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:The Legend of Zelda games. Conscious 07:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category could only possibly contain two articles, namely The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, and as such is utterly useless.--SB | T 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four Swords Adventures... Hyrule 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles is still far too few to justify a category. My apologies for the oversight; it is no one's fault but my own. --SB | T 00:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:The Legend of Zelda games. Luna Santin 07:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep many categories only have 3 articles. Arniep 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Luna Santin. Zelda games can go into a single category. --Optichan 17:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Luna Santin. --Vossanova ^o< 18:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Luna. There is no need to subcat each game by particular system again. --Musicpvm 21:17, 21 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.

Speedy renamed to Category:Monte Carlo software. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Category:Monte Carlo Software has s]ame contents as Category:Monte Carlo Method. [Suggest Category:Monte Carlo programs as b]etter description of contents -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Category:Monte Carlo software (prefer "software" to "programs"). Regards, David Kernow 00:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Monte Carlo Software to Category:Monte Carlo software (lower s). I deleted Category:Monte Carlo Method as duplicating existing Category:Monte Carlo methods. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:26, 15 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 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV / Ambiguous. Intangible 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously want it deleted, because you're the one nominating it; you don't have to bold that. See also User:Tony Sidaway/POV.--SB | T 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep verifiable. Arniep 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not generally verifiable (whether something is "leftist" often tells more about POV of the speaker than of the institution in question) TheGrappler 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as TheGrappler said. Anand 15:10, 21 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 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better as a list, and the list is already AFD. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Category:Townships in Ohio is sufficient. --Musicpvm 21:15, 21 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 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation should be expanded, as it is in Category:People charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Category:People charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and Category:People convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. --Saforrest 21:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom Agathoclea 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom Golfcam 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:49, 15 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 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Charged with war crimes" is redundant, as the ICTY exists only to charge people with war crimes, and adds length to already long title. Compare also to Category:People charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. --Saforrest 21:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom Agathoclea 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 15:19, 15 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 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only media files -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Musicpvm 02:45, 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 rename. Conscious 07:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with other categories, like Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom. Some other British cats are named similarly to this one, and they will be renamed eventually as well. General convention is (era) (ship type) of (country), not (era) (nationality) (ship type). TomTheHand 20:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:50, 15 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 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before long every new program will be in HDTV, making this pointless. All that is needed is a few prominent examples of HDTV first in the article, so let's delete this category now. Twittenham 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Twittenham 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral. Either keep this category, since it will take years until all shows are HD, or use the television infobox (for instance: picture format : SDTV 480i, HDTV 720p...)Thewikipedian 18:43 UTC+2, 18 June 2006.
• Delete per nom. Deet 21:31, 21 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 former (empty), rename latter to Category:Dallas Texans (NFL) players. Conscious 07:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ought to be merged, I have no preference as to how -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both into category:Dallas Texans (NFL) players, unless Meegs can remember why didn't we just call it that when we created it. (The other two Dallas Texans teams were in the Arena Football League and the American Football League, so NFL should be available.)--Mike Selinker 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, we thought date-based disambiguation might be better than league-based, since there have been two NFL teams under the name Baltimore Colts. Given that we've since added several league-disambiguated cats, renaming Category:Dallas Texans (1952) players to Category:Dallas Texans (NFL) players is alright. Category:Dallas Texans players is empty, very ambiguous, and should be deleted. ×Meegs 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, similarly, let's delete category:Dallas Texans (Arena) players, as it's been empty for months.--Mike Selinker 17:41, 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 merge. Conscious 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 person under category, there isn't even a cat:Ska singers to begin with. Zoz (t) 19:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom Agathoclea 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Musicpvm 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object; the whole idea, which is precisely in accordance with the policies spelled out by the music cleanup project, has been to subcategorize singers by their style precisely to get people out of the undifferentiated Category:Canadian singers. CFD enforcing the opposite of a defined Wikipedia cleanup project doesn't exactly strike me as a smart thing to do. Bearcat 05:22, 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 Delete --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one ship of this class was ever begun. Category can never contain more than a single article. That article is now listed under Category:Unique aircraft carriers, so it will still be able to be found and no merge is necessary. TomTheHand 19:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is also in the Soviet category. ReeseM 01:57, 15 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 (empty) its AfD must have concluded. --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All articles within the category are currently at WP:AFD; Single A-level baseball players fail WP:BIO spectacularly. BoojiBoy 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for the AfD's to go through (or not). Iff every article is deleted, then delete, otherwise we'll see what's left and work from there. SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a category -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to Wikipedia essay. David Kernow 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC), updated 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the essay page has now been created by the author (Wikipedia:No_NPOV). 24.19.184.243 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting. Now it's time to:

• Delete per above. David Kernow 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that it's been moved, speedy delete. BoojiBoy 14:02, 15 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 (empty). Conscious 07:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: They are redundant to Category:Cities and towns in Uganda. In Uganda urban centres are usually towns or "trading centres". Only Kampala, and occasionally Jinja and Entebbe are reffered to as cities. Category:Cities and towns in Uganda is quite adequate. The subcategories are superfluous.Ezeu 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: And when Hilary Clinton visited Jinja, she referred to it as a "village". Ha! Support the all-inclusive category. - BT 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agreed... it's redundant. Dweller 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert both to redirects per above. David Kernow 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 21:12, 21 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 Speedy Deleted by Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Seems a bit too too narrow, at least for now -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Was created by someone who did not understand how categories work, judging by the history of Category:Russian supervillians and Category:Captain Britain villains (the user attempted to add articles directly to category pages). "List of ..." is probably what the user intended to create. --Ezeu 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom - reminds me of "supermodels" Agathoclea 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This cat, and its parent Category:Supervillians, are misspelled. I have listed the parent for speedy merger to Category:Supervillains, which, incidentally, has a few subcats similar to this nominee, like Category:Hispanic supervillains and Category:Native American supervillains. ×Meegs 07:23, 15 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 Merge --William Allen Simpson 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only two pages; can be covered in Category:Fictional thieves. (trogga) 16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Musicpvm 21:10, 21 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 --William Allen Simpson 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a more accurate and appropriate name. TomTheHand 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Jinian 01:02, 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 Rename --William Allen Simpson 13:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary brackets, no other category called Muse. Alternative meaning for Muse would never have a category in the singular anyway. BigBlueFish 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The article has the (band) qualifier, and there are currently 12 muses with their own articles. -- Usgnus 17:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely these would go in Category:Muses. Compare with Category:The Farm, Category:Fluke, Category:Genesis, Category:James, Category:Oasis, Category:Pulp and Category:Queen, of the English musicians, whose only other exception is Category:All Saints (band) which could be considered for a similar move. The singular form of the word Muse makes it a category title only suitable for proper nouns, and the band is the only one of those. All Saints COULD hypothetically be the category name for one of its other uses but it seems highly unlikely that a different form would not be preferable. BigBlueFish 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. -- Usgnus 21:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this winds up with Category:Muse and Category:Muses, they will need a dab like opening so people don't assume that at least Category:Muse is the wrong name. In fact if Category:Muse is created, the other should be to avoid future confusion. Vegaswikian 22:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ProveIt ^(talk) 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per BigBlueFish. Luna Santin 07:37, 15 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 Merge into Category:Participants in WikiProject Stargate --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Participants in WikiProject Stargate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom Agathoclea 22:19, 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 No consensus; also, categories not properly tagged as umbrella nomination, and in most cases not tagged at all! --William Allen Simpson 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Victorian era auxiliary ships
• Category:Victorian era naval ships of Russia
• Category:Victorian era battleships of Russia to Category:Battleships of Russia
• Category:Victorian era ships of France
• Category:Victorian era naval ships of France
• Category:Victorian era military equipment of France
• Category:Victorian era corvettes of France to Category:Corvettes of France
• Category:Victorian era battleships of France to Category:Battleships of France
• Category:Victorian era ships of Germany
• Category:Victorian era military equipment of Germany
• Category:Victorian era naval ships of Germany to Category:Naval ships of Germany
• Category:Victorian era frigates of Germany to Category:Frigates of Germany
• Category:Victorian era passenger ships of Germany to Category:Passenger ships of Germany
• Category:Victorian era ships of the United States
• Category:Victorian era naval ships of the United States
• Category:Victorian era battleships of the United States
• Category:Victorian era patrol vessels
• Category:Victorian era merchant ships of the United States to Category:Merchant ships of the United States
• Category:Victorian era passenger ships of the United States to Category:Passenger ships of the United States
• Category:Victorian era submarines of the United States to Category:Submarines of the United States

It is inappropriate to categorize non-UK ships under "Victorian era", according to discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships TomTheHand 15:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace "Victoria era" with "19th-century"?  Regards, David Kernow 01:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly... but I do think "Victorian era" is valuable for ships of the UK. On WP Ships we've been discussing possibly having a "Ships by commission date" category structure to complement our "Ships by era" structure, which focuses on events and doesn't try to have complete coverage (i.e. a ship potentially can fall into no eras). TomTheHand 02:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ships by commission date" seems a neat solution, otherwise, yes, retain "Victorian era" for UK ships as subcategory of "19th century" ships for all nationalities. David 14:09, 15 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, as the creator was willing; however, the discussion was negligible, and this does not set a precedent for this category. --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover is a suburb of Birmingham and there's already a category for it. User:Arual 14:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I initially started this page with the expectation that at least one minor league baseball franchise would be based there. After having looked over the records of them, I find that Hoover in fact never had a minor league baseball team. So, as one of the reasons for creating the category is wrong, I would have no objections whatsoever to the deletion of the category. However, I would greatly appreciate it if it could be indicated on the page Category: People from Birmingham, Alabama which other communities should be considered a part of the Birmingham area in this context, so I can know to include them there. Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:56, 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 Soft Redirect --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Composers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:13, 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 Speedy Deleted by Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

As I recall, this has come up before and we've already decided againt this -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If so, it should be a speedy and the page probably should be protected to prevent recreation. Vegaswikian 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this one, but not Category:Dead people, which is a parent category to some other useful categories. --Ezeu 21:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & protect if possible Agathoclea 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-if someone's not living, he or she is obviously dead-the info. also appears in the beginning of the articles, so it should be easily known. Michael 06:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Ezeu pointed out out, we have Category:Dead people. ×Meegs 07:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & protect if possible Osomec 15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The Dead people category seems useful as a top-level holding category for deaths by year and such. Can we do a category redirect to Category:Dead people? BoojiBoy 02:19, 17 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one article in the category, and I removed it (because Bielefeld-Verschwörung isn't a fictional town or city, it's a joke, and Bielefeld isn't fictional). TheMadBaron 13:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• When I made this category in the process of breaking up Category:Fictional towns and cities, I had an imperfect understanding of this article. Seems like the article would be better as Bielefeld Conspiracy rather than its current name. If that makes sense, go ahead and delete this.--Mike Selinker 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Probably a silly question, but why is it that real cities and town categories are all Category:Cities and towns in X but fictonal ones are always Category:Fictional towns and cities in X? The former way makes more sense, IMO, since cities are more important than towns in general terms, but consistency either way would be good, surely? Grutness...wha? 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about that when I broke those categories up, but went ahead and did it by the name structure that was there. I'm certainly on board with naming all of them "Cities and towns in X".--Mike Selinker 14:05, 15 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 Relisted, need more participation --William Allen Simpson 12:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation by geography in Scotland is normally in terms of current unitary authority areas rather than historic counties. Splitting the category into East, North and South Ayrshire would be consistent with other subcategories of Category:Railway stations in Scotland and would allow these new categories to become subcats of Category:Transport in East Ayrshire etc. Jellyman 12:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if subdivided, but not otherwise. I suggest that if Jellyman wants this to done, he would be best advised to get on with it himself, as I doubt that anyone else will do it. Osomec 15:21, 15 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 --William Allen Simpson 12:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(or to Category:History of the subdivisions of Russia) This category is a child of Category:Subdivisions of Russia but contains articles about historical subdivisions/administrative divisions. IMO the name of the category should reflect its contents. My previous proposal for this rename deviated to discussion which of the terms is more suitable. Conscious 12:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. ReeseM 01:59, 15 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 --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category doesn't make any sense - what webcomics aren't "free as in speech"? thatcrazycommie 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This nomination was initially made on AFD. I am moving it to the correct location. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep The nominator fundamentally misunderstands what free means here. In fact, very few webcomics are "free as in speech". Please read Gratis versus Libre. The sense we're talking about is "libre", not "gratis". –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment when I saw this, I was thinking it could be deleted since there are only two articles in it and at least one of those could be moved to Category:Free software culture and documents. Now that I see the nomination, I agree with Adashiel that there has been a misunderstanding. However, I'm undecided because there is the independent issue that I don't know what a "free comic" is. For software, "free software" has four specific, accepted freedoms, but what are the useful freedoms for comics? I know that non-commercial redistribution is one useful freedom which a comic must have in order to be called free, but what are the other criteria? Gronky 13:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I read the Gratis versus Libre article before I made the nomination, and I stil don't see how it can possibly apply to webcomics, like Gronky.Thatcrazycommie 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both Greeneyes and Everybody Loves Eric Raymond are released under the Creative Commons License. In Greeneyes case, the author maintains most rights, but you are allowed to copy the comics and distribute them so long as you don't make any money. For ELER, the license is even more liberal, letting you do basically anything so long as you attribute the original author and release any derivative work under a compatible license. Comics that aren't released under CC, a similar license or into the public domain are definitely not free, even if you don't have to pay for them. Even though people love posting their favorite comics all over the place, they're actually on shaky legal ground. They're somewhat protected by fair use (if they're in the US), but that's not much of a shield. For Wikipedia, which is based on the GFDL, a category that specifically identifies free content is significant. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not entirely convinced that the category is notable; is this really the comic's primary identifying characteristic? How many websites do we intend to categorize by their finer licensing details, and for what purpose? Luna Santin 07:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: We have other free categories, such as Category:Free software. This is in the same vein, comics under a free content license. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:21, 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one title was in this sub-category, moved to parent and nominating this as a currently unnecessary sub-category for this novel genre type. This is the only sub-category by novel, by genre, by year I know of and I know of no formal proposal for such as this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. But that title you moved might belong in Category:1990 novels instead. -- Usgnus 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's does and it was surprisingly already in both Category:1990 novels & Category:Mystery novels. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:56, 15 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 --William Allen Simpson 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make two minor changes and rename to conform with similar usages: "rabbinical" should be "rabbinic", see rabbinical literature which redirects to rabbinic literature, as an example. And in this category's name the upper-case (capital) "R" should be a lower-case "r", as in other instances when "rabbi" is not the first word of the category, see Category:Orthodox rabbis as an example. IZAK 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per above. IZAK 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As the creater (of this cat), I say Rename... its nice to finally agree with IZAK -- Nesher 13:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Yoninah 15:38, 15 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 nomination withdrawn - EurekaLott 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Some of the pages may be kept. I'm withdrawing the nom for now.--Chaser T 00:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC) This category was recently created as a result of an ill-considered demerger of List of Doug characters. The AfD for the pages is here. Chaser T 06:37, 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 Renamed. Vegaswikian 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

common misspelling. Darwinek 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename Common missgrammaring. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Anonymous__Anonymous 14:41, 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 Rename --William Allen Simpson 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic article is currently at "Gameshow Marathon". The dollar sign in the show's title is merely a style element of the program's logo; it is not contained in any official textual renditions of the title. [1] [2] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. This is possibly misspelling, but I doubt it is a ytpo. In any case, something requiring this much explanation could probably do with the extra time. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nominator. The external links provided don't show much because they may not have been written with regard to the 'correct' title so much as the look of the printed page, but they don't refute the idea. On the other hand, since there's been no controversy over the page move this should be OK. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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.