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. Conscious 05:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Bands from Arizona to Category:Arizona musical groups
• Category:Bands from California to Category:California musical groups
• Category:Bands from Georgia (U.S. State) to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) musical groups
• Category:Bands from Illinois to Category:Illinois musical groups
• Category:Bands from Nebraska to Category:Nebraska musical groups
• Category:Bands from New York to Category:New York musical groups
• Category:Musical groups from Ohio to Category:Ohio musical groups
• Category:Music groups from Oregon to Category:Oregon musical groups

Just to make them consistant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. CalJW 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, delete the old and change to these new categories, great idea. Tyciol 12:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; Added New York ... somehow I missed it the first time. ProveIt ^(talk) 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - consistency good. --Vossanova ^o< 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, sounds much better. Starla Dear 22:08, 19 June 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The result of the debate was withdrawn Tim! 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article since creation in April, probably a bit too specific. Tim! 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsure. Perhaps Category:Fictional flight crew members would be less narrow, or something along those lines but even that seems iffy. Good catch. Luna Santin 21:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it now it has seven articles. It'd be eight if someone would just write an article about Vicki Barr. :^) --Mike Selinker 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do it, Mike, even if for now it's just a stubby paragraph – "you know you want to"...!  Chuckle, David Kernow 01:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You crafty devil, you. Fair enough. What about a move to a slightly less specific area, to do with flight crews in general? Luna Santin 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we need a category for real flight attendants, given articles like Betty Ong. Pilots are accounted for in Category:Aviators. Is there anyone else who's part of the "flight crew"? If not, I'd suggest Category:Flight attendants.--Mike Selinker 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:Fictional aviators and Category:Fictional flight attendants respectively. Tyciol 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I made and populated category:Flight attendants. If we end up with a different name, I'll move them there.--Mike Selinker 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there seem to be enough characters there now. Tyciol 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We seem to have several relevant articles already. User:Dimadick
• Keep. -- Usgnus 17:14, 14 June 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 --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is too general, and too POV to be useful. While the Category:One-of-a-kind computers is useful (computers built only once), this category attempts to divide game consoles due innovation. As virtually every console brought an innovation, virtually every console would need to be added here. ReyBrujo 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was sort of expecting weird one-off products like TurboGrafx 16 here, but NES? Strong delete. BoojiBoy 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, based on the article you linked to, the TurboGrafx 16 was fairly popular in Japan; it just didn't sell in the US. Thus you've just demonstrated yet one more potential problem about this misguided category. ;) 24.19.184.243 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One-of-a-kind should mean that there was only ever one of them built and I doubt there are any game consoles like that or it there were that it would be notable. --JeffW 21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. The game consoles in the category obviously have features, characteristics and target market that no other console before or after them had. So, renaming is a solution to the misdescribed category. --File:Cvilletrojan.PNG page | contact 02:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do bring up a good point. Perhaps someone could write a History of video game consoles article, or something similar, noting some of these pioneering platforms. That said, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for a category. Luna Santin 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CalJW 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the concept is too subjective for a category. Also, it's got a similar scope to Category:Notable game consoles, which wouldn't last long. History of video game consoles seems a fairly good location for the information. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 24.19.184.243 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category is not merely misdescribed, but ill-conceived. I can discern no clear, objective, and useful set of criteria which distinguish the consoles which had been placed in this category. As they are, the selections seem very arbitrary and subjective. It seems to me that a category should in itself indicate the notable quality being described; everything should be self-explanatory simply by an article's inclusion in the category. "One-of-a-kind" is almost synonymous with "unique" or "special", and is too nebulous to provide much useful information. Dancter 04:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category confused me when it was first placed on the Wii and Nintendo DS pages. Neither of those consoles is really "one of a kind" in any way except they brought around a feature that a previous system might not have had. In the case of the DS combining two screens(done before) with a touch screen(also done before) might never have been done but isnt really something that makes it one of a kind. Sir hugo 11:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Locarno 14:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV category. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV, entirely subjective, unnecessary. drseudo (t) 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Incorrectly named and POV. --Optichan 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Optichan 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:24, 18 June 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 moved to AFD. - EurekaLott 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page describes a commercial software product and was probably set up by the developer itself --> misplaced advertising Naui 20:40, 13 June 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 to rename (but there is consensus for the category to exist). Conscious 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category's current name is too all encompassing and rather than allow for the subtleties that an article's text permits it just blanket labels anyone found in it as an "anti-Semite". While it's true that a given individual may express views on anti-Semitism, to blanket refer to them as an anti-Semite, particularly if there isn't a body of points of view that add up neutrally to the person being labeled as such allows for editors to add individuals based upon their own original research personal points of view. Netscott 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, as nom. Netscott 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename into Category:Anti-Semites or Category:Anti-Semitism (individuals). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I really don't see a difference in meaning between the two category names. --JeffW 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, moving the category to Anti-Semitism (people) will dilute its meaning. You could have Abraham Foxman, who combats anti-semitism in the same category as Hitler. Better to handle this by more clearly defining the inclusion criteria. Also, note that only one person is really disputed at this point (Ahmadinejad). GabrielF 21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that logic were true wouldn't it seem likely that we'd find Abraham Foxman in Category:Anti-Semitism already? Netscott 21:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that if you corrected that oversight no one would object. I just added John M. Oesterreicher (noted opponent of anti-Semitism) to that category, and will do so for other articles relevant to anti-Semitism as I stumble upon them.--Mantanmoreland 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it is worth keeping, definitely. when there are facts when it comes to anti-Semitic remarks, actions, and/or affiliations surely they can be in this category without a problem. Shamir1 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about keeping or not keeping but renaming. Netscott 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this time. I can see your point, but I don't think the proposed change will accomplish what you want it to, it's not a significant change; besides that, I think it goes against consistency in category names. If we can come up with another name, or devise/enforce stronger criteria for inclusion in the category, that might be a better solution. Luna Santin 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To be fair and uniform, and to avoid the spectre of a one-sided action, the same logic would have to be applied to every other similar category. E.g., "Terrorism: People." Additionally, GabrielF's point re Foxman is well-taken. The same can be said for Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher, a leading opponent of anti-Semitism. I find it disturbing that this valid category is continually singled out for deletion or watering-down. --Mantanmoreland 00:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category will never be neutral or acceptable. CalJW 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per well-reasoned nom.--Chaser T 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While the category is a good idea it's a POV magnet and causes a lot of unnecessary trouble and disturbance. // Liftarn 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GabirelF. Even ff inclusion of some individuals is disputed, it does not indicate any problem with the category. The inclusion of the overwhelming majority of people inot that category is not disputed, and when disputes arise, they should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Pecher ^Talk 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a neutral category.--R.S.ro 12:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep althoguh this category is dangerous anyway. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative Rename I would recommend that the category be renamed along the lines of "Individuals accused of anti-Semitism", this accusation category would parallel with a more definite category along the lines of "Individuals convicted of hate crimes". We had a problem with the category "Terrorist organizations" since it was definite term but since it has negative connotations there would often arise battles as to whether it was applicable or not. The solution that seems to be functioning at least an order-of-magnitude better is "Organizations accused of terrorism" -- the category is NPOV, one can not disagree that someone has been accused by a notable source if there is a reference whether one agrees or not with the correctness of the accusation. The trick is determining what are notable sources to avoid rhetorical uses of such accusations. --Ben Houston 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, People accused of anti-Semitism would probably work better. // Liftarn 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, That is a bad idea as many people who have criticised Israel have been "accused" of being anti semitic by certain groups. Arniep 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I totally agree. The trick is to have a high enough bar for judging what are reputable accusations. We tried to deal with this explicitly on the Category:Organizations accused of terrorism page. That category is actually working out amazingly considering how contentious the "Terrorist organizations" cat was. --Ben Houston 17:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I see several problems : somebody who has not been accused of "anti-semitism" can also be "anti-semitic". And some people will certainly want to precise "people unfairly accused of ..." to discuss about the instrumentalisation of the problem. The most important I think is the encyclopedic point of view. It is interesting to gather all articles about "anti-semitism" (people or not) but there is absolutely no encyclopedic interest in gathering "anti-semitic people" and even less "people accused of anti-semitism". And at the end, "antisemitism" is 100% neutral. All that have to be proven is that the article is linked to the subject... Alithien 12:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment bis Look at the vote of Ste just below. You have an illustration of the future if you proceed that way (note that is just my opinion). :-( Alithien 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename This category name is currently an original research disaster. Nom is dead on. Bibigon 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite having once created a category by the proposed name, I think the current name is essential. My experience has shown that it's much more difficult to apply the category to a WP article, even when the category is unambiguously appropriate because there are always partisan supporters who don't want their hero identified as an antisemite. Also, I don’t understand why this has to be a zero-sum game where the current category must be destroyed in order to create a related but not identical one. For example, why not also have a category for contributors to anti-Semitism (i.e., people who can’t be reliably identified as antisemites, but who contributed to hatred towards Jews)?--Doright 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I guess its better?? These lists/categories seem very problematic but people like them and they probably won't go away so I guess we need to do the best we can. --Tom 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the catagory is unneeded, since antisemitism covers the subject and does not have very many entries on it. We've voted to delete this cat before. Also on deleting this one twice to no consensus. --CTSWyneken 00:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Thetruthbelow 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename (not sure which), but certainly not Keep. The category name is too POV as it stands. - Merzbow 01:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - violates WP:NPOV. Remember that? Assuming someone's argument was plausible enough to convince me to keep it, it would have to be cleaned up of its crudeness, by splitting it into the most relevant subjective groups: Accused Anti-Semitic people, Self-described anti-Semitic people, Formerly anti-Semitic people, Somewhat anti-Semitic people and Possibly-maybe anti-Semitic people. Regards! -Ste|vertigo 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We might also need to include other relativist pejorative categories such as Category:Anti-American people, Category:Anti-Slavic people, Category:Anti-Irish people, Category:Anti-Indian people, Category:Anti-Muslim people, Category:Anti-Arab people, Category:Anti-Swiss people, Category:Anti-Japanese people, Category:Anti-Christian people, Category:Anti-Russian people, Category:Anti-Mexican people, Category:Anti-Canadaian people, Category:Anti-Israeli people, etc. etc. -Ste|vertigo 20:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Stevertigo; however, I would vote to rename if it is kept.--Drboisclair 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per Netscott -- Karl Meier 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep' per Mantanmoreland. I don't know why this category is so highly contested. Are the anti-semites insulted by it? Onsmelly 07:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: There are editors, however, who do not like being labeled antisemitic. Please do not attack them. --CTSWyneken 13:35, 20 June 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. Conscious 05:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Match the standard naming convention for categories of events during a particular war. Kirill Lokshin 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Luna Santin 22:31, 13 June 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 all --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:3 year old wikipedians to Category:3-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:4 year old wikipedians to Category:4-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:5 year old wikipedians to Category:5-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:6 year old wikipedians to Category:6-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:7 year old wikipedians to Category:7-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:8 year old wikipedians to Category:8-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:9 year old wikipedians to Category:9-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:10 year old wikipedians to Category:10-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:11 year old wikipedians to Category:11-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:12 year old wikipedians to Category:12-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:13 year old wikipedians to Category:13-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:14 year old wikipedians to Category:14-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:15 year old wikipedians to Category:15-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:16 year old wikipedians to Category:16-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:17 year old wikipedians to Category:17-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:18 year old wikipedians to Category:18-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:19 year old wikipedians to Category:19-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:20 year old wikipedians to Category:20-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:24 year old wikipedians to Category:24-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:26 year old wikipedians to Category:26-year-old Wikipedians
• Category:29 year old wikipedians to Category:29-year-old Wikipedians

When a phrase is used as a modifier it should be hyphenated. Additionally, Wikipedians should be capitalized. Esprit15d 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Everything in Category:Wikipedians with an age is similarly formatted and will need to be changed. In all honesty I don't see the usefulness of this though, I'd vote to delete it. BoojiBoy 15:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't create it, but these cats go with the ((Template:User current age)). Outright deleting the category would affect the userbox, which is a whole new issue.
    • We voted to delete these not very long ago. Darn, now I'm going to have to search throught the CFD archives. Can't someone figure out a way to index them? --JeffW 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found it at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17#Category:Wikipedians who are 13. The nomination was to merge this with Category:13 year old wikipedians but the vote was universally to delete and most of the votes were to delete all like categories, but User:Vegaswikian only recorded that the result was Delete. I guess he didn't delete the rest since Category:13 year old wikipedians is still there (which is proper because those other categories were never tagged). --JeffW 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's about it. I did delete some of the empty cats outside of the CfD as speedy's since they were empty. Vegaswikian 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all these categories. I'll tag the super-categories too later today if I have time. --JeffW 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Wikipedia is NOT MySpace. --Cyde↔Weys 02:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These were originally linked with Template:User age, until I removed the categories from the template a month or two back. Basically, that template, instead of calculating the person's age, let anyone enter whatever age they wanted. Which was resulting in red-linked categories of fractions, smileys, etc. Pure chaos. So I removed it and gave an explanation on the talk page. - TexasAndroid 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - what Cyde-Weys said. --Vossanova ^o< 18:29, 16 June 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. Conscious 05:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for consistency with category:BBC children's television programmes. (I haven't checked all the other tv companies for style though.--Shantavira 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Children's ITV" is a division of ITV (though it's now often abbreviated to CITV for coolness). Chicheley 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Since that's verifiable, oppose and speedy close merger per Chicheley. BoojiBoy 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I thought Children's BBC or CBBC was a division of the BBC, along similar lines, so the BBC category should be renamed as well - and explantory notes added at both category pages to avoid renomination for renaming, though really, both naming conventions are equally comprehensible. Carcharoth 13:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Chicheley.

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 --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic, and not noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the bio articles. The people listed are not particularly associated with Vespa, and this type of categorization encourages the proliferation of trivia. Also could be interpreted as product endorsement, although I doubt this was the intent. Rossrs 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the category, I can understand your points. However, just because someone rides a Vespa doesn't necessarliy mean it should be in their Bio - probably only the Bristish Chef Jamie Oliver would afford such an accolade in his Bio, even ahead of Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn who bought about it's global popularity from the film Roman Holiday. However, because it doesn't need to be mentioned in the Bio, but beacuse it is so trend setting and one of the accessories of many of the percieved leading crowd, I felt it better to create a category which listed real owners. Only if I could find a direct link article or photo, have persons been listed in this category. Perhaps you can suggest a category heading which would encompass the above, plus the design and engineering aspects of the company? Rgds, - Trident13 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information of this sort is already listed at the Vespa article, as I see it. If the person's association with Vespa is notable enough to warrant mention, by all means do so, but I doubt there's a significant number of people we'll find, where we can honestly say that such an association is one of their primary identifying characteristics, if that makes sense. I truly do appreciate your contribution, but it seems more like article information than a category, to me. Luna Santin 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too, and Trident13, I mean no disrespect here but I disagree with your reasoning. Hepburn and Peck for example, weren't Vespa riders really. They played fictional characters who rode a Vespa in a film. It was probably the best and most enduring advertisement Vespa could have hoped for but it was the characters who were Vespa riders, not the actors. Audrey Hepburn also played a princess in the same film, but it would be wrong to list her in "Category:Princesses", as it would be equally wrong to list Peck in "Category:Journalists" because he played a journalist the film. I know there's a gulf of difference between "Category:Princesses/Journalists" and "Category:Vespa scooters riders" but the reasoning behind characterising people or articles into any category should be consistent. Rossrs 09:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chicheley 16:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it's not notable enough to be mentioned, the cat should not be on the article at all. Trident13 suggests that this would leave one member; in which case the cat is deletable as useless. Septentrionalis 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable attribute or accomplishment, and just silly as a navigation tool. Would we want similar categories for every brand of vehicle? I hope not. -Will Beback 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only the most important attributes mentioned in an article merit categorisation, not all the attributes and then some as suggested by Luna Santin. CalJW 03:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after listing notable people at Vespa. Carcharoth 14:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pmanderson/Septentrionalis, possibly listify in Vespa per Carcharoth. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 09:58, 18 June 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 --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is too specified to be useful. The fact that Forrest Gump played table tennis should be in his article Dakart 08:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Luna Santin 09:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rossrs 13:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too specific. Tim! 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't even include Guy Haines from Strangers on a Train. Really!--Mantanmoreland 12:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--ᎠᏢ462090^Contribs 01:07, 20 June 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. Conscious 05:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Conflicts in Canada and Category:Military history of Canada dealing primarily with military conflicts in and out of Canada. by removing or changnig the instructions on the Category:Conflicts in Canada, the category could accept non-military confrontations between groups within Canada, along with military confrontations that perhaps are not considered wars. The Category:Aboriginal conflicts in Canada was created in an effort to keep Category:Conflicts in Canada to exclusively military subjects, making Category:Conflicts in Canada somewhat more redundant then it already was. Category:Aboriginal conflicts in Canada also is a small category with little potential for growth. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• support merger per nom Mike McGregor (Can) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Valid and useful subcat, with at least some omissions. Septentrionalis 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Take Category:Native American wars as an example of such a valid subcategory. It makes sense to look at Aboriginal conflicts as a subset. That said, I'm actually more looking at merging Category:Conflicts in Canada and Category:Military history of Canada, since they seem potentially redundant. Luna Santin 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not too small and it is an appropriate subcategory of Category:First Nations. CalJW 03:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CalJW. Carcharoth 14:07, 14 June 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. Conscious 05:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Freccia category contains nothing except its own page. Dakart 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not merge. The category only contains one article, but it has the potential to have four more, one for each ship in the class. See Category:A class destroyers for an example. Individual ship articles haven't been written yet, but the category has the potential to grow. For consistency among other destroyer categories, this cat should remain. TomTheHand 02:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But none of the four listed Freccia class ships appear to be notable --Dakart 07:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • USS Tinian (CVE-123) was completed too late for World War II, never commissioned, moved directly into reserve, and kept there until 1970, when she was scrapped, and she's article-worthy. All four ships of the Freccia class fought in World War II and all of them sank during the war. They must have had interesting histories, and the fact that we as English speakers don't know much about them doesn't make them non-notable. An Italian, or an American with access to Italian sources, could write interesting articles about their service histories. It just hasn't happened yet. TomTheHand 11:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's a fair number of empty categories in Category:Destroyer classes, but most of them haven't had much time to populate -- many are less than a week old. Luna Santin 10:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger, but please populate or add blurb to category page with red-links to future articles intended for this category. Shouldn't it be a guideline to create the articles first, even if only stubs, and then the categories? Carcharoth 14:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge. It is standard practice within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships to create a category for each ship class; if categories are deleted, the listings in the Ship classes category will no longer be complete. Moreover, Wikipedia:Category deletion policy does not endorse the deletion of "underpopulated" categories. I quote: Categories that should exist but it is clear are missing articles or subcategories should be added to Category:Underpopulated categories. Regards to all, John Moore 309 13:48, 16 June 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.