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 (no change). «» Who ?¿? ^meta 06:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

In each category there are (relatively) big and small towns. Perhaps Category:Cities and towns in Sicily should be created? AKeen 22:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• That is the standard policy for countries where no official distinction is made between cities and towns, but is that the case in Italy? There are separate categories for cities and towns for many parts of Italy, and unless the legal designations are different in Sicily from the other parts of the country, the same system should be used for the whole country. If there is an official distinction, but it is not being followed, the categories should just be cleaned up to comply with the official lists of cities. CalJW 04:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • In the absence of an answer to this question, there should be no change CalJW 10:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • We know perfectly well what an objection means. Thank you. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 06:08, 16 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 06:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Recreation of category previously deleted as unavoidably POV. -- Tabor 22:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete CalJW 07:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 18:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- TimPope 21:12, 12 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 06:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

My first thought was to rename this as venues do not perform. However this is actually a non-standard and redundant category, not just a misnamed one. No other country has a "performance venues" category and I have have moved all the entries into the subcategories Category:Music venues in Hong Kong and Category:Hong Kong theatres, or both of them, as appropriate. Delete CalJW 19:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 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 all. Naming conventions candidate. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Some of these don't follow the standard "in" form for categories for man-made objects:

• Category:American theatres --> category:Theatres in the United States
• Category:British theatres --> category:Theatres in the United Kingdom
• Category:London theatres --> category:Theatres in London
• Category:Hong Kong theatres --> category:Theatres in Hong Kong
• Category:Irish theatres --> category:Theatres in the Republic of Ireland

Rename all CalJW 18:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename all, and establish "Theatres in foo" as the convention for by-country subcats of Category:Theatres at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Note that although "theatres" is the British spelling, it is an acceptable variant in the US. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support. I'll also work to bring all of the topics under Category:Theatre in line with this. Ganymead 22:40, 10 October 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 Merge. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This name is non-standard and awkward. It is a subcategory of category:Asian cuisine, every other subcategory of which is in the form "X cuisine". If the cuisine categories had not evaded category:Categories by country through being divided by continent this would be eligible for speedy renaming. As it is, merge it into Category:Hong Kong cuisine anyway and then delete it. CalJW 18:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Category:Hong Kong cuisine is currently a soft redirect. See also the discussion at talk:cuisine of Hong Kong. — Insta ntnood 12:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Its main article has similarly been renamed as Cuisine of Hong Kong. Furthermore, "Hong Kong eating culture" does sound awkward.-- Huaiwei 20:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as proposed. Carina22 10:04, 13 October 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 Merge. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a non-standard category. It is in Category:Environment by country, the other 23 subcategories of which are all in the form "X environment" (and that is actually a subcategory of category:Ecology, there being no Category:Ecology by country). So merge into Category:Hong Kong environment (which exists but is not being used in the standard way). This is a rather awkward area to categorise, but the standard practice is to have environment in the main national menu with conservation and natural history as its subcategories, as well as other like environmentalists, if they exist, and things like protected areas and fauna in the third tier. I will shuffle the related categories around so that they are in line with standard practice. CalJW 18:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep and reverse merge or merge both to Category:Environment of Hong Kong. siafu 18:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Your vote is extremely confusing. If this is kept I trust that you will sort out the mess? Why should Hong Kong be different from every other country? CalJW 08:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • My objection is to using "Hong Kong X" instead of the more preferable "X of Hong Kong". siafu 22:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • The convention listed on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) is "X environment". A change might or might not be a good thing, but the main issue in the present nomination is to get rid of "Ecology" to standardise things with other countries. No one has objected to that, but I have a nasty feeling that this may end in a "no consensus" decree due to the complications caused by having two issues under discussion. If you would like to change the consensus format for environment categories, by all means open a separate discussion, but please support category:Hong Kong environment as an interim measure. CalJW 00:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nomination. Make another nomination at speedy to rename Fooian environment to environment of Foo. — Insta ntnood 08:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • It isn't eligible for speedy. "X environment" is standard. This is another illustration of the potential for error created by rule 4. CalJW 00:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as nominated. Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as per nominator. Carina22 10:04, 13 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to standard category:Croatian organizations per recent vote to abolish national institutions categories and general principle of avoiding unnecessary combinations in category names. CalJW 17:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:46, 10 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

A non-standard category from the overcategorised Hong Kong menu. The standard people by occupation, media, television and radio categories are sufficient. Delete CalJW 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nomination -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 23:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: There's a similar category - category:people from Canada in broadcasting. — Insta ntnood 12:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

A non-standard semi-duplicate of the standard category:Hong Kong media. I have moved there is no need for an extra tier between media and radio or television, and the allocation of the subcategories in these areas was a right muddle. In the course of sorting them out I have emptied this one. Delete CalJW 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: There's a similar category: category:Canadian broadcasting. — Insta ntnood 12:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 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. Naming conventions candidate. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

These should stay in the local form, as was confirmed by a vote on one of them a while back, but they should be in the standard "in" form for man made objects.

• category:Australian shopping centres --> category:Shopping centres in Australia
• category:Canadian shopping malls --> category:Shopping malls in Canada
• category:Hong Kong shopping malls --> category:Shopping malls in Hong Kong (or centres if that is local usage)
• category:Icelandic shopping malls --> category:Shopping malls in Iceland
• category:Indian shopping malls --> category:Shopping malls in India (or centres if that is local usage)
• Category:Irish shopping centres --> Category:Shopping centres in the Republic of Ireland (there are a lot of categories which should have been named "Republic of Ireland" as per agreed policy, but have not been. I will do a bulk nomination one day.)

Rename all CalJW 15:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename all, and confirm "X in foo" as the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all. Prefer shopping centres for the Hong Kong category. — Insta ntnood 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Some categories titled Ireland or Irish covers both Northern Ireland and the Republic. — Insta ntnood 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 19:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as proposed. Carina22 10:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Closing note Hong Kong will be centres. No objections stated against. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:41, 16 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Shopping malls don't have a nationality, people do. Rename Category:Shopping malls by country CalJW 15:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:58, 10 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

A follow up to the one below. Rename Category:Direct Subsidy Scheme schools. CalJW 14:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:59, 10 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Mysterious to nearly all of the 99.9% of the world population which doesn't live in Hong Kong. It is policy to avoid abbreviations. Rename category:English Schools Foundation schools. The Hong Kong menu is the most non-standard out of more than 80 I have looked at, so there are plenty more nominations of Hong Kong categories to come. CalJW 14:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename: These categories were created at the time when U.S. and UK were commonly used in category titles. But yes abbreviations have to be avoided. — Insta ntnood 12:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:00, 11 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This category is really much the same as category:Computer companies of the United Kingdom, but the latter has more articles. I can't see computer company categories for any other countries, so it might be best to merge this category into category:Computer companies of the United Kingdom. Piccadilly 10:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment: "Information Technology" is more than just the computers themselves, as it also includes software. Perhaps just an expanded abbreviation? siafu 00:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as proposed. That does not reflect my understanding or the overall system in use at present. category:Software companies is a subcategory of category:Computer companies. I think I.T. is becoming an old-fashioned term. This category is inconsistent with all the related categories. If you want to change the overall system, you can make a case for that through a separate nomination, but in the meantime, please don't block standardisation of the system that we have. CalJW 08:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as proposed. Carina22 10:04, 13 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This category seems to have been created to include municipalities in Hartberg (district) in Styria, Austria. Neither Hartberg (district) nor its capital, Hartberg, itself has a page yet, and the category includes only Friedberg, a town with a population of 2,772. Martg76 10:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Bhoeble 13:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Category:List of birds on stamps ? Category: Lists of birds on stamps by country singular to plural -- TimPope 21:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

  Comment Would this be better named as Category:Lists of birds appearing on stamps by country? I couldn't work out if it was by stamp or by bird until I looked and saw they were by country. Hiding talk 12:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply

  I agree -- TimPope 17:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply

  Doesn't this new name go beyond speedy? You may want to add it to normal CFD. ∞ Who ?¿? 19:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. Imitation is the highest form of philately. siafu 00:04, 11 October 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 Merge both. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:Cities in Austria and Category:Towns in Austria should be merged into Category:Cities and towns in Austria, because the distinction between the two categories is not clear. In fact, there are Gemeinden (communities), Marktgemeinden (market communities) and Städte (cities), but these are essentially honorific titles which largely depend on the historical significance of the respective community. The only meaningful distinction would be to distinguish between regular communities (including cities) and Statutarstädte, which are not part of an administrative district. However, the current categories are a total mess. The city category includes a number of tiny villages. Martg76 09:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to standard form category:Government of South Korea. CalJW 07:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename (could be speedy, per by-country conventions). -- Rick Block ( talk) 00:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:06, 11 October 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 Merge/d. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicates existing Category:Musical groups. Was (re)created on the grounds that not all musical groups are bands, but somehow missed the fact that "Musical groups" already has an overwhelming array of national and genre and time period subcategories to choose from. The vast majority of bands are already filed in one or more of those subcategories and are thus in no danger of being falsely conflated with the subset of musical groups that aren't bands. Propose either merging into Category:Musical groups with whatever kind of redirect is possible, or wildly rethinking the entire structure of musical groups and its subcategories. Bearcat 06:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge into musical groups and delete. CalJW 07:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but rethink the hierarchy somewhat. I think it's a bit confusing to have "Brass Quintets", "Orchestras", and "Percussion Ensembles", which are a type of musical group, in the top level of the category and somehow have bands buried further down in the hierarchy. I think that Category:Musical_groups_by_genre needs to be split up. At best, Category:Bands might be moved down into that subcategory, and appropriate subcategories included. Rock music groups are not the same as World music groups and Dance-punk musical groups, so it would help to have some distinguishing category in there. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The musical groups categories can be subdivided by genre without adding the unnecessary and confusing addition of a bands category. There is no realistic prospect of any precise usage for category:Bands you may wish to devise being widely understood or implemented. In the category system everyday words should either be used in accordance with their everyday meaning, or not be used at all. Anything else is a recipe for confusion and inconsistency. CalJW 19:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete Osomec 09:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Ëvilphoenix. — Insta ntnood 12:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. The term "band" is not particularly different from "musical group", it's just only in common use in popular music; no need for a seperate category. siafu 00:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Piccadilly 11:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Duplicate. Carina22 10:04, 13 October 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 Merge. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 06:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Merge into standard form category:Religion in Korea and then delete. CalJW 04:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge/delete -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. No argument. siafu 00:09, 11 October 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. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to standard form category:Government of North Korea. CalJW 04:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename (could be speedy, per by-country conventions). -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:12, 11 October 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 Keep. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 05:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a very vague category for people many of who would be better placed in Category:Clever people Category:People with innate talents if they were not likely to be deleted immediately. Malcolm X: is there a school that teaches how to be a black activism leader? Is Woody Allen self taught insecure? I contend that all authors of any merit are self-taught or they have at least unlearnt. Often autodidactism is only barely mentioned in a bio and it is not one of their most significant features. Please tell me I'm not just attacking the stay-at-homes. MeltBanana 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep It's harder to define than some categories, but the trait is significant nonetheless. CalJW 04:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. I'm concerned about verifiability, not to mention that some of the entries seem to be people who grew up in periods without "mainstream" educational institutions to go outside of. In all, I think this might be better as a list. siafu 00:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep There is a line-drawing problem, but some fuzziness is no reason to discard an otherwise useful classification. Xoloz 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as list or cat A Useful list. Although probably more helpful as an annotated list with reasons for inclusion or area of self-taught expertise. To delete it altogether would be a shame. Despite a lack of official credentials these people were accepted in their fields. Wikipedia is a good home for such a list. TimeTogether 17:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is fascinating meterial that might not otherwise be available if absorbed into some other vague category.-- Daniel Lotspeich 18:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep A little fuzziness doesn't matter as it isn't sensitive issue. Carina22 10:04, 13 October 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 Ren/Del as proposed. «» Who ?¿? ^meta 04:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Category:Years in rugby has three subcats (also nominated Category:2006 in rugby, Category:2005 in rugby and Category:2004 in rugby), none of them hold any articles. All they do is hold subcategories for two different sports rugby union and rugby league. Example subcats include Category:2004 in rugby league and Category:2004 in rugby union. The top level cat should be scrapped and replaced by cats relating to the two different sports i.e. Category:Years in rugby league and Category:Years in rugby union, the sub-sub cats such as Category:2004 in rugby league can then become sub-cats of the new categories. GordyB 14:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep Harmless. It's not exactly a lot of effort to add a couple of subcategories a year, so I'm sure someone will do it. If you want the other categories to exist as well, just go ahead and create them. They aren't incompatible with this existing scheme. CalJW 14:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I think you have rather misunderstood the point of the nomination. The problem is not the years. The problem is that it makes no sense to have have one category for two different sports. You mights as well have a Category:Years in Cricket and Baseball that is entirely empty. GordyB 21:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply

No, I didn't misunderstand. I disagreed on rational grounds and I still do. category:Rugby exists but Category:Cricket and baseball doesn't. CalJW 10:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. GordyB's right. Two completely different - albeit related - sports. combining the two of them is a little unnecessary and confusing, and will simply cause the uninitiated to dump things into the parent category rather than into one of the correct child categories. Grutness... wha? 22:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as per GordyB. Grinner 09:26, 10 October 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.