggregating a list of people who are associated with alcohol in some way. Category:Alcoholics would seem to limit who could be included, while this list could include social drinkers and the like. Crazyale 15:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the rationale behind having a category inclusive of social drinkers? It would seem to be along the lines of Category:Air-breathers. siafu 16:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, here's an example of what I have in mind. Humphrey Bogart is on this list. Was he an alcoholic? I have no idea whether it's proper to call him, or anyone else that or not, unless they refer to themselves as alcoholics. But he was certainly a "famous drinker." He can't deny that he was/is. I think it's informative to have a list of such people. I think a fair test for inclusion on the list would be whether their drinking sets them apart from their peers somehow. So I would probably include, for example, Richard Nixon, who wasn't an alcoholic as far as I know but was well known, compared to other Presidents, as a drinker. This isn't a perfect test, but it's a start. Crazyale 20:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't answering the question of why it is important to have a category of drinkers. Comparison to Category:Alcoholics is a bit of a red herring, here. siafu 14:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I did get a little off track talking about alcoholics - but these drinking categories are all related and I'm just wondering why this particular one was chosen for deletion over the alcoholics category. Anyway, life will go on if this category is deleted. I agree with the commenter above who suggested creating an article rather than having a list, if that's what must be done. Crazyale 18:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. "Famous" is a POV term to be absolutely avoided in categories, and whether someone is "famous" as or for being a drinker is a poor basis for a category. Not a meaningful concept, definition, or classification. Postdlf 20:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How about Category:Notorious drinkers for people who have achieved notoriety for their drinking pursuits? --Pfafrich 21:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notorious" seems to denote a negative connotation to me, but maybe that's what you were going for? If others would accept this over "famous" I would support it, since I think we need to have SOME list of drinkers, and almost anything is better than Category:Alcoholics. Crazyale 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Ze miguel 16:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just discovered the Famous Smokers category. It redirects to "List of iconic smokers." Maybe we could rename this category "List of iconic drinkers?" Here's the methodology they use: "This is a list of famous people, for whom smoking is clearly a recognised part of their public image, and/or who act in a peculiar way about themselves smoking." I see no reason why the same couldn't be done for drinkers. Crazyale 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If what you're saying is that this category is really a list in disguise, then I agree. Listify. siafu 01:59, 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the standard form. CalJW 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Choalbaton 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the problem is that Welsh tends to imply the Welsh language. c.f Welsh Office -> Wales Office. Owain (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename That's a non-problem. There are lots of "Welsh" categories. Piccadilly 15:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the standard form. (there are also thousands of English, French, Italian, German, Japanese etc, etc, etc, cats that do not refer to the languages but to the countries.)--Mais oui! 00:05, 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A follow up to the next nomination down. The "in" form is standard for settlments:

• Category:English seaside resorts rename Category:Seaside resorts in England
• Category:Scottish seaside resorts rename Category:Seaside resorts in Scotland
• Category:Welsh seaside resorts rename Category:Seaside resorts in Wales

Rename all CalJW 18:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Choalbaton 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:38, 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A follow up to the nomination below. The "in" form is standard for settlements. CalJW 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Choalbaton 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:38, 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the format of all the other subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom except for one, which I will be nominating in a minute. CalJW 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Choalbaton 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Our Phellap 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:39, 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 15:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This POV category lists a bunch of unrelated people: these are people executed for religions reasons, which should be in Category:Martyrs, political reasons, which should be in Category:Executed politicians or Category:Executed activists, etc. Ze miguel 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete JonHarder 19:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Deborah-jl 16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Del -- JJay 07:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination, very POV. Semiconscious · talk 10:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 20:08Z
• Delete. No argument. siafu 21:39, 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 rename to Category:Square Co., Ltd. characters --Kbdank71 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Dangerous-Boy 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose: This category is for characters created during the days of Square Co., Ltd.. Just create Category:Square Enix characters and make some relationships between the two. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the category. I would have named it Square Enix at first but I forgot the companies merged. --Dangerous-Boy 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Was nominated as speedy, moving to CfD due to opposition by User:CyberSkull. --Kbdank71 15:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename too ambigious. Sponge Bob SquarePants is a square character. BL kiss the lizard 00:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realize this about video games and the Square Enix company don't you? --Dangerous-Boy 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think BL Lacertae does realise that, but is trying to make the point that the current name is way too ambiguous. Deskana (talk page) 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • exactly. what in the name "Square characters" tells anyone that its about video games? BL kiss the lizard 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • oops. Sorry. I guess I just got hotheaded reading that first oppose.--Dangerous-Boy 07:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • s'ok. perhaps i shouldve used one of these → :) BL kiss the lizard 10:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. -Sean Curtin 01:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Square Co., Ltd. characters if possible to reduce ambiguity. Square characters should be a subcat of Square-Enix characters though. Which I think it is already -- čĥàñľōŕď 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually the only sub cat is Square Enix villians. --Dangerous-Boy 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support User:Chanlord's suggestion. Semiconscious · talk 10:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Chanlord. This would eliminate both the ambiguity of being square, and the problem of changing corporate names. siafu 21:42, 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 --Kbdank71 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. See the other categories around/above it.

(Let's not get into the "United States" vs. "U.S." debate here. I've started a disccusion about that at the Village Pump here.

—Mark Adler (markles) 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and oppose: Sorry Mark, but when it comes to a rename, I can't not argue about the US/United States debate as it's central to the future identity of the category. I have commented on the village pump on this matter: all "US" whatever titles should be changed to "United States...." at the very least. Semiconscious · talk 10:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I will concede that "United States" is better than "U.S.". But for right now, let's leave it at U.S. Just as soon as the change is made, then you can propose (and I will support) a further change from U.S. to United States. Let me add, however, that categories are not just a just a technical way of displaying lists.—Mark Adler (markles) 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Historical committees of the United States Senate". For starters, "historical" (former, existing only in history) and "historic" (important, notable in history) are not the same thing, and for finishers this needs to be unabbreviated. siafu 21:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Historical committees of the United States Senate as per siafu Osomec 20:13, 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 --Kbdank71 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate category of Category:Wikipedians not using IE & formally used in a userbox template --AllyUnion (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Del. -- JJay 07:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Do you mean "formerly"? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 20:10Z

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 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate category of Category:Konqueror users & formally used in a userbox template --AllyUnion (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 20:10Z

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 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate category of Category:Lynx users & formally used in a userbox template --AllyUnion (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - orphaned, all Lynx users have been moved to new category. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 20:10Z

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 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate category of Category:Internet Explorer users & formally used in a userbox template --AllyUnion (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 04:09, 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 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate category of Category:Mozilla users & formally used in a userbox template --AllyUnion (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 04:09, 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 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate category of Category:Firefox users & formally used in a userbox template --AllyUnion (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 04:09, 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 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate category of Category:Netscape users & formally used in a userbox template --AllyUnion (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 04:09, 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding abbreviation. - EurekaLott 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Calsicol 23:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. KramarDanIkabu 04:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:56, 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding abbreviation. - EurekaLott 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Calsicol 23:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. KramarDanIkabu 04:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:56, 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 14:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - was used in a Userbox template, but corrected to use Category:Safari users. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 04:09, 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 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete: After discussion, merged the 9 entries into Category:Lists of mountains. Now orphaned. William Allen Simpson 03:06, 9 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 14:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reformat without the abbrevition in line with Category:Chief executives. The United States has a President not (unlike Hong Kong), a Chief Executive. Calsicol 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Choalbaton 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 21:48, 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More concise category title, fits in with the existing fictional character convention better. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Existing title is more parallel to Category:People claiming to have psychokinetic abilities. If the move is made then we should also move the latter to Category:Purported psychokineticists, parallelling Category:Purported telepaths.
• Rename. I also agree with the rename proposed by the unsigned above. siafu 21:49, 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 21:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad joke based on Russell's paradox. Delete. dcljr (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, note that Category:Categories that are not self-inclusive was created and redirected to Russell's paradox back on April 1, 2005. - dcljr (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

week keep this seems to be a re-occuring feature, if deleted it will no doubt be recreated soon enough. It is also a very good example of a rather important paradox, which makes the paradox very concrete and maybe more understandable than just a textual description in Russell's paradox. --Pfafrich 11:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Misuse of categories as a lecture aid. Piccadilly 15:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Piccadilly; could be seen as a problem with WP:POINT if it weren't such a minor deal (and not so disruptive). siafu 21:50, 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 keep --Kbdank71 21:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a previously patrolled ((categoryredirect)) and for the most part has statistically stayed emptied. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE I see no reason for deletion, it's a category redirect, so there's not really a problem with it. 132.205.45.110 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That's what category redirects are for; ones that do not stay empty are the ones that should be watched for deletion. siafu 21:51, 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 keep --Kbdank71 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected by User:Sevensouls. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is entirely uncorrect. There are professional DJs that have absolutely nothing to do with radio. For example would we place Paul Oakenfold in a British DJ category or a British radio personality? Tiesto in a DJ category or Radio Personality... We're looking at an improper categorization here. Radio personalities should be a sub category of DJ. Not to mention the fact that half of the "radio personalities" listed DO NOT PLAY MUSIC. Talk show hosts also classify as a "radio personality". I oppose this deletion and or redirect with every fiber of my being.  ALKIVAR™ 09:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Agree with User:Alkivar. Semiconscious · talk 09:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As per Alkivar (albeit with less fibres). Valiantis 14:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a professional DJ... it hits me more deeply than you :)  ALKIVAR™ 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Two different things. Piccadilly 15:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't merge these; Alkivar is correct that not all DJs are necessarily associated with radio. However, what I would do is rename the category to Category:American club DJs or something like that, so as to make the distinction more clear and less ambiguous. Bearcat 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose. As stated, not all DJs work on radio. They also do not all work in clubs so Category:American club DJs does not work either. A rename would help, but I'm not sure what it should be to. Vegaswikian 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is a DJ who's not associated with either a radio station or the dance club scene likely to actually be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? Granted, some DJs primarily work local wedding receptions, for instance, but they're highly unlikely to merit articles. Bearcat 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't forget Hip hop music. DJs who perform this music would not necessarily be categorized as "club dj" either. Alkivar 15:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valid if that is the only reason that would cause them to have an article. I know that a number of performers worked as a DJ before they got their big break. I guess the question is would that be enough justification for a cat? How would you verify a fact like this? So no objection to the club DJ cat. Vegaswikian 00:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I'm concerned, if somebody worked as a local wedding-DJ-for-hire and then subsequently became an Oscar-winning actor or the junior senator from Delaware, I wouldn't consider the DJ bit important enough to merit inclusion in any DJ category at all. But I'm not particularly into the whole "every category that could ever fit this article whatsoever must be applied, no matter how minor a part of the person's history it is" thing; I prefer "apply the categories most directly relevant to why the person is important enough to be here". (Frex: does Peter Jennings really need to be filed in Category:Aviators?) But maybe that's just me. Bearcat 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose for the reasons given by Alkivar - not all DJs are radio personalities; not all radio personalities are DJs. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 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 merge to Category:American television networks --Kbdank71 14:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please see page history for possible abuse of CFD system (several nominations by User:Ronald20, including "votes" signed as above). - dcljr (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The votes listed below in my name were not placed by myself, and I've stricken them out accordingly. I'm not sure what the intent was, and I'm going to leave it to Ronald20 to explain himself before I do anything else. siafu 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to Category:American television networks. Rename to the most common form in that category which seems to be fooian television networks. In addition the following probably should also be renamed:

  Category:Television networks in Japan

  Category:Television networks in New Zealand

  Category:Television networks in the Philippines

  Category:Television channels in Singapore

  Category:Television channels in the United Kingdom

Vegaswikian 06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the opposite of the convention currently used in that parent category. I'm willing to favour the change if someone can explain why it's being proposed and is willing to standardize all the other international categories as well, but otherwise I would still prefer to retain and apply the existing convention, which supports "American X" rather than "United States X" or "X of the United States". Bearcat 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: per Vegaswikian and I'm going to propose moving the rest. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Both to Category:American television networks as per Vegaswikian. - TexasAndroid 20:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per above. -- Ze miguel 16:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from closing admin on other discussion (on Jan 6th) (shouldn't be considered a vote, as this was placed after the log page was removed from the discussions) - The other discussion ended up with no consensus, tho I agree that it should likely be fooian television networks. There was consensus to rename, but there was no clear choice of which to rename it to. --Syrthiss 04:14, 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 keep --Kbdank71 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't there already a rename proposed under CfD#Category:United States radio networks to Category:American radio networks? Can we have two CfDs active at the same time? Vegaswikian 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the opposite of the convention currently used in that parent category. I'm willing to favour the change if someone can explain why it's being proposed and is willing to standardize all the other international categories as well, but if it's being done just because of Ronald20's ongoing insistence on making the Mexican and Canadian categories conform to whatever's done to the American ones even when that doesn't actually fit Mexican or Canadian reality, then oppose on principle. Bearcat 20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge to better conform in parent cat. - TexasAndroid 20:39, 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 keep --Kbdank71 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose seems to be the opposite of most of this Category:Television networks by country. What exactly is the standard? All of these subcats should be changed to the standard if one exists. Vegaswikian 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the opposite of the convention currently used in that parent category. I'm willing to favour the change if someone can explain why it's being proposed and is willing to standardize all the other international categories as well, but if it's being done just because of Ronald20's ongoing insistence on making the Mexican and Canadian categories conform to whatever's done to the American ones even when that doesn't actually fit Mexican or Canadian reality, then oppose on principle. Bearcat 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: And I'm going to propose the opposite move. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge to fit the more common form in Category:Television networks by country. - TexasAndroid 20:38, 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 keep --Kbdank71 21:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the opposite of the convention currently used in that parent category. I'm willing to favour the change if someone can explain why it's being proposed and is willing to standardize all the other international categories as well, but if it's being done just because of Ronald20's ongoing insistence on making the Mexican and Canadian categories conform to whatever's done to the American ones even when that doesn't actually fit Mexican or Canadian reality, then oppose on principle. Bearcat 20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: And I'm going to propose the opposite move. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 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 keep --Kbdank71 21:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose seems to be the opposite of most of this Category:Television networks by country. What exactly is the standard? All of these subcats should be changed to the standard if one exists. Vegaswikian 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the opposite of the convention currently used in that parent category. I'm willing to favour the change if someone can explain why it's being proposed and is willing to standardize all the other international categories as well, but if it's being done just because of Ronald20's ongoing insistence on making the Mexican and Canadian categories conform to whatever's done to the American ones even when that doesn't actually fit Mexican or Canadian reality, then oppose on principle. Bearcat 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: And I'm going to propose the opposite move (woops, copied from Mexican renames). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 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 keep --Kbdank71 21:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the opposite of the convention currently used in that parent category. I'm willing to favour the change if someone can explain why it's being proposed and is willing to standardize all the other international categories as well, but if it's being done just because of Ronald20's ongoing insistence on making the Mexican and Canadian categories conform to whatever's done to the American ones even when that doesn't actually fit Mexican or Canadian reality, then oppose on principle. Bearcat 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: And I'm going to propose the opposite move (woops, copied from Mexican renames. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:53, 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.