< March 16	March 18 >

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 TfD. Vegaswikian 00:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary to have a form of voting for speedy deletes. The number of requests is not important. The only issue is does the proposed article meet the policy to be speedey deleted. Vegaswikian 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion should probably move to TFD, since the category is solely used by Template:Delete2. - EurekaLott 00:08, 18 March 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. Syrthiss 14:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article/list not a category and is not a suitable as a list either as it is not by country. Delete Golfcam 22:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete An attempt at an article, but there are already lists of sportspeople by country. Bhoeble 15:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not category material Deizio 11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:19, 26 March 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. Syrthiss 14:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for renaming to category:Regional theatre in the United States, but someone created that during the nomination and now we have both. I don't think it is a useful category for other countries, not even the UK (for example the Royal Shakespeare Company straddles the London/regional divide), so I don't want to see this kept as it may encourage the creation of subcategories for other countries. I'm not even sure about the U.S. category, but will leave it to Americans to decide whether to keep that, but for other countries, it is a false division and can only reduce the usefulness of the theatre categories, few of which are at all large in any case. It is particularly irrelevant in countries with no dominant theatrical centre, eg Australia, France, Germany and many other major countries. Delete. Bhoeble 20:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Not needed at present. Honbicot 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Hålogaland Teater and Nordland Teater in Norway would certainly fall into this category. The UK isn't the only non-U.S. country! I don't know if the distinction is false, the U.S. term is pretty well-defined, regional theatres are generally synonymous with members of the League of Resident Theatres. However, the concept of regional theatre is not incompatible with small-medium size countries either, especially since they tend to have one cultural hub but can have regions with distinct cultural identities. In such a context regional theatre may become both more important and more distinctive. TheGrappler 02:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC) (Clarification: this point aside, I wouldn't want to see inappropriate national subcategories emerging, and many clearly would be inappropriate. Yet the concept of regional theatre is not limited to the United States, so an overarching category does not seem unreasonable. TheGrappler 02:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete If there is a category for the theatre of the metropolis, the rest is regional by default, so such categories are redundant. Hawkestone 22:50, 22 March 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 with fire from orbit. Syrthiss 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category does not seem useful to me, it's categorizing living people based on an unimportant physical characteristic, which does not affect any other aspect of the person's life. Makemi 20:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a primary characteristic. Bhoeble 20:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 22:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no point in that page ChaosAkita
• Delete. Utterly pointless Deizio 11:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pointless and utterly unencyclopedic. Delete. Bearcat 09:57, 26 March 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. Syrthiss 14:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As explained 2 items down this category relates to all the arts, not just to visual art, which is what is meant by "art" in the Wikipedia category system (apart from other categories created under a misapprehension). I fear that every single art category needs to be renamed to "visual arts" to try to arrest this recurring confusion. Bhoeble 20:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename I agree that this is better. I just copied the term from the category bar (which should probably be changed for the same reason). --JeffW 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not changing my vote, but I am somewhat concerned about this point that the meaning of the singular art within the Wikipedia classification system means just visual art. The Wikipedia classification system should be usable by anyone and having a term whose meaning differs from the common meaning is counter-productive. (On the other hand if this meaning of Art in the singular is a regionalism that I'm not aware of, then, as Emily Lattela would say -- never mind.) --JeffW 01:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? It's surely the most common meaning of art in both British and American English. Every item on the first two pages of a google search for "art" relates to visual art, while a search for "arts" produces a much more mixed selection. The "art" categories were around for a year and a half, and examples were created by many users, before a single user started to create the "arts" categories, which have caused nothing but confusion. CalJW 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per above. David Kernow 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. CalJW 17:39, 19 March 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 --Latinus 21:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a relisting of two debates from March 9 2006 to try and settle the "in/of" matter. Included categories are:

• Category:Internet service providers India to Category:Internet service providers of India
• Category:Internet service providers UK to Category:Internet service providers of the United Kingdom
• Category:Internet service providers in Australia to Category:Internet service providers of Australia
• Category:Internet service providers in Canada to Category:Internet service providers of Canada
• Category:Internet service providers in the United States to Category:Internet service providers of the United States
• Category:Internet service providers in Mexico to Category:Internet service providers of Mexico
• Category:Internet service providers in New Zealand to Category:Internet service providers of New Zealand

As a relisting admin, I make no choice as I might have to be the one to close this...tho at the moment I have them listed for renaming using the "of". --Syrthiss 20:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to "of". Companies should only be in one category to avoid category clutter and the international consolidation of ISPs is likely to continue. Bhoeble 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nomination. James F. (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using "of" as per nom. David Kernow 17:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as per nomination. Mattbr30 11:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to "of". There are several other sets of company by country categories which need to be standardised, it anyone has the time and enthusiasm to make the nominations. CalJW 18:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, and the founder of an ISP, "of" would be best. --William Allen Simpson 22:07, 19 March 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 kept. Syrthiss 14:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As part of reorganizing the subcategories of Category:Lists I created Category:Art lists and Category:Society lists and moved all the relevant pages from Category:Culture lists to the new categories. This left nothing in Culture lists so I'm proposing that it be deleted. JeffW 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I really wish you hadn't done that. You have unilaterally changed list categories relating to very high level subject areas in a way that clashes with the usage of the terms in Wikipedia. "Art" is used for visual art, as that is the most common usage of the word. You meant "the arts". But I've seen this confusion before, so maybe we need to change every single "art" category to "visual arts". I can understand that the distinction is particularly likely to elude non-native users of English. I find some of the transfers you have made to "society" very odd, so I will move them back. There are many things which have more to do with "culture" than "society", but fall outside "the arts". I don't have a problem with some being in both culture and society.Bhoeble 20:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we can discuss this at the Lists category talk page. The problem as I see it is there are two meanings of Culture as the word is popularly used, one basically means the arts and the other means stuff having to do with civilizations. I thought it was clearer to separate out these two meanings. Would it be better to name the Arts category Arts and Culture as it is when you click on Categories in the catbar at the top of the Lists page? --JeffW 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Art and Category:Culture are not combined on the category bar, merely adjacent. I think the former is a fairly recent addition at this level and in my opinion it shouldn't be there. It should be a subcategory of Culture, as was previously the case - or perhaps rather a subcategory of "the arts". Note the spread of the term "the arts" (circa December) through the category system is itself quite recent, and it seems to me that it has generated unnecessary confusion. Things were clearer before when we just had "art" as a subcategory of culture. Bhoeble 21:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean the second line of the category bar but the first one. Clicking on Categories on the top line takes you to Wikipedia:Browse which contains another possible categorization scheme where Arts & Culture are combined. As for Society, can you tell me what would be in Society that wouldn't be in Culture? It just seems to me that a category that combines Music and Law is too broad. --JeffW 21:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to add that just because Arts is logically subordinate to Culture (or Society) that doesn't mean that it can't be put at the top level. If Arts is a popular category that lots of people are going to be looking for then it makes sense to also put it at the top level rather then force them to click through Culture on their way. We can argue about which categories are popular enough so as not to clutter up the top level too much, but I think Arts, Religion, and Sports certainly qualify. I tend to think that we should have a broad shallow category tree to make searching easier. --JeffW 21:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a bad idea. The Top 10 is incredibly useful for organizing downward through the category tree, and this begins to unravel that utility. The lists should go back to their former place, and high level changes like this need a lot of discussion before they're implemented.--Mike Selinker 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not like I haven't been trying to generate a discussion. But it seems the only way to get a discussion going here is to try to delete something. BTW, can you describe the difference between what would go into the Culture category versus the Society category? --JeffW 22:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Society is about movement and organization of large groups of people, so here you find law, religion, and education. Culture is identification and expression of people, so here you find names, entertainment, games, and vegetarians. There's some overlap, but there's overlap everywhere.--Mike Selinker 02:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then is Communication miscategorized in Category:Society? Because I would think communication is basically about individuals. There's mass media of course, but that has it's own sub-category under Society. And perhaps you should take "large groups" out of your definition of Society since Home and Family are currently classified under Society. And I see that Religion and Spirituality are both categorized under Culture and Society. Is this because Religion can be about both large organizations and individual expression? I'm not sure that you can say the same about Spirituality. Should it be categorized under Culture only? In any case I can see that a fairly clear distinction can be drawn between the two categories, I'm just not sure that such a distinction is clear in the minds of the average Wikipedia browser. --JeffW 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We probably need more high-level subcategories here, not fewer. Rfrisbie^talk 23:20, 17 March 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. Syrthiss 13:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bartok wrote just one opera - Duke Bluebeard's Castle - and the probability that we will ever discover a second vanishingly miniscule. There is already a category for operas, so it will readily appear there. The category therefore seems redundant. JGF Wilks 13:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So that Duke Bluebeard's Castle can be placed in category:Operas by composer. Scranchuse 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Categories by creator are fine even if there is only one example, so that "(Category) by (creator)" can be complete. This is now standard practice for all such categories. Can we get this as a guideline somewhere?--Mike Selinker 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn, though it still seems like we need a different way to do this, JGF Wilks 17:39, 17 March 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. Syrthiss 13:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven wrote just one opera - Fidelio - and the probability that we will ever discover a second vanishingly miniscule. There is already a category for operas, so Fidelio will readily appear there. The category therefore seems redundant JGF Wilks 13:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So that Fidelio can be placed in category:Operas by composer. Scranchuse 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See above.--Mike Selinker 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn, though it still seems like we need a different way to do this, JGF Wilks 17:40, 17 March 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. Syrthiss 14:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created during a AfD which was clearly heading for delete, every item in the category is obviously part of one or more significant comedy categories already. I think Irishpunktom's heart might be in the right place but you can't create categories from 3 year old arbitrary web lists that are losing an AfD. Deizio 12:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , or oppose.. or whatever it is I'm supposed to say. I'm obviously going to want to keep this. I wouldn't have done it had i not thought it a good idea and worthy of inclusion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Observer isn't an arbitrary website, it's the oldest Sunday newspaper in the UK and its feature was somewhat prescient in identifying comedy talent. David | Talk 12:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename - the article as it stood was fairly pointless, just containing a list. A category appears to be the perfect way to represent this information (originally at [1]). Suggest that the category be renamed Observer's 50 funniest people 2003 though. --OscarTheCat^talk 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the new category is going to kept and renamed, may I suggest it be renamed The Observer's A-Z of laughter (2003) or something similar? Given that that's the title of the original article. As regards this VfD... I'm fairly neutral and I think Tom had a nice idea, well executed, but I'm not sure this aging, increasingly irrelevant list warrants any sort of entry in Wikipedia. 3 Non Blondes are so 2003. Groan. Sorry --Sammysam 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Tom, I'd like you to tell me if you're familiar with the categorising conventions. Have a read of WP:CG. The pre-existing British comedy categories are more than sufficient. If this list is not notable enough to have its own article, it should be intuitively obvious that there is no need to create a category from it either. David - the list is arbitrary, not of course the paper ot its website or the people on the list or their contribution to British comedy. I took your comment as a good faith misread rather than a straw man argument. Deizio 13:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An excellent category & hat's off to Tom for creating it. This cat is not significantly less notable than Category:Leading Actor Play Tony for instance. The cat gives readers an easy opportunity to find other similar comics, which is surely the point of cats? Oscar's rename suggestion seems like a good idea though. By the way Deizio, I won't forget Mitch Hedberg Day on March 30th, now. Thanks for reminder. Veej 13:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Spread the word... alright. I still don't see the need for this category as it would infer that when any notable media source comes out with a list on anything we can turn it into a category containing things that are already categorised, in some cases several times over. Plus this list is affiliated to a year. When the bottom of article pages start filling up with "Observer's 50 funniest people 2003" "Observer's 50 funniest people 2004" "Observer's 50 funniest people 2005" ... thats outrageous CatCruft. Deizio 14:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They won't start filling up in that manner, because it was a one-off list. Although I agree with your point. There are tons of lists made every year --Sammysam 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Promotion, trivia, category clutter, pov, UK-centric. Scranchuse 14:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with being UK centric? The Golux 16:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Hall of fame lists do not make good categories Bluap 14:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, part of the latest fad in overcategorization. The only thing these comedians have in common is appearing in a one-off list published three years ago by a general interest broadsheet. While the Observer is distinguished, I assert it is not on account of a longstanding record of authoritative evaluation of comedic genius. -choster 17:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete What about guys who got famous after 2003? This category will get worse and worse over time. Golfcam 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Having not actually voted yet I should clarify my position. Deizio 00:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I thought these type of lists were considered copyvios? Arniep 20:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong delete This sort of category must be stamped out to prevent category clutter. Some entertainers have appeared on dozens of lists already and will appear on dozens or hundreds more. Osomec 22:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Not a basic characteristic, but rather merely a reflection of fashion at one point in time. The Observer may have changed it's mind since 2003, and where does that leave this category? Honbicot 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Trivial and out of date. CalJW 17:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above — a three-year-old list isn't old enough to be relevant, nor new enough to be relevant (if that's even possible, and I'm not saying it is). --Quuxplusone 02:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbitrary list based on the opinions of a handful of journalists. Pretty much the definition of POV. Valiantis 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:19, 26 March 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 Ships built in the United Kingdom. Syrthiss 14:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain refers to the country, not the island. CG janitor 07:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Great Britain is an island, there is no country called Great Britain. There is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.--84.9.192.143 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a subcategory of Category:Ships by place of construction, why not use Category:Ships built in the United Kingdom instead and then Category:Belfast built ships falls nicely into place under this. Shrew 09:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per User:Shrew's good point. --OscarTheCat^talk 12:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Shrew's suggested name over my own original suggestion. CG janitor 12:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Ships built in the United Kingdom as per Shrew, talk and CG janitor Scranchuse 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ships built in the United Kingdom. --Mais oui! 08:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Ships built in the United Kingdom", yes. A more useful category (though a bit of a pain for ships built on the island of Ireland - perhaps we could go with "... British Isles"?). James F. (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Shrew's suggestion. Mattbr30 11:57, 19 March 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 --Latinus 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category abbreviation to match common usage abbreviation: "The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (commonly known by the abbreviation ICD) is a detailed description of known diseases and injuries." Rfrisbie^talk 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. /skagedal^... 08:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 17:05, 18 March 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 depop and redirect. Syrthiss 14:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter category is the correct spelling. Both categories contain the same articles. (I thought I'd already added them to this page on 3/14; guess not.) Gyrofrog (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Husker Du albums should be depopulated (but not deleted) and used as a redirect to Category:Hüsker Dü albums as many people will simply use their English keyboard. CG janitor 07:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

((categoryredirect)) per CG janitor.-choster 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment People making such nominations should learn to properly index the category in its parent categories. It still should come before "Hypocrisy albums", for example. Gene Nygaard 00:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why were dual categories ever created? I'll slap a ((categoryredirect)) on this right now; it didn't really need to be debated. Bearcat 09:59, 26 March 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. Syrthiss 14:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims in the header that its only for Avagadgro's Number based units, but not all such units are amounts of substance. Faraday for instance is an amount of electric charge. I've created Category:Units based on Avagadro's number and have added the three articles from the first category, as well as the article on the Faraday. Swestrup 22:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Amount of substance is a term of art in metrology. Gene Nygaard 00:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Amount of substance" is one of the dimensions in SI; its SI unit, the mole, is a "base unit" in SI. Gene Nygaard 15:23, 19 March 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 both per gene nygaard's argument. Syrthiss 14:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally created this category by accident. All the articles actually (and correctly) point to Category:Units based on Avagadro's number, so this category page now serves no purpose.Swestrup 22:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete both and learn to spell Avogadro! Create Category:Units based on Avogadro's number if it doesn't already exist. Grutness...wha? 03:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename to Category:Units based on Avogadro's number. -- Samuel Wantman 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rename to Category:Units based on Avogadro's number. Mattbr30 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and do not rename. Use Category:Units of amount of substance instead; that's also the quantity under which these should have appeared as a subcategory, rather than Category:Units of amount. There seems to have been a deliberate attempt by standards organizations to avoid characterizing these as pure numbers. Gene Nygaard 14:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Contrast, for example, the characterization of "amount of substance" as a base quantity, and the addition of the mole as a base unit in 1971 (see CGPM for chronology), with the recharacterization of the radian and steradian not as a separate class of "supplementary units" but rather as "derived units with special names" in 1995, considered as being multiples of the quantity "one". Note that if these "units based on Avogadro's number" were considered to be pure numbers, they would also be multiples of the "quantity one". Then, since the SI is a "coherent" system, the mole could not be a part of SI at all. Gene Nygaard 14:47, 19 March 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.