< June 6	June 8 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename per below suggestions. Vegaswikian 05:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy to allow discusion. Vegaswikian 22:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

caps -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both, but to Category:British Academy of Film and Television Arts award nominees and Category:British Academy of Film and Television Arts award winners. Matches the main article title and makes clear these are about awards. Vegaswikian 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vegaswikian. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per Vegaswikian. -- Usgnus 23:01, 8 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. Vegaswikian 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category in its curren state is bad for at least two reasons:

1. Current the category is a subcategory of only Category:Science fiction themes, yet the title of this category does not a priori restrict to articles related to science fiction — it could just as well be for articles about science or technologies in the real world in the past that was ahead of its time.
2. The category in its current state has only one article, and two subcategories: Category:Evil scientists and Category:Mad science. I haven't read thru the article to see how it would relate to the category, but the two subcategories would suggest this category is synonymous w/ Category:Mad science.

The second reason would indicate this category is in effect a duplicate and should be deleted. The first reason would indicate that if not deleted, this category should probably be renamed. 131.107.0.106 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename to something like Category:Futuristic science in fiction. David Kernow 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Honbicot 16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Carlossuarez46 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Twittenham 16:01, 11 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 Category:Mexican-American/Chicano Organizations to Category:Mexican-American organizations and Category:Mexican-American/Chicano History to Category:Mexican-American history. Vegaswikian 07:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

caps --Rockero 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Ill-formed cat name[s as they use] a slash. Can [they] be moved to discussion to come up with a better name. Valiantis 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal How about Category:Mexican-American organizations [and] Category:Mexican-American history?--Rockero 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ...perhaps plus redirects from Category:Chicano organizations and Category:Chicano history respectively...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Mexican-American organizations [and] Category:Mexican-American history provided there is no subtle distinction between "Mexican-American" and "Chicano" that needs to be preserved. (I appreciate there must be some subtle distinction, but is it significant enough to require separate cats?). Valiantis 20:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disctintion, but it's not-so-subtle. But since we already have Category:Chicano, which should be able to accomodate that which is specifically "Chicano".--Rockero 21:36, 8 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. Vegaswikian 05:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between a Topic list and a List. I've gone through all of the articles (and one subcategory) and added them to the appropriate Category:Lists subcategory. JeffW 22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't agree that there is no difference, but the lists of topics themselves look like they have been made redundant by categories, so perhaps they should be deleted as well. Hawkestone 22:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've never been sure how "topic lists" would be different from "lists by topic", which would be redundant since most top-level categories seem to have "Foo lists" as a sub-cat. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as long as no information will be lost at delete time: everything has been placed in the 'cateogry:lists' or its subcategories. Thanks Hmains 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did make sure that every list had a home in the Lists hierarchy before I put in this nomination. Of course that's no guarantee that more lists weren't added to this category since then. --JeffW 02:43, 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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia and Montenegro is no more, and all the articles have been relocated to categories for their respective countries. Punkmorten 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as defunct. ProveIt ^(talk) 01:06, 8 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 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia and Montenegro is no more, and all the articles have been relocated to categories for their respective countries. Punkmorten 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as defunct. ProveIt ^(talk) 01:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if both of the above categories are deleted, Category:Sports venues in Serbia and Montenegro will be empty and also should be deleted. - EurekaLott 02:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I have added a CFD template to Category:Sports venues in Serbia and Montenegro and it should be considered part of this nom. BoojiBoy 23:26, 11 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. Vegaswikian 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclepedic, most definitely... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Against Aren't the spelling preferences of Wikipedians relevant to Categorisation? Even if this particular method is unecyclopedic. I have now inserted an external link, and an internal link to English Language spelling reform, does this make it encyclopedic? Grumpyyoungman01 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was sort of a joke, people expect an encyclopedia to be correctly spelled. Therefore, "creative" spelling is quite literally unencyclopedic. It struck me as funny at the time... I guess you had to be there. My spelling isn't that good either, but I try ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unecyclopedic to use alternative spellings in a wikipedia article, until the revolution came of course. But what I meant was that I think the spelling preferences of wikipedians are relevant, even if in practice, they can only practice their cult on their user page. There are userboxes for people proclaiming that they prefer American English spellings and British English spellings, what about people who advocate freespel, but have the decency not to practice it on Wikipedia. A category to glorify/pay tribute to impulse control. Grumpyyoungman01 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn I withdraw my nomination. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the kind of fun category that would suit a separate WikiMedia wiki carrying all the Wikipedia community-related material. Maybe one day... Regards, David Kernow 01:29, 8 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 --William Allen Simpson 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason as Single Wikipedians category is being deleted Carlossuarez46 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 22:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even Jimbo has this silly category on his userpage. Agathoclea 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Married Wikipedians is silly but keepable, why isn't Single Wikipedians, unless we want to be discriminatory? Carlossuarez46 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my vote there . Agathoclea 22:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - for reasons given at the Single Wikipedians debate. (JROBBO 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete It really is pointless. --Riley 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See above nomination.--Mike Selinker 19:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not a place for users to put their bios anyway. Some information about users is good, but this takes it too far. The users should enrich the site, not be a reason for it's existence. --Dakart 08:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useless but harmless ID category Antares33712 14:00, 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. Vegaswikian 05:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename — "Women by country" would seem like a possible alternative. The Category:American women is perhaps a bad category to consider. Remember the situation varies sigificantly in different countries and cultures. In the United Kingdom for example, there are many sub-categories that fit in with this category, especially with respect to the historical class system. Should not such aspects and differences be documented by Wikipedia in a somewhat systematic way (whether you agree or disagree with them)? Bear in mind also that a significant amount of effort has been made in categorization for some countries. Look at Category:Japanese women for example. It would be good not to take a too nationalistic view in this decision. It would also be interesting to see the gender balance of those taking part in this decision. Perhaps whoever makes the final decision could check this as much as is and comment on it at that point (especially if male and if most of those voting are male :). Jonathan Bowen 11:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename as below Let's think through the consequences of allowing this category and its immediate sub-cats by considering one of those subcats Category:American women. There must be thousands of articles about American women on Wikipedia, but currently only 72 of them are directly in this cat. If the thousands of articles abour American women were categorised under this banner then it would be necessary to sub-categorise them. Based on our current practices, this would be done principally on the basis of profession. As Category:American writers can't be a subcat of Category:American women as not all writers are women, it would be necessary to create a category called Category:American women writers. This would be contrary to the category naming conventions and would effectively turn Category:American writers into a male-only cat. The same would apply to all other professions for all other nationalities.

Fortunately this process has not gone too far as yet. What cats are currently in Category:American women are so far mainly those that can de facto only apply to women. However, those who are minded to feel that separate women cats are pro-feminist should note the predominance in many of the nationality subcats of "Fooian models" (factually incorrect in any case, as there are of course male models), "Fooian princesses" and "Fooian Miss World winners".

The cat was previously nominated for deletion on 6 January (see here) and though there was no consensus there was a 10/7 split in favour of deletion, and as the subject has come up again in the discussion on Category:Native American women below, it seems appropriate to look at this again as it is now 6 months later.

While most of the subcats and articles are specifically people cats and can without incident be placed in the appropriate "Fooian people" cat, there are a few which are about the life of women in a particular country. Category:Women of Pakistan, for example, contains Category:Women's organizations of Pakistan and Status of women in Pakistan - both useful, and both deserving of proper categorisation. As an alternative proposal therefore, we might consider renaming all subcats Category:Women in Fooland, removing articles and subcats about individual women and renaming the parent cat Category:Women by country. (Or "Women's issues in Fooland" etc. or some other similar formulation. Valiantis 20:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe we weren't supposed to start adding categories by gender. --Hooperbloob 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of these articles are much better off organized into other categories and many of these categories are too badly maintained or contain too many bogus listings to be useful.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and also delete Category:Men by nationality and its subcategories for the same reasons. - EurekaLott 00:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged and listed above. I didn't even realise it existed before now. Valiantis 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Punkmorten 09:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree. This is as problematic as dividing people by age or hair color.--Mike Selinker 00:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete only AFTER proponent has moved all the articles and subcategories to the new categories proposed for use. Thanks Hmains 02:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is organizationally and categorically useless and meaningless. —Centrx→talk 04:25, 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 (no merge up) --William Allen Simpson 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Removal of the capital G orginally proposed by User:ProveIt (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the articles about golfers are about professionals. This is not a helpful category. Chicheley 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete We have a thorough categorization system for golfers in place already, which categorises them in several ways - nationality; tour; major championship wins; hall of fame membership. Around 95% of the articles about golfers are about professionals. Almost all professionals except a few early ones are in one or more of the sub-categories of category:Golfers by tour, of which this is a near duplicate. Most of the early-era exceptions I mentioned are in Category:Winners of men's major golf championships. More by tour categories can be created if anyone wishes to populate then, eg there isn't one for the Korean women's tour yet (but then all the female Korean golfers with articles are more notable for their achievements on the LPGA Tour and are in category:LPGA Tour golfers. This category is almost entirely redundant and is not worth the trouble or category clutter. It only contains a few articles whereas there are well over two hundred each in two of the by-tour categories and dozens in several of the others. All notable contemporary professional golfers play on a tour. This category was set up by someone who shows no awareness that golf is played outside the United States. It isn't well thought out and should be killed off. Osomec 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I created Category:Amateur golfers, but I didn't create this because all prominent golfers are professional by default unless stated otherwise. Hawkestone 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Osomec -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:22, 7 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. Vegaswikian 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:Companies of New Zealand. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I added the second item. Merge both Hawkestone 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per noms. David Kernow 02:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per noms. ReeseM 01:49, 12 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 (recreated), G4 --William Allen Simpson 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has three entries, none of whom are Spanish and all of whom are British subjects. In each case one parent is said in the article to be Spanish, although there is no evidence cited, and no definition of Spanish - i.e. does it means someone born a Spanish national, or someone who had a Spanish ancestor? No definition is provided for the category. It seems to serve no encyclopaedic function. Preferably delete, or if it has to exist, rename 'British subjects with one parent said to be of Spanish descent', which seems the implicit basis for the entries. Smerus 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Recreation. Has been deleted twice before under this or a very similar name once following discussion begun 29 April (with a limited consensus) and more recently following discussion begun 19 May with a very strong consensus for deletion (when it was called simply "Spanish-British"). I listed this one on 19 May and the current Category:Spanish-British people, having been deleted at the start of May was re-created on 20 May while discussion was still ongoing on Category:Spanish-British. This seems a wilful attempt to frustrate the consensus. Valiantis 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add, this appears to be the work of the same user rather than a variety of users who all independently create the cat. Valiantis 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hyphenization like this is not common in the UK, and Wikipedia shouldn't be used to try to set the agenda. Hawkestone 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Honbicot 16:51, 8 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. Vegaswikian 05:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other members of Category:WikiProject Science fiction. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Agathoclea 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't really care It doesn't really matter; rename it if you want. Tobyk777 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that, due to the method this Category was applied, the only page that will have to be have its Category changed to rename the Category is Template:Stargateproject. (As far as I know, all of the talk pages are only in this category due to inclusion of the Template, seeing as how the category didn't exist until I modified the template.) This should make the lives of people who work on moving categories easier. (I have worked on moving categories on a couple days, and sympathize.) Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 01:24, 9 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. Vegaswikian 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were two Tribal classes. The other is already separate, Category:Tribal class destroyers (1905), but this one should be renamed for clarity. This is probably non-controversial but doesn't seem to fit into speedy categories. TomTheHand 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An uncontroversial rename, so I moved the articles and subcategory. Gdr 08:53, 8 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 to Category:Ottawa Senators (original). Vegaswikian 07:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convention is to use league for disambiguation -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against: The Senators played in both the NHA and NHL... ccwaters 18:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Ottawa Senators (original) per ccwaters and capitalization standard.BoojiBoy 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. What exactly does original mean? Not a precise category definition, is this for the first people who played for the team? That's what original could be mean. Should NHA be expanded? Vegaswikian 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But calling them "NHA" would be incorrect. The NHA and NHL were two separate entities and the original Senators played in both leagues.BoojiBoy 22:23, 9 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 to Category:Ottawa Senators (original) players. Vegaswikian 07:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convention is to use league for disambiguation -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against: The Senators played in both the NHA and NHL... ccwaters 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would you prefer to merge them into Category:Ottawa Senators players instead? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's for the current franchise that was founded in 1992. See Ottawa Senators (Original) for background on the franchise in question. ccwaters 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to keep all three player cats? -- ProveIt ^(talk)

I think that would be best. Maybe the 2 related to the old franchise should be renamed to something like Ottawa Senators (Original NHL) players and Ottawa Senators (Original NHA) players. ?? If you looking for input ask others at WP:HOCKEY. ccwaters 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both But remove the capital Os (and possibly rename more than that). Hawkestone 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Hawkestone. BoojiBoy 23:17, 7 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. Vegaswikian 05:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading name. Plus, we already have Category:Angels in Christianity. —Wereon 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Agathoclea 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ProveIt ^(talk) 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Dakart 08:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I don't think demons are exactly Christians.  :) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:10, 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 Already deleted. Vegaswikian 16:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure; stumbled across it but it was never listed on cfd. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was added on March 12 by User:Riverflow, who also blanked the category blurb. The user has been indefinatly blocked as a sockpuppet, and seems to have emptied the category into Category:Live-action/animated films - I haven't checked all the contributions, so there may be some missing. SeventyThree^(Talk) 17:58, 7 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 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too early for this category. Conscious 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The only article in the cat is not guaranteed either. Agathoclea 19:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crystal Ballery -M^ask 01:27, 11 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 deletion by CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Merge into Category:National parks of Peru. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to speedy. Regards, David Kernow 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. -- ProveIt ^(talk)

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 Theatres in Venzuela Tim! 11:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other members of Category:Theatres by country -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename using "Theater" or "Theatre". David Kernow 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC), amended 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Theatres in Venezuela. And also rename Category:Theaters in Russia to Category:Theatres in Russia. If Category:Theatres in the United States is spelled with "re", every other one can be, too. -- Usgnus 23:06, 8 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), C3, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 7 --William Allen Simpson 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last of these articles was recently cleaned up. -- Beland 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and C3 it if it gets deleted in TfD. --Rory096 16:41, 7 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 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and POV category created imho for the sole purpose of including some incidents that happened in Iraq. Anything "alleged" should not have a category as there can never be a npov criterium for including what goes in there and what does not. Potential to either become a pov pusher's magnet or huge list that would contain anything that ever happened in any war that was not prosecuted or even where there was no conviction of any war crime being comitted but where someone feels the facts are not represented truthfully. Kalsermar 14:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Would the current members of this category sit comfortably beside something like the Nuremburg Trials in a Category:War crimes trials category...?  Regards, David Kernow 18:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV and no objective criteria for inclusion or exclusion; the criteria set out in the category page are crystal-ballism: a "future trial appears likely".. What is likely? to whom? Gotta go. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Aiden 23:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep As pointed out war crimes may not be prosecuted but can be investigated. Also see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13065025 where a lawyer for Marines says “My purpose is to separate his name from the alleged war crimes that took place.” So an alleged war crime is not an imaginary thing. 203.173.153.74 14:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 16:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LaszloWalrus 03:54, 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 Was renamed. Vegaswikian 05:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is confusing. What in the world is an "acid-base"? —Keenan Pepper 05:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. 131.107.0.106 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - IANAChemist, so maybe I'm missing something obvious - but shouldn't these be two separate categories? We don't have ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Solids and liquids, and this strikes me as the same sort of oddity. Grutness...wha? 06:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what's currently in the category, it looks like the category is not quite "chemical substances that are acids or bases". Instead it seems more about the chemistry related to acids and bases, such as neutralization, buffering agent, etc. So I guess perhaps "acid-base chemistry" might be a more fitting name for the category, at least in its current state? 67.171.31.165 09:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Acid-base chemistry as a way to discourage articles for individual acids or bases while clarifying the intent of the category. Alternatively there is Category:Acid-base reactions but perhaps that would be interpreted as holding only specific examples of such reactions. -choster 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like Category:Acid-base chemistry, that's a good idea. —Keenan Pepper 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Category:Acid-base chemistry is clearer to me as well. (Though I'm not a chemist.) --Elkman 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, too. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 10 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 (no merge up) --William Allen Simpson 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the CFD debate for Category:Dead rappers, Urthogie (talk · contribs) brought this category to attention. As I argued in the "Dead rappers" CFD, we do not have categories such as "Dead rock musicians" or "Dead writers". In addition to all the reasons for deleting the "dead rappers" cat, who's to say which entertainer is "underground" and which isn't? szyslak (t, c, e) 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "Underground" is arbitrary and we don't do "dead people" cats. Valiantis 13:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ambiguous category. Afonso Silva 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge with Category:Underground rappers. David Kernow 18:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge with Category:Underground rappers. Chicheley 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, although Underground hip hop is a genre and therefore non-arbitrary.--Rockero 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge can be done manually if the community agrees upon it.--Urthogie 07:59, 8 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.