< September 30 October 2 >

October 1

Category:WikiProject Greek Life articles

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename per conventions. This is a poor discussion, requiring a lot of piece-together work by the closing admin. In the midst of the 'rename per convention' votes, the category Category:Non-article Greek Life pages (which doesn't seem to have had a 'conventional' name suggested), has been overlooked. I would suggest that it form the basis of a speedy nom, after you decide what it is to be called. --Xdamrtalk 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Greek Life articles to Category:WikiProject Fraternity and sorority articles Category:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities articles
Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly named (by me) in January. Includes other sub-cats. —ScouterSig 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit1: Well, I again misnamed the cat. Most accurate name ever now nominated! —ScouterSig 22:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note1: Perhaps some of this can be fixed/whatever by editing the Wikiproject template Template:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. I really don't know how it works, even though I made it. (I just copied it from WP:SCOUT.) —ScouterSig 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes all of the sub categories:

—ScouterSig 23:05, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

York City F.C. player subcategories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all as proposed. Sam Blacketer 13:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging all the following subcategories to Category:York City F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization Chanheigeorge 22:36, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

West Ham United F.C. player subcategories

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all as proposed. Sam Blacketer 13:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging all the following subcategories to Category:West Ham United F.C. players
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization Chanheigeorge 22:05, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Americans of English descent

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:English Americans. --Xdamrtalk 01:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Americans of English descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:English Americans, convention of Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. I'd be ok with changing the whole thing over to the Canadian method, but that's a LOT more work. In any event these seem like duplicates. -- Prove It (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fushigi Yūgi

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 'Delete. --Xdamrtalk 01:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fushigi Yūgi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary manga category containing only the main article, one other article, and a template that provides links to everything anyone could possibly want about the manga series. LeSnail 20:30, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Golden Ball winners and Category:Golden Shoe winners

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Listify & Delete per WP:OCAT. Per BrownHairedGirl, list already exists at FIFA World Cup awards. --Xdamrtalk 14:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
  • Category:Golden Ball winners to Category:FIFA World Cup Golden Ball winners
  • Category:Golden Shoe winners to Category:FIFA World Cup Golden Shoe winners
  • Category:Yashin Award winners to Category:FIFA World Cup Yashin Award winners —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanheigeorge (talk • contribs) 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A more specific name given that every FIFA tournament (Women's World Cup, U-20, etc.) gives out a Golden Ball and a Golden Shoe. Chanheigeorge 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be in favor of deleting the MVP categories for all sports, including the Super Bowl one linked here. Otto4711 18:13, 7 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mugar family

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mugar family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and biased category. These are presumably not the only people on the planet named "Mugar" and everything is already linked through the main article Mugar family anyway. LeSnail 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can ask whether coverage of the family is divided into multiple related sub-articles that can't easily be interlinked or otherwise categorized. Which is the standard that used to be at WP:OC. If the only articles in a family category are for family members then my feeling is that they should be in an article under the family name with all family members linked, which can explain the interrelationships between the people as the alphabetical category listing can't. Otto4711 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Postdlf, I think the answer is that non-American families shouldn't be there :P
    I'm not just being sarcastic, and hope that we can come up with a principle which applies more widely, and not just to America. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is suggesting that the family article should be excluded from the American families category or that the category if retained should be excluded. You are misreading the comments. Otto4711 17:30, 3 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Hamilton, Scotland

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename as proposed. Sam Blacketer 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Hamilton, Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:People from Hamilton, South Lanarkshire, to match Hamilton, South Lanarkshire. -- Prove It (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ellesmere Port riders

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD G7 authors request. -- Prove It (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ellesmere Port riders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Made in error Hammer1980·talk 15:22, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Earth, Wind, and Fire songs

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Earth, Wind & Fire songs. --Xdamrtalk 01:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Earth, Wind, and Fire songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Earth, Wind & Fire songs, to match Earth, Wind & Fire. -- Prove It (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Lord-Lieutenants

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename per nom. --Xdamrtalk 01:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename to use the format "Lord-Lieutenants" per the convention agreed after a long discussion at CfD August 8. This was rolled out for the subcats of Category:Lord-Lieutenants in England, Category:Lord-Lieutenants in Wales and Category:Lord-Lieutenants in Scotland, but the Irish categs were overlooked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Websites Censored By Myspace

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Sam Blacketer 13:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Websites Censored By Myspace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I don't get the point of this category. Looks unencyclopedic to me. Tizio 11:36, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Roman Catholics by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Categorising people by nationality is established and has consensus support; no good argument is made here for this being an exception. Sam Blacketer

Category:Roman Catholics by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Can someone please explain what is this category intended for, if it was intended at all? If it's for Catholic activists and clergy then its title should be along this line. If it's intended for people who are or were members of the Roman Catholic Church by country, as the page says, then it's utterly non-defining and a clear example of WP:OCAT#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Its subcategories tend to be tautological to the level of nonsense: Category:Polish Roman Catholics, containing Jaruzelski and Chopin? Category:Italian Roman Catholics, with Dino De Laurentiis and Federico Fellini??? Category:Croatian Roman Catholics, Category:Spanish Roman Catholics???? Why there isn't Category:Vatican Roman Catholics?
In most cases, religion is a non-defining aspect of a person's biography: well, 95% of World population probably belongs to some religious category, and I suppose that the remainder belongs to Category:Atheists by nationality (that's not a redlink???)? By that twisted logic, some 500,000 of our biography articles should fall into this and simialr categories
Note that I did not examine other "Religion by nationality" categories at this time, and the Catholic one is picked up by chance (showed up in my watchlist for Mirko Norac). But please, why do we have this? And Category:Muslims by nationality, including Category:Egyptian Muslims... Duja► 10:48, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:University of Wales, Aberystwyth

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Category:Aberystwyth University
Propose renaming Category:People associated with the University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Category:People associated with Aberystwyth University
Propose renaming Category:Academics of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Category:Academics of Aberystwyth University
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth to Category:Alumni of Aberystwyth University
Nominator's rationale: Rename all the university has today renamed itself. Timrollpickering 10:44, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Characters introduced in 1999

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Characters introduced in 1999 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Specimen test case to see whether there is a consensus to keep the whole sub-structure of Category:Fictional characters by year. "Character" and "introduced" are both ambiguous. I also ask whether people feel fictional characters' "introductions" are worth categorising by year. I imagine that List of fictional characters introduced in 1999 might possibly have a use, where the ambiguity of "introduced" could be addressed in the article, as it can't be in a category. On glancing at some of these categories, "characters" seems to be limited to film, comics and soap opera characters. I see problems if the scheme were broadened to include Beowulf, Tristram Shandy, Tom Jones, Gulliver, Robinson Crusoe, Mr Micawber, Long John Silver, Sherlock Holmes, Percy Jackson, Michael the Warrior, Torak: then I suspect it would be unwieldy at best, and overcategorisation at worst. At the very least, please rename "Characters introduced in foo" categories to "Fictional characters barred in foo" (or, better, split into categories such as "Soap opera characters barred in foo", "Dramatic characters barred in foo", "Comics characters barred in foo", "Literary fictional characters barred in foo", "Characters in children's fiction barred in foo", "Manga characters barred in foo") where "barred" is replaced by a less ambiguous word than "introduced". RobertG ♬ talk 10:32, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UCE Birmingham

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 01:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UCE Birmingham to Category:Birmingham City University
Propose renaming Category:People associated with UCE Birmingham to Category:People associated with Birmingham City University
Propose renaming Category:Academics of UCE Birmingham to Category:Academics of Birmingham City University
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of UCE Birmingham to Category:Alumni of Birmingham City University
Nominator's rationale: Rename all the university has changed its name and the categories should follow suit. Timrollpickering 10:26, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles verified in chronology/history accuracy

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by User:Kbdank71 per creator's request. --Xdamrtalk 01:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles verified in chronology/history accuracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category has been under revision about its need and use by WP:TIMETRACE after a rename nomination.After some actualization of the project's way of working this category is no longer in use. I request its deletion as the creator of the category and because it is now obsolete and empty Daoken 09:52, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eruption of Vesuvius, AD79

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Minus the many improper categorisations, relevant articles can be linked from within Pompeii or Mount Vesuvius (or indeed both). Otherwise this is a form of Overcategorisation. --Xdamrtalk 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eruption of Vesuvius, AD79 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of category. Event articles should be in general topic categories; general topic articles should not be in categories for specific events. Dhartung
Comment - Grouping these articles, on pages related to this eruption, and sites that have one particular thing in common (ie being buried by this eruption), seems useful, whatever those qualms. Is there some other way of doing it? Neddyseagoon - talk 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
these aren't "qualms"; they're explanations of how the category system works -- it was programmatically designed around one concept and this is using it in completely the opposite way. It's great you're asking about alternates: In fact, the right way to do it is to simply include links to the relevant broad topics in the article itself, either linked in the text, or if that doesn't work as a list of some sort (e.g., a list of examples on the broad topic page); if there's no good way to fit that into the text of the article, then a "see also" section works. --lquilter 16:47, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eruption of Mount Meager, 2350 BP

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eruption of Mount Meager, 2350 BP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Misuse of category for specific event to include generalized phenomena. Article should be in general categories, not general articles in event category. Dhartung
Comment - There's nothing wrong with this or the category above. These categories are part of the WikiProject Volcanoes. Grouping articles related to this eruption is useful. Black Tusk 04:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the specific Mount Meager eruption articles have not been made yet (i.e. Keyhole Falls, Pebble Crek Formation, Mount Meager, Plinith Peak). Black Tusk 16:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles by those titles in the category currently. Are you saying that you are going to write new articles, like for instance, "Mt. Meager eruption effects on Keyhole Falls"? If so, and there really is a need for a half-dozen articles about the specific aspects of the Mt. Meager eruption, then it would be a reasonable category. But if the category is just being appended to every article with any connection to Mt. Meager eruption, then that is not an appropriate use of categories. --lquilter 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm the one who made and expanded most of those articles. I may create more in the future since the eruption effected all of southern BC and Alberta. The articles that are in the category currently are close to the volcano. Keyhole Falls was originally a dam created by the eruption and soon eroded from water activity, because there used to be a lake behind it (could make an article about the dam and the dammed-lake). I'm pretty sure I could make articles about the affects in Alberta as well. Black Tusk 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then those articles should be in the category; but articles about general phenomena reflected in this particular eruption should not. I hope that distinction makes sense to you. (That said, I wonder if it doesn't make more sense just to lengthen the article about the eruption itself? If I were reading about the eruption I think I would rather have all the information about the effects on various local geological features included in sections of the article, rather than in separate articles.) --lquilter 19:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I added the pyroclastic flow, plinian eruption, eruption column, pyroclastic fall and lahar articles because the Mount Vesusius category had the same thing. But I'm not the one who created that category. Black Tusk 19:23, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles keeping update

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deleted by Kbdank71. After Midnight 0001 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles keeping update (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I was the creator of this category, the WikiProject guidelines have been reviewed following a category rename proposal. This category is now obsolete, please deleteℒibrarian2 08:00, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Spin-off comic book superheroes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spin-off comic book superheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, vague and necessarily OR. The category description is completely arbitrary, as it's not a necessary, exclusive, or obvious meaning of the term "spin-off," nor a documented one. "Spin-off" could mean anything in relation to whatever "original" character is impliedly referenced from being "patterned after" (Superboy from Superman) to "debuted or featured in prior to solo series" (Punisher in Amazing Spider-Man, Wolverine in The Incredible Hulk and Uncanny X-Men), "former sidekick of" (Nightwing) to "assumed the name/role of" (any of the Robins, Green Lanterns...) So what we'd be left with is a category that includes unrelated characters for completely unrelated reasons. Postdlf 04:47, 1 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Famous motorcyclists

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 01:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous motorcyclists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, usually this would be considered a hobby. Also, most current members are just actors who played motorcyclists. At least Rename to Category:Motorcyclists. -- Prove It (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Just noticed that Category:Motorcycle racers (a sub-cat of motorcycle sport) would mop up a lot of the professional riders - it would be logical to also make that a sub-cat of a Category:Motorcyclists as proposed above.Ephebi 08:37, 5 October 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More