< March 27	March 29 >

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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23 of the 24 current articles in this category are legislation. The other one can easily be recategorized. —Markles 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's likely that eventually articles on court cases interpreting public land laws will be written and categorized, as will articles on state public land laws. The current category would encompass those, along the lines of all the other U.S. area of law categories; make the federal legislation one a subcategory, if you must. Postdlf 02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Law is broader than legislation, and overcategorization is not necessary. Gene Nygaard 03:10, 29 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. - TexasAndroid 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fans generally use this Engrish term to describe Japanese television dramas. Someone renamed the main article several weeks ago. This would bring the category in line with Category:South Korean television drama and others Category:Drama_television_series_by_nationality --Kunzite 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional keep rename Abstain if both descriptions identify the same type of program(me). David Kernow 03:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' eh? ドラマ/dorama is just the transliteration of Drama from English to Japanese and back again. They are both used to describe the same program. It's better to have the meaningful English in this case.--Kunzite 13:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I meant "Conditional rename". Suggest mention of / link to Dorama made at top of renamed category. Thanks for the insight re the Japanese!  Regards, David Kernow 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Terms which are meaningful in standard English should be used where possible. Bhoeble 12:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator and Bhoeble. --NormanEinstein 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP category contains audio and radio dramas from Japan. It is also the common name in English for Japanese dramas. Like anime that identifies Japanese cartoons, dorama specifically identifies Japanese audio/radio/TV dramas. 132.205.45.148 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Google test shows "Japanese Drama" is more popular than "Dorama" in English. ドラマ means anything drama in Japanese. Dorama, in English, usually only refers to Japanese Television dramas. "Drama CD / Audio Drama / Radio Drama / Sound Drama" are all used for the audio format. ("Dorama CD", for instance, has 658 articles in google, where as anime "drama CD", a more restricted search, has 248,000.) Would English wiki use "Uesutan" for Japanese programs that take place in the American West? Likely not.

Google test results:

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 258,000 English pages for "japanese drama". (0.32 seconds)

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000 English pages for "dorama". (0.34 seconds)

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 52,700 English pages for "jdrama". (0.34 seconds)

Now for Audio drama stuff. I had originally included this argument here, but I edited it out. I translated two or three articles over from Japanese wikipedia on Japanese Audio Dramas. I incorporated that material into the Audio drama article. I've solved the problem of having an "audio drama" article in the category by removing the pittifully small, ultimately useless, "list of Anime audio dramas" from the category. If anyone creates any further articles on audio dramas or incorportated any information on audio drama cds into anime, manga, or other Japanese popular culture articles, the category can be created. Audio dramas get almost no attention in the West because they're hard to translate and have no visual component. Usually Japanese Audio dramas are a promotional item, used mostly for merchandising, or a way to test market a possible anime series, or as a vehicle for seiyuu careers... --Kunzite 01:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are shrinking the category down instead of subcategorizing it. So instead of any Japanese Drama, you are restricting it to only Japanese TV dramas. Why don't you just build a subcategory for the tele-dorama, and leave this as a supercategory? You've just lost information that was properly categorized before, since this category is at present still used for all Japanese dramas. In case you've forgotten, GTO is a film, manga, anime, TV-dorama, and audio-dorama. 132.205.44.134 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. This is a badly named category that needs correction. A super-category and a sub-category can be added later when there is enough content to warrant. And no information has been lost. --Kunzite 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A direct rename would end up with Japanese drama not Japanese television drama 132.205.45.110 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the word DORAMA is mainly used for TV dramas, the majority of articles in the category are TV related. The one that was not can be easily re-removed. --Kunzite 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Since, if I've understood correctly, User:132.205.45.148's vote won't be counted, I've now amended my vote above to Abstain, in case User:132.205.45.148 is correct (in which case I suppose Category:Television dorama, Category:Radio dorama, etc could become subcategories of Category:Dorama). Advice please, anyone. David Kernow 23:14, 29 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. - TexasAndroid 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent the first 25 years of my life in Columbus and don't believe I've ever seen or heard the term "Columbusite" until seeing it here; I think a good portion of these ridiculous demonym forms were simply made up for these categories, rather than reflecting actual usage.[1] Perhaps more importantly, there are over two dozen other places in the United States called "Columbus"; this is therefore ambiguous, no matter how much more well known Columbus, Ohio is than the others. Postdlf 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep *Rename the term 'Columbusites' is used to refer to people from the other American cities named Columbus and these cities have large enough populations Mayumashu 02:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC) i propose a different rename, Category:Columbusites (Ohio) Mayumashu 03:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. David Kernow 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. --NormanEinstein 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per my comment on Glaswegians below, if this is a recognisable and verifiable demonym, it should be kept. I am not knowledgeable enough on the area to offer an opinion on this one yet. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but I have to observe that this was originally People from Columbus. There seems to be a recategorization craze going on that might be better put to writing new contributions. David 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I'm from Columbus originally too, and I have never heard the word Columbusite before Nobunaga24 05:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 04:02, 1 April 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. - TexasAndroid 19:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only will most people not know what the hell a "Glaswegian" is, but there are at least ten Glasgows in the world (see Glasgow (disambiguation)). These cutesy demonym forms are awkward, inobvious, and ambiguous. Postdlf 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless Glasgow is to be moved to Glasgow, Scotland as well. -choster 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glasgow clearly has a disambiguation link at the top of the page for other meanings, and it's pretty obvious what the article is when you see it. None of that applies to a category when it appears as a bare tag at the bottom of an article; the same disambiguation principles simply don't apply. Postdlf 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the standard (and indeed Standard English) term for people from Glasgow. There is nothing cutesy about it. We should not assume people's ignorance. (In any case, if someone sees the category "Glaswegians" at the bottom of an article page and does not know what it means, they are only one click away from finding out the meaning as it is defined on the category page. This is the basic principle behind having an encyclopedia with hyperlinks!) Valiantis 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename unless Glasgow, Scotland is moved to Glaswegia. Gene Nygaard 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless Norway is moved to Norwegia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Glasgow in Scotland is by far the most prominent of cities named Glasgow and use of this demonym is standard (outside the U.S.). Mayumashu 02:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is standard to a minority of native speakers of English, and confusing as hell to the rest of them and even more so to non-native speakers. There is an unconfusing alternative. Gene Nygaard 02:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If we were to follow your logic then all category names that use American standards would have to be renamed, as American English speakers constitute a minority of all native English speakers. I presume you are not suggesting this. Valiantis 15:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion : Have the "unconfusing alternative" redirect to Category:Glaswegians. David Kernow 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't help a bit; where it is likely to be confusing is when you see it listed as a subcategory of its parent categories, or when you see it in the list of categories at the bottom of an article about some person who is listed in that category, and category redirects are not a viable alternative in the latter case--they don't work very well. Gene Nygaard 03:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, when I come across what you describe, I simply try searching Wikipedia for the term I don't recognize or understand in another tab or window (or, if needs be, Wiktionary, the rest of the internet or a book). From my experience using Wikipedia thus far, I infer this is what most people do. I – and I believe most people – prefer this kind of appraoch as it means the names of categories, articles, etc aren't overly compromised and I/we also learn something before I/we have even begun exploring the category's contents / begun reading the article / etc. Regards, David Kernow 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I simply do not understand the problem here. If readers see Category:Glaswegians listed as a subcategory or at the bottom of an article and do not recognise the term, they are one click away from enlightenment. Moreover, it is WP practice that we use British English or American English terms dependent on the subject matter. The subject-matter here is British, therefore the standard British English term should be used. A Google search on "Glaswegian" throws up over 400,000 hits so the term is hardly obscure; Google searches on "people from Glasgow", "person from Glasgow", "man from Glasgow", "woman from Glasgow" etc. throw up around 600 hits each and are demonstrably therefore not the normal way of referring to a native of the city. Valiantis 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is less whether Glaswegian is the actual term for someone from Glasgow (one of the few demonym forms where it is), but whether the disadvantages of the demonym form (ambiguous, unclear referent, most communities lack actual demonym forms) when there is a simple alternative, and one that should be made standard across all such categories. I don't think your google search terms are relevant (try this and this instead, if you must), and it's certainly not rare in any form of English to say "X is from Y" instead of "X is Yian." Postdlf 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, your Google search terms ("is from Glasgow" and "came from Glasgow") each produce less than 1,000 hits, so this evidence seems to support my position not yours. You may have a point about a general standardisation, but that is not what you proposed. If you want to propose a general standardisation then do so (and I will oppose that too but at least we will be discussing the same thing). FWIW, the form "People from Glasgow, Scotland" (with or without the unnecessary "Scotland") is incorrect in any case as for British places the form "Natives of..." is used a standard (see Category:Scottish people by council area and Category:English people by county). Again FWIW, I think most of the demonyms in, for example, Category:People by British city could perhaps do with renaming to a less obscure form (though I don't feel this strongly), but Glaswegian is one that stands in its own right due to its ubiquity of use. Valiantis 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename "People from City/Country" is a good standard to adhere to because it eliminates confusion regarding the proper term for people from that locale. The category should definitely mention that the correct term for people from Glasgow is Glaswegians, but for categorization purposes this should be renamed. --NormanEinstein 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the standard descriptor for someone from Glasgow. --Mais oui! 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since we have categories for Aberdonians and Dundonians, as well as Leicesterians, Liverpudlians and Mancunians see Category:People by British city. There may be an arguement that all of these are not obvious to someone not familiar with the UK and so all should be 'people from...' (I'm not sure) but there is not reason to single Glasgow out. --Doc ^ask? 17:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there isn't; those should be renamed too...this just happened to be the one I picked because I saw it pop up on an article I wrote. Postdlf 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There may be many other Glasgow's in the world but there is a pre-eminent Glasgow, and it's citizens are known as Glaswegians. There is a Moscow in Scotland, but it is not the Moscow, and it's citizens are not known as Muscovites. As Valiantis points out, the confused reader is only a click away from enlightenment. The same argument for deletion renaming of this category could be applied to Category:Bakersfieldians, or Category:Mobilians, or Category:Yonkersites, or .... ad infinitum. That way lies madness. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was for renaming, not deletion; those should be renamed too. Perhaps I should have done a mass listing for renaming all of them at once? Postdlf 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, my mistake, I fully understand that it was for renaming but, alas, my brain was not fully engaged with my two typing fingers :-( The examples I gave were just but 3 random samples plucked from Category:American_people_by_city. There are probably several thousands of similar examples across Wikipedia covering many, many countries. My point was, if this argument applies to Glaswegians it should apply to all the others, therein lies the ensuing madness. For that reason I say that if a recognisable and verifiable local demonym exists, then it is valid and should be kept. After all, it can only enlighten us all, which is the main purpose of this fine endeavour. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glaswegian aside, even assuming that the other demonym forms are verifiable as coming from actual usage (which I doubt; see "Columbusite" above), that still leaves the problem of ambiguity. Postdlf 18:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my Columbusites post above. The current Category:Glaswegians page states: This page contain the biographies of Glaswegians: people who are from Glasgow, Scotland. I'm not sure where there can be any ambiguity. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The ambiguity is in the category name, which applies to anyone from any Glasgow in the world. A category description can't cure that because it doesn't show up wherever the category name does (at the bottom of articles, as subcategories). That's the whole reason why abbreviations and acronyms have been disfavored in category names and systematically removed; sure, you could click through to find out what it means, but the category name itself has to be clear and unambiguous. Postdlf 21:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • As far as I am aware, the term "Glaswegian" only applies to people from the original Glasgow. I've googled for the term "glaswegian" on the website of the Glasgow Daily Times from Kentucky, the Glasgow, Montana site and the New Glasgow, Nov Scotia site - none of these sites contain the term "Glaswegian" at all. It would certainly appear that it is a demonym unique to Glasgow, Scotland. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Valiantis 15:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Weegies, sorry "Glaswegians". --MacRusgail 18:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I knew I was a Glaswegian in Primary One (age 4). (I may have regretted it since, but that's life.) It is the standard term and it is not the place of Wikipedia to re-invent some fictive "ought" to replace the "is". AllyD 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. there seems to be a usage difference here between Commonwealth Englishes and American English. demonyms exist in both but Americans seem not to use them, with some notable exceptions both with the demonyms themselves (New Yorkers, Chicagoans) and with individuals and they re wish to use them. outside of the States people seem to generally prefer them but again with some exceptions, such as the cities of Leeds and Birmingham, although they seem to have common colloquial terms but not standard formal ones. Mayumashu 04:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as people from Glasgow are Glaswegians, and other cities use a similar format. Mattbr30 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I won't belabor the discussion. — Dale Arnett 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but what's the adjective for people from Edinburgh? I am one and I don't even know. Edinburghers? Deizio 11:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We currently have Category:Edinburghers which is perhaps one that should be renamed. Valiantis 15:26, 1 April 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. - TexasAndroid 16:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two duplicate categories. I think the lowercase should stay because it refers to autonomous oblasts as a whole. (The fact that there's only one autonomous oblast in Russia complicates the things, though :) Conscious 13:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge as per nom. The other category's name is appropriate. Bhoeble 00:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Autonomous oblasts of Russia; in this context, "oblast" does not function as (part of) a proper noun. David Kernow 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ...or merge to Category:Autonomous Russian oblasts if that's more in keeping with Wikipedia's norms. David Kernow 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. — Dale Arnett 04:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was moved to speedy renames. Syrthiss 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. -> United States. —Markles 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename - EurekaLott 17:42, 28 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. - TexasAndroid 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name is awkward and the point is too detailed to be made by a category. Delete Hawkestone 10:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overcategorization. -choster 14:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overcat. Upmerge to Category:Murdered Roman emperors. ×Meegs 15:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I just deleted the empty Category:Roman emperors (murdered predecessor and was murdered by successor), both of which are pretty silly. Delete per Meegs. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need to merge, since they all are already listed in other subcategories of Category:Murdered Roman emperors. - EurekaLott 17:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per EurekaLott Bhoeble 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EurekaLott. Or create Category:Roman emperors (not murdered, but predecessor and successor were murdered), Category:Roman emperors (murdered, predecessor murdered, successor not murdered, successor to successor murdered)... Postdlf 00:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above arguments. It's impossibly cumbersome. - Runcorn 22:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as they will alredy appear in Category:Murdered Roman emperors (if not, upmerge) and put into a list, if one doesn't already exist. Mattbr30 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 04:02, 1 April 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. - TexasAndroid 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the other state-level subcategories of Category:Houses in the United States. - EurekaLott 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Does this include the House of Delegates? Gene Nygaard 09:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. No obvious threshold as to when a house becomes "historic," and we're not going to have articles on houses not worth remembering and documenting anyway. "Historic" may be seen as an analog to "famous X from the past" or "notable X from the past" in that sense. Postdlf 16:08, 29 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 Category:North-West Frontier Province politicians. - TexasAndroid 16:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories (differing in capitilization). -- JLaTondre 02:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename spelling out whatever the heck NWFP is. I can't figure out why so many people are hell-bent on spelling out U.S. (when that abbreviation is clear to almost everyone), yet keep cryptic things like this. Gene Nygaard 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename without abbreviation as per Gene. David Kernow 03:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:North-West Frontier Province politicians. -choster 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename without abbreviation per Gene et al. — Dale Arnett 04:02, 1 April 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. - TexasAndroid 16:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this one marked as ((delete)) and decided to move it here. The reason given on the talk page is that this is much better covered by the UNIX category. No vote — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Vegaswikian 01:09, 29 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 consensous. - TexasAndroid 16:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above, came across it tagged as a speedy. Reason given is that it's POV. No vote — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What else would you call software mistakes that cost multiple millions of dollars or outright kill people? McNeight 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my reasons posted on the cat-talk page. Atlant 13:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hopelessly POV, requires judgement. Is Windows a software engineering disaster, because of the billions poured into it, and the people killed when it fails (in hospitals &etc)? Or is it a success because it is the most used OS in the world? --maru (talk) contribs 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that same arguement, should Space Shuttle Challenger be listed in Category:Engineering failures because of it's catastrophic failure, or as a success because it is part of the most popular reusable Space Transportation System in the world? Should there even be such a broad and POV category as Engineering failures? McNeight 21:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV and not the same kind of thing as the other disaster subcategories. Bhoeble 00:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and suggest Category:Disasters attributed to software or the like created instead...? David Kernow 03:40, 29 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 Already deleted. - TexasAndroid 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. No vote — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Category was speedied by an admin based on the ((delete)) tag that an anon had placed there prior to Lara Scudder changing it to a cfd tag. At the moment, the only item in the category is Linux. Please consider this discussion as if the category did exist and if its decided to be a keep then I will undelete the cat. Thanks! --Syrthiss 16:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was the admin spoken of, so obviously I think this should be killed. Incredibly vage criteria for success or failure (see my vote on the disaster category), and impossibly broad or ridiculously narrow. --maru (talk) contribs 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. David Kernow 03:40, 29 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 Keep. - TexasAndroid 16:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was marked speedy because it only had two articles in it. No vote — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A category exists for each nation's poker players (Category:Poker players) - I see no reason why this particular one should be singled out. Essexmutant 08:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Essexmutant Hawkestone 10:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose. "UK Poker players", "USA Poker players". et al are viable categories. If the ability to search by boolean cross-categories is implemented, then I would recommend deletion. But as there is no current way to search "Greek nationals" ∩ "Poker players", then I recommend keeping the current category, sparse as it is. — MSchmahl 11:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actualy there is, and acording to the Cat scan tool there are no articles in both Greek people and Poker players that are not already in this category (when scannign at a depth of 3 subcats). --Sherool (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Absolutely keep. All competitors are categorized this way, and number of articles isn't a reason to delete such categories.--Mike Selinker 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No sense in a nom like this. Players are subcategorized by nationality rather than alphabet, which is much more useful to users. This is like nominating "X" for deleting because not many people have names starting with "X". 2005 22:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. David Kernow 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. — Dale Arnett 04:02, 1 April 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.