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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Pluralization was missing, category exists at correct pluralization, this category is now empty Smmurphy 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Carina22 13:11, 30 November 2005 (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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't think the word "literary" adds much. In any case it isn't used by the parent category:translators or any of the other subcategories. Rename category:Canadian translators CalJW 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per CalJW STopCat 01:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep-Translators have different fields of specialization like technology, economics, etc.-- Jondel 08:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There are nine of them. I doubt it is possible to be notable in the other fields. CalJW 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match the others. Bhoeble 10:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Consistency matters. In the unlikely event that subcategories are ever needed they can be created. Carina22 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speaking as the person who originally created this, my reasoning was that in Canada, literary translation is considered a distinct literary pursuit in its own right; there are even literary awards presented for it. And therefore it had to be treated as a separate phenomenon from other types of translation. No vote, just a clarification. Bearcat 18:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Rhollenton 17:16, 3 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Superfluous and doesn't flow with existing organization scheme. All of the Disneyland parks consist of theme parks, hotels, and shopping districts all refered to in common as a resort. We've categorized all the articles under the names of the resorts without separating out the theme parks inside. ie, Disneyland, California Adventure, Downtown Disney are all in the Disneyland Resort category without sub-categories. This sub-category of HK Disneyland breaks that existing categorization convention. The parent Hong Kong Disneyland Resort exists and is used already. SchmuckyTheCat 23:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete One category is enough. CalJW 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree. The Resort category is more useful. -- Lyght 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep and populate. Why is a category for the park itself redundant? The park is not the entirety of the resort, and there's going to be another park in the resort. — Insta ntnood 07:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Please do not depopulate a category before listing it here. — Insta ntnood 07:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep -As long as someone feels this is important. There is no strong need for consistent categorization. Each country /category/subject is unique.-- Jondel 08:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There is if we don't want wikipedia to look amateurish and be hard to navigate. CalJW 10:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • IMO a category should be created for each of the parks in all Disney resorts. — Insta ntnood 10:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm not opposed to that, but please work with people interested in maintaining consistency between all the Disney parks. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Too small for subdivision to be beneficial Bhoeble 10:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Consistency matters. Carina22 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: What about creating a category for each park? — Insta ntnood 16:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete There's 6 in the top category. Pointless or what? Golfcam 23:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too small. Rhollenton 17:16, 3 December 2005 (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, fixing capitalization -- Kbdank71 17:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Proper capitalization. jengod 22:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete seems a contentious, provocative title to me. Hiding talk 23:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Hiding CalJW 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Keep Best to shuffle them into a subcategory as the parent is getting very large. I'm open to suggestions as to a better name, but I doubt that there is one. CalJW 23:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It's just harmless fun STopCat 01:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pejorative. Bhoeble 10:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename/Move as suggested, second word is ussually not capitalized.-- Jondel 10:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Vague. Carina22 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Wacky. Golfcam 23:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Too small. Rhollenton 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, vanity or pejorative. -- Vizcarra 22:06, 6 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I believe it is unnecessary, as we already have Category:Quadrilaterals, and a parallelogram is a quadrilateral anyway. And I would disagree with creating Category:Parallelograms, there is not much one can put in there. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 20:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 20:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Carina22 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Even I think that one article categories should be deleted when they are not part of an overall scheme. CalJW 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Creator's Delete and suggestion if people are already against it it may as well be deleted in this case however I would like to suggest that on the catagory for quadrilateral's page it is put a list of the parallelograms. -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:21, 30 November 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

This is not a valid category as Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ireland covers this purpose. -- Damac 13:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC) (moved from WP:AfD by BorgHunter ( talk) 13:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)) reply

• Delete - uneccessary and only two adherents. Wikipedians should really attempt to keep any political believes as low key as possible as to do otherwise only serves to underline potential bias. Although that can be interpreted as positive (traffic lights/ringing bells). Djegan 18:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree with Djegan Rhollenton 19:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Djegan. Mushroom 19:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete as above. Osomec 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete The whole wikipedian category scheme should go in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a social club and they are as likely to do harm as good. CalJW 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

It's not a private organization either.Categorize all you want if it makes you feel good . After a few months a newbie will undo your work. Wikipedia is open source, fluid and changing, in a constant flux. We all accept our contributions/changes will be mercilessly edited. -- Jondel 11:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the Wikipedians might not be living in Ireland STopCat 01:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Let the members(Irish Reps) decide this for themselves. What is the harm done ? There is no strong need for consistency.-- Jondel 08:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • The harm of having no consistency is that wikipedia will look like an amateurish anarchic mess. It is an encyclopedia not a social club or free web space. CalJW 10:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Anarchy?This is exaggerated.-- Jondel 10:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete All poltical wikipedian categories. Bhoeble 10:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nomination. -- Ryano 10:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Keep a list in user name space if necessary. — Insta ntnood 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Keep politics out of wikipedia. Wikipedians should aspire to edit in such a way that their personal beliefs cannot be discerned. Carina22 13:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV. Is being used by some for political purposes to promote the myth that supporters of one political party are real republicans and other Irish users aren't. Supporters of that political party pull this stunt regularly in Ireland in Ireland in the national parliament, in councils, in newspapers, etc. Now they are trying it on Wikipedia too. Next thing we'll have Sinn Féin and Republican Sinn Féin fighting edit wars over who belongs in this ridiculous category. (They are already fighting edit wars on who is the real Sinn Féin — unlike their usual wars they haven't resorted to guns.) It is just a political stunt and should be deleted speedily. It is bad enough trying to stop SF and RSF politically POVing articles to push their agendas, without having stunt categories created too which they will no doubt fight over also. FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 15:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• NOTE I'm not setting this category up for some kind of lame Sinn Féin manifistation. It is just a political belief, not Sinn Féin propaganda. Sure aren't Fianna Fáil the real republican party ; ). If it goes, which looks very likely, I don't care but I'm just making it clear to all that it was not set-up in the name of Sinn Féin.
• DeleteFor all the reasons listed above; because the two users concerned add little but vandalism and abuse to wikipedia, and because they give republicanism a bad name. Fergananim 18:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• add little but vandilism. May the users have proof of this statement or is is more of fergs usual nonsense.-- Play Brian Moore 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • • See what I mean? More abuse and vandalism. Is there a creche somewhere missing these two? Fergananim 23:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Please don't insert comments between another user's comment and their sig, Fenian. Some users can see that as "vandilism" (sic) FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 15:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ireland already suffices - Ali-oops ^✍ 20:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In my defence, that was a mistake. So lads, still no proof of vandilism. Well I suppose that is the best way to be an administrator around here. To lye about stuff. Goodluck in the future.

• Delete after making sure that all the userpages currently in the category are categorized somewhere else Category:Wikipedians in Ireland. utcursch | talk 08:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete A bad idea. Rhollenton 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Can I have an example of myself adding little but vandalism Ferg or are you just out to get me because I assosiate with "the Artist Formerly Known as Fenian Swine"? Tunney 00:21, 4 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 17:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Silly, somewhat self-indulgent. More importantly, not very useful. Fourohfour 13:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

"Pieing" is a fascinating new social phenomenon and a novel means of protest. "Piers" report that their pieing protests garner more media attention than sit-ins, picket lines, and other more traditional kinds of protest. This list is the only one of its kind on the Internet. As such, I think it's worthy of being in an online encyclopedia. Griot 16:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Griot reply

• I think so too, but please listify it and explain in the article on Pieing. R adiant _>|< 17:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• I support the listify (and delete category) suggestion given above. And note that I didn't AfD the 'Pieing' article, just the category. Fourohfour 18:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• If someone would delete this category for me, I'd appreciate it. I turned it into a list. I can't see to find help instructions in Wiki for deleting a category. Griot 18:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Griot reply
• Delete Of minor interest in itself, but not significant enough in relation to the victims to merit a category. Osomec 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Points taken. I'll "listify it." Give me a couple of days to look into how to do that, and I'll do it shortly afterwards. Griot 20:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Griot reply
• Delete DJ Clayworth 21:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Listify and delete, per Radiant, Fourohfour, Griot's second comment. BD2412 T 18:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Has been listified at List of people who have been pied. So delete with impunity. Bearcat 18:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete (yawn). -- Vizcarra 22:05, 6 December 2005 (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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 17:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Another one that didn't get amended to the agreed form )(see Ports of Ireland below), in this case because it wasn't in category:Ports and harbours until just now. Rename Carina22 12:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Amended to Category:Port and harbours of Hong Kong as there is only one port, but there are several harbours. This form is necessary to cover the content, and is almost consistent with the standard form while reflecting the local situation. Carina22 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Reamended to original proposal. It is clear there is no reason not to adopt category:Ports and harbours of Hong Kong. Carina22 13:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps it didn't take effect because its a nonsense. Its like having a category of Ports and Harbours in London. Hong Kong is not a country, its an SAR of China. There is only one port in Hong Kong. Its called Hong Kong and it contains a number of harbours. Leave Frelke 15:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • No, it wasn't involved before as I said. If you look at category:Hong Kong you will see that it is basically treated like a country. Please consider the amended proposal. Carina22 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It was not until a recent edit that the port of Hong Kong ( edit history) article was categorised to the category for natural harbours. — Insta ntnood 17:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Has enough content. Osomec 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename I think portS would be acceptable. If a separate company were to open a separate facilty that would make two ports, even if in the same city. But rename to Category:Port and harbours of Hong Kong if that is more likely to go through. CalJW 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: How to define one port and multiple ports? The port facilities in Hong Kong are not in one single place. There are several companies operating the facilities. — Insta ntnood 07:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Well in that case there is not the slightest reason for you to object to the original proposal. If you want your own Hong Kong Wiki with its own rules, please set one up yourself. Your rejection of the standardisation of the Hong Kong menu does nothing but harm Rename Category:Ports and harbours of Hong Kong. CalJW 10:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
      • What I don't agree with is mixing up ports and harbours. See my comment below. — Insta ntnood 15:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per Instantnood 's comment.-- Jondel 08:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename category:Ports and harbours of Hong Kong to match the others. It has been made clear that both exist in the plural. Should be a speedy. Bhoeble 10:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename category:Ports and harbours of Hong Kong The person who was against this screwed up letting on there's more than one port! Golfcam 23:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename category:Ports and harbours of Hong Kong Rhollenton 17:16, 3 December 2005 (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 -- Kbdank71 16:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't see a point to this category. -- Brunnock 12:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Delete The Chinese category is appropriate because numbered policies are a prominent feature of Chinese politics, but trying to link it up with the rest of the world is pointless. Carina22 12:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete I like quirky categories, but this one isn't entertaining. CalJW 23:48, 29 November 2005 (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 as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

It was agreed to rename the national ports and harbours categories to include both words. A bot edit to this effect is shown in the edit history of this one, but for some reason it didn't take effect. Rename Carina22 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Disagree. Ports and harbours are not the same thing. — Insta ntnood 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Who understands the difference precisely? It is not helpful. Anyway, it sounds like this decision has already been taken once. Rhollenton 19:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The decision should better be reversed. The differences between a port and a harbour is clearly spelt out in the relevant articles. A harbour, natural or artificial, is a geographical feature; a port, in or outside a harbour, is a transport facility. — Insta ntnood 07:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename No question. Osomec 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename We decided this issue before CalJW 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Here's the decision to rename category:ports as category:ports and harbours. Category:harbours was depopulated without any discussion. — Insta ntnood 07:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Should be a speedy. Bhoeble 10:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Disagree-- Jondel 10:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename I don't know what the difference is. Golfcam 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: What's so difficult to understand? Some harbours don't have any port facility at all, and many ports are not located in a harbour. A harbour may have one or more ports, or may not have any port. A port may or may not be in a harbour. — Insta ntnood 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to match the others. 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 15:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The histories and cultures of Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans are well documented—those are distinct and academically significant subcultures and topics. Not so of "Irish-Italian-Americans," a random category for which there is no justification. Delete as unnecessary overcategorization. Such categories are essentially original research, as they construct a topic not studied or widely focused on outside Wikipedia. However interesting a few people may consider that intersection of ethnicity, it is not one about which much can be said, nor should it be given equal importance to other ethnic subgroups that are widely recognized and studied. There is no such neighborhood as "Little Irish-Italy." Postdlf 02:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Too specific. If necessary, an individual can be in two cats. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep. YES!!!! FINALLY A NON-JEWISH CATEGORY GETS NOMINATED FOR DELETION!!! Anyway, I like this category in a sense because there are a lot of people who are both Irish and Italian in ancestry, but it is true that it blends together two unique cultures. Vulturell 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • How many of them speak Italian I wonder? Their culture is American. This category is irrelevant vanity. Carina22 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Too complicated. We should aim at clarifying these ethnic/national/cultural categories, not blurring them. - Willmcw 05:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete These people are American. We don't have category:Saxon-Norman English people. Carina22 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Damn, I was looking forward to starting Category:English-Scottish British people. Delete Hiding talk 16:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Which of course will have as a subcategory Category:English-Scottish-Irish-Italian British people. Or perhaps Category:Pro-choice LGBT English-Scottish-Irish-Italian British people? Postdlf 00:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Mushroom 19:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pointless. This system could be extended to any degree so it's best to cut it off now. Osomec 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing more to say. CalJW 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The mix is very common and distinct. It is an ethnic group of it's own. 68.75.61.31 01:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Aren't these people (or the ancestor of these people) Irish Italians (Italians in Ireland) who ended up to be Americans? Don't think any American who has an Italian and an Irish parent is an Irish Italian. — Insta ntnood 07:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Of course not! CalJW 10:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Then who they are? :-) — Insta ntnood 10:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep What harm is there in keeping this if someone feels this is significant?-- Jondel 08:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Overcategorisation. Bhoeble 10:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete another example of categories gone over the top. Djegan 10:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Over the top. Rhollenton 17:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Different that any other combination of Irish + something or Italian + something. These two cultures have usually sided because they're both Catholics, and being that the category was well populated, don't see the need to delete this particular one. -- Vizcarra 22:04, 6 December 2005 (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.